I'm not in favor of criminalizing cigarettes at all.
Though, I am in favor of them being liable for diseases linked to cigarette use during the time when it can be proven their executives knew cigarettes caused cancer and were addictive and until they admit it, or I guess until they were forced to admit it by government.
The last I heard, the only demographic where cigarette use was increasing was in teenage girls, but ya, that anyone starts is crazy.
Originally posted by Robtard
While I hate the tobacco corporations, let's be honest here, if they willingly put in big red letters: "Cigarettes cause cancer and we add chemicals not normally found in tobacco that will cause 'you' to become addicted", people would still continue to smoke and younf teens would still be willing to try it/pick up the habit.Granted, it would be the right thing to do.
Originally posted by dadudemon
. . . The coffee is still consumable, even at higher temperature than Mrs. burned flaps got burned wiith.
No, it is not.
Originally posted by dadudemon
. . . Also, the liquid quickly cools within 10 minutes.
Then it should be served in 10 minutes, when it is safe for consumption.
Originally posted by dadudemon
. . . Let's not get ridiculous.
There is no us being ridiculous, only you.
While a reasonable person certainly expects a hot beverage or food item to be served hot, he does not expect it to be served so hot as to be unsafe for consumption.
By your reasoning, if a manufacturer produces a hot sauce with unsafe levels of capsaicin, and a consumer receives third degree burns to his lips, tongue, mouth, and esophagus, it is the fault of the consumer, because while he reasonably expected the hot sauce to be hot, he should have expected it to be unsafe to consume.
****ing moron.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
While a reasonable person certainly expects a hot beverage or food item to be served hot, he does not expect it to be served so hot as to be unsafe for consumption.
Earlier in the thread there was some noise that McDonald's claims otherwise. Apparently people want to pick up the coffee and leave, only drinking it considerably later.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then it should be served in 10 minutes, when it is safe for consumption.
No, it should be served as hot as possible in a safe container with a warning label and possibly a rec. to wait 10 minutes before major consumption.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is no us being ridiculous, only you.
What's rediculous is the ideas about blaming everyone but yourself for your own mistakes, faults, or actions.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
While a reasonable person
This is the first mistake. This statement is already going to be incorrect because you prefaced it with "reasonable" not because it's you, but because it will run contradictory with what I've already stated, which was actually reasonable.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
certainly expects a hot beverage or food item to be served hot, he does not expect it to be served so hot as to be unsafe for consumption.
Oh really? Then why are some dishes served...I dunno...ON FIRE? 😆
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By your reasoning, if a manufacturer produces a hot sauce with unsafe levels of capsaicin, and a consumer receives third degree burns to his lips, tongue, mouth, and esophagus, it is the fault of the consumer, because while he reasonably expected the hot sauce to be hot, he should have expected it to be unsafe to consume.
If the damn label says, "Caution Too Hot to Chug", yeah, he should be at 100% at fault for bathing in it, especially since the hot sauce is not going to "cool off" to a "chugable" level in 10 minutes.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
****ing moron.
You do realize that statements like these are banable offenses. There are adult ways to have an adult discussion.
While I'm not thinking those same words (because none of the people I'm discussing this with are morons, or come remotely close to being "****ing moron[s]", I do think that perspectives like yours (angles that try to remove as much blame off the person as possible because you believe when someone self-injures through carelessness or neglect, it's everyone else’s fault except for their own) are part of the tort problems in America. As fact, the majority of these types of cases are thrown out before they even go to "trial." Yes, cases just like these. That gives me hope, but, the fact that these cases make it, sometimes, is the reason for reform.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
"Buyer Beware" should be placed on products to curb lawsuits, don't you think?At least that way people would have to educate themselves. The ignorant will just have to get over it.
Debs...what's sad is the container DID say "Caution Hot." 🙁
I would be ALL over McDonald's and expect them to pay out millions had the container not had that on there...even though it's still reasonable for anyone to know that "coffee usually hot."
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Earlier in the thread there was some noise that McDonald's claims otherwise. Apparently people want to pick up the coffee and leave, only drinking it considerably later.
Thats what I and all of the other people I know do, we wait a minute or so for the hot drink to cool down a bit. We dont drink it right away because we cold burn ourselves and we dont know how hot this is.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Earlier in the thread there was some noise that McDonald's claims otherwise. Apparently people want to pick up the coffee and leave, only drinking it considerably later.
It was questioned whether that was true. However, I don't exactly understand how people think the cooling down should be done, should the coffee be kept at, I don't know, 70° or something or should it be made fresh every time and then McDonald's keeps it for 10 minutes until giving it to the customer?
Originally posted by Bardock42
It was questioned whether that was true. However, I don't exactly understand how people think the cooling down should be done, should the coffee be kept at, I don't know, 70° or something or should it be made fresh every time and then McDonald's keeps it for 10 minutes until giving it to the customer?
actually, it was argued that even a 30 degree drop in temperature would have made the coffee both hot and safe.
You could prepare it at 150-160F
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it should be served as hot as possible in a safe container with a warning label and possibly a rec. to wait 10 minutes before major consumption.
Describing the contents of the cup as hot is not a sufficient warning, because there is not a meeting of the minds between the consumer and the producer with regard to meaning of the term hot. In this instance, the consumer views hot to mean capable of scalding, whereas the producer views hot to mean capable of causing third-degree burns. Had the warning read, “Caution: The contents of this cup are capable of causing third-degree burns,” then you might have an argument.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What's rediculous is the ideas about blaming everyone but yourself for your own mistakes, faults, or actions.
What is ridiculous is the defense of the flagrant negligence of a company to serve a product that is safe for consumption or to provide an adequate warning that it is not.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is the first mistake. This statement is already going to be incorrect because you prefaced it with "reasonable" not because it's you, but because it will run contradictory with what I've already stated, which was actually reasonable.
Your premise is not reasonable, as indicated above.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh really? Then why are some dishes served...I dunno...ON FIRE? 😆
Dishes may be set a flame in preparation or in presentation, but are never served until the flames are extinguished.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If the damn label says, "Caution Too Hot to Chug", yeah, he should be at 100% at fault for bathing in it, especially since the hot sauce is not going to "cool off" to a "chugable" level in 10 minutes.
There is a safe amount of capsaicin that one can consume. Simply describing the contents of the bottle as “hot,” does not indicate to the consumer at what point it becomes unsafe.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You do realize that statements like these are banable offenses. There are adult ways to have an adult discussion.While I'm not thinking those same words (because none of the people I'm discussing this with are morons, or come remotely close to being "****ing moron[s]", I do think that perspectives like yours (angles that try to remove as much blame off the person as possible because you believe when someone self-injures through carelessness or neglect, it's everyone else’s fault except for their own) are part of the tort problems in America. As fact, the majority of these types of cases are thrown out before they even go to "trial." Yes, cases just like these. That gives me hope, but, the fact that these cases make it, sometimes, is the reason for reform.
Would you like me to call Whine-1-1? Do you need a waaambulance? The inanity of your arguments lowers the level of discussion in every thread in which you participate. It is tiresome, and one of the reasons I rarely post here anymore. Evident that the case in question has merit is that it was allowed to go to trial; and evident that Defendant is negligent, and therefore, liable is the findings of the jury, the post-verdict investigators, and the trial court judge; regardless of your view of the matter.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Describing the contents of the cup as hot is not a sufficient warning, because there is not a meeting of the minds between the consumer and the producer with regard to meaning of the term hot. In this instance, the consumer views hot to mean capable of scalding, whereas the producer views hot to mean capable of causing third-degree burns. Had the warning read, “Caution: The contents of this cup are capable of causing third-degree burns,” then you might have an argument..
No, it is. Anyone who thinks otherwise is definitely a moron.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What is ridiculous is the defense of the flagrant negligence of a company to serve a product that is safe for consumption or to provide an adequate warning that it is not.
You're obviously talking about something else, now, because that definitely does not apply the McDonalds, in this case. (You can read back on the thread for reasons why that is.)
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Your premise is not reasonable, as indicated above.
No, it is. Your counter is unreasonable and literally does not apply to McDonald's. Therefore, any conclusions your draw from your counter will be illogical and, therefore, incorrect.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Dishes may be set a flame in preparation or in presentation, but are never served until the flames are extinguished.
You should get out more: I've been served, down here in Okie land, flaming dishes, dishes still boiling, etc. 😐
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is a safe amount of capsaicin that one can consume. Simply describing the contents of the bottle as “hot,” does not indicate to the consumer at what point it becomes unsafe.
A non-sequitor comparison, at the very least. Temperature state is not the same thing as chemical state.
But, lets indulge this silly point of yours: if someone burns their butthole or mouth from eating some really really spicy food, that individual can sue the company that sold it to them, despite the very nature of the food being "spicy" to begin with, despite the individual rubbing it all over their anus and lips and letting it sit there for at least 90 seconds, mind you. 😬 They would actually have more reason to sue if the spicy food didn't have a "caution, spicy" label on it. 🙂
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Would you like me to call Whine-1-1? Do you need a waaambulance?
Oh, so you are NOT capable of an adult conversation? Maybe you should consider spewing your illogical arguments and conclusions on a board full of children: you might actually be able to make headway against them and convince them, too. It's a win-win, for you.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The inanity of your arguments lowers the level of discussion in every thread in which you participate.
Simply not true at all. You know it's not true, as well.
However, the derisive and childish arguments/statements you make in every thread is certainly a waste of time, especially considering most of the arguments your present have already been covered or are simply illogical.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is tiresome,
I wish I could say the same of you but you're not around enough to waste my time.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
and one of the reasons I rarely post here anymore.
Thank the Lord: go troll somewhere else and someone might actually buy into your pseudo-knowledge of tort law.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Evident that the case in question has merit is that it was allowed to go to trial;
Despite the fact that tort experts said that the majority of cases very similar to this one are thrown out of court? Oh, right, that wouldn't fit your agenda to award every last person that barely has a case for anything other than them being idiots. ✅
Evidence that this case went to trial is proof of a devious lawyer and stupid bleeding-heart judge.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
and evident that Defendant is negligent, and therefore, liable is the findings of the jury, the post-verdict investigators, and the trial court judge; regardless of your view of the matter.
Not only is that incorrect, you obviously don't have an understanding of tort, nor how a case is to be even approved before the civil trial proceeds. Technically, if she was that debilitated, her grandson was at majority fault and the case should have been brought up against him with a possible consideration of McDonalds have a small portion of fault.
Guess what, I just ate some Macaroni noodles: they were boiling when I finished making them. Out of curiosity, I took the temperature of them. Guess what the temp was?
184F.
Guess when I started to eat them?
Immediately.
😐
Guess what I didn't do?
Put them in a container that said: "Caution: Hot", put a lid on them, and set them in my lap, while sitting in a parking lot, and tried to pull the lid off towards my balls, and then I spilled the contents all over the thighs and crotch, and then sat in it for 90 seconds.
Guess what?
My daughter had the same thing. She's 2. Guess what she didn't do?
Guess what I would have done if she spilled her food all over her self, as I sat right next to her? Guess why she knew to be careful? Guess why, if she spilled it, she would end up with first degree burns at the worst?
Guess why I'm making the point about a 2-year-old being presented with a, potentially, very dangerous accident (that assumes that I'm neglectful for 90 seconds)? I'll give you a hint: it has something to do with tort.
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, it was argued that even a 30 degree drop in temperature would have made the coffee both hot and safe.You could prepare it at 150-160F
I actually don't have a problem with that. 150-160F is good. But what about one for the road?
I'm glad I don't drink coffee, though. Too much of a hassle to get a pick-me-up in the morning.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it is. Anyone who thinks otherwise is definitely a moron.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You should get out more: I've been served, down here in Okie land, flaming dishes, dishes still boiling, etc. 😐
Originally posted by dadudemon
Despite the fact that tort experts said that the majority of cases very similar to this one are thrown out of court? Oh, right, that wouldn't fit your agenda to award every last person that barely has a case for anything other than them being idiots. ✅
Originally posted by dadudemon
Evidence that this case went to trial is proof of a devious lawyer and stupid bleeding-heart judge.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Not only is that incorrect, you obviously don't have an understanding of tort, nor how a case is to be even approved before the civil trial proceeds. Technically, if she was that debilitated, her grandson was at majority fault and the case should have been brought up against him with a possible consideration of McDonalds have a small portion of fault.
Originally posted by King Kandy
That's funny because you have seemed to think both me and inimalist intelligent in other discussions, but we presented that argument so I guess I know how you really feel now. His point was completely legit; "hot" is in no way synonymous with "unfit for human consumption".
I guess the humor was lost on you...
😬
I was mocking his childish posting ways because he can't seem to leave those things out of an adult discussion...you know.....the one you, inimalist, and I were having. Just read a bit of is posts in here, to me, and you'll "see what you did there."
Edit - DUDE! Just read up a couple of posts to see what I was talking about. 😆
You took that waaaay too personally. Ask first, via PM: I'm not that much of an a**hole to call you a moron ...or inimalist.
Originally posted by King Kandy
And you ate the flaming pieces, while they were on fire? I really doubt that.
Nah, they covered it with this lid, and then removed it, after setting it down in front of me.
Originally posted by King Kandy
And yet this one did, perhaps this had something those other cases didn't? I think it's funny you've been complaining about him using insults when you have been constantly calling everyone who has disagreed with you stupid.
It did not. Just the luck of the draw on the judge. I'll disregard thre rest there because I already addressed it.
Originally posted by King Kandy
And where did you get your law degree from? I don't think you usually become a judge by being stupid. Additionally, it was a jury that found McDonalds guilty, not the judge.
Don't you think it would be foolish to assume a judge would leave all bias aside and judge every case fairly? As a matter of fact, I know you think that.
Also, you're taking "stupid" out of context. That's not the way I meant it.
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, if she was that debilitated, people much more informed on the issue than you already decided you were wrong on the issue: those involved in the case itself.
If me being wrong were even remotely true then it wouldn't be such a huge shining example of why we need tort reform. 😄
Also, she was debilitated enough to sit there, in extreme pain, for at least 90 seconds. As I already explained, earlier in this thread, she would have been in extreme pain the entire time. Serously, what the hell was her grandson doing while she was cooking? That's SICK to think about...
Don't worry, I've already come to grips with reality: some people think other people deserve monetary rewards for things that are completely their fault.
I'd like to move on. I think I've made all my points about this case. I feel that I've soundly made a case for why that lawsuit was out of hand. Obviously, we will never convince each other.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah, they covered it with this lid, and then removed it, after setting it down in front of me.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It did not. Just the luck of the draw on the judge. I'll disregard thre rest there because I already addressed it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't you think it would be foolish to assume a judge would leave all bias aside and judge every case fairly? As a matter of fact, I know you think that.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If me being wrong were even remotely true then it wouldn't be such a huge shining example of why we need tort reform. 😄
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, she was debilitated enough to sit there, in extreme pain, for at least 90 seconds. As I already explained, earlier in this thread, she would have been in extreme pain the entire time. Serously, what the hell was her grandson doing while she was cooking? That's SICK to think about...
Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't worry, I've already come to grips with reality: some people think other people deserve monetary rewards for things that are completely their fault.
Originally posted by King Kandy
So by the time the food was actually served for consumption, it was no longer in it's unconsumable state. This is very different from the McDonald's example.
Wait...
So something that was literally on fire seconds before I started consuming it, is safer than hot coffee?
I'll make this even easier: one has a warning label on it, the other does not.
Originally posted by King Kandy
First of all it was a jury that found McDonalds at fault. Additionally, I and most other reasonable people on the forum did think so, you seem to be among the only people who is arguing your side, so I don't see how you can imagine this is a closed and simple issue.
First of all, the judge agrees to hear the case.
Second of all, not all civil suits are handled by a jury...lots go before just a judge. 🙂
Thirdly, the judge orders the amount paid and signs off on a ton of legal shit. The Judge can also overturn the amount to be paid, which is exactly what he did in this case. (Still waaaaay over paid, IMO.)
Fourthly, the Judge could still overturn the Jury's "verdict" with a summary judgment...which he should have after he realized how foolish the case was. (You'd think that he would have realized how silly the case was during pre-trial, right?)
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, what I think is foolish is that you seem to think that you know more about what cases are legally viable than someone who actually decides these things for a living and is thoroughly educated on the subject.
What are you saying "no", too? If you're saying no to my statement, that's odd as no one is that naive.
To your actual staement: can't I say the same exact thing about you? Of all the cases that are thrown out that have even more viability, this one got through. So you're saying that all of those other judges are dumb and you know more than them, right? Wrong. That's not what you're saying, at all. That's not what I was saying, either.
Originally posted by King Kandy
What kind of argument is that, "I can't be wrong because then my point would be wrong"?
That doesn't even apply to what I said. You really didn't even address that point, actually.
Originally posted by King Kandy
The grandson had absolutely no liability in this case because there is no law whatsoever giving him a duty to rescue in this situation... I suggest you read that link before you keep insisting the grandson should have been the one who was sued.
😆 😆 😆
So you think I didn't think that line of reasoning through? That made me laugh for quite a bit.
If it could be proven that she was physically and mentally not competent enough to take care of herself in a dangerous situation, much more could have been brought up against just the grandson. If it could be proven that she should required assistance, not only is the grandson at fault, but so is the primary caretaker that turned Liebeck over to the grandson, temporarily.
Since she sat in it for 90 seconds, we can only assume that she was definitely not up to the task of reacting to a spill with hot liquids involved. Also, it could easily be argued that the grandson contributed to the dangerous situation by purchasing the goods or at least giving her the goods, when it was dangerous for her shaky old hands. By the way, that falls under "duty to rescue" - contributing to or creating a situation/circumstance that results in the injury of another and failing to assist falls right under "duty to rescue." I bet that's not in your wiki article.
Originally posted by King Kandy
You don't think making such a simplistic distortion of the points me and others in this thread is a tiny bit insulting? Obviously the disagreement here is that we don't think it WAS completely her fault, so this is pretty much just trolling.
Woah woah woah...
You can't just throw the word "trolling" around when you've ignored points made in this thread and refuse to acknowledge that Liebeck was mostly at fault. I've already acknowledged that McDonald's was at fault...if only for a refund on the beverage.
Let's leave the "trolling" accusations where they belong: calling people "****ing morons" would be a good example.
Me thinking that you guys are waaaay overlooking Liebeck's responsibility in this case is NOT trolling: it's my damn opinion on this and we each have our own opinion.
Look, obviously, you're getting pissed about this conversation. Maybe we should continue this later or not at all?