Stella Awards

[Tangwhich]

How about because McDonald's knew it was the intention of their customers to drink the coffee immediately in their cars, but sold them a product that was not safe for that purpose?

And have you read McMahon? It's a tad distinguishable.

I did read that. I also read that they have returned the temperatures back to higher temperatures because it's best for the coffee and it's what customers want. I dare say they sell more coffee through drive thru today than they did back then. The woman didn't burn herself drinking it however, she spilled it removing the lid (the protective cover if you will).. As I said earlier, it's unfortunate but it's not the fault of McDonald's. Data produced since that lawsuit has shown the the lower temperature the lady and her lawyers were asking for still produce burns.

As for McMahon, I don't know what that is.

 

[rld]

As for McMahon, I don't know what that is.

It is the case you quoted in post 40?

Right?

I guess that means you havn't read it before deciding to rely on it.

 

[Tangwhich]

It is the case you quoted in post 40?

Right?

I guess that means you havn't read it before deciding to rely on it.

Oh, no you're right, I didn't read the whole case. I was referring to the quote from the judgement listed on wiki to backup the coffee association regarding the temperature of brewing coffee.

 

[rld]

Oh, no you're right, I didn't read the whole case. I was referring to the quote from the judgement listed on wiki to backup the coffee association regarding the temperature of brewing coffee.

Read the case, it is a whole different kettle of fish.

Firstly the evidence put forward by both sides, was garbage (at least the judge seems to think so).

Secondly, and most importantly, the law suit was against the company that made the coffee maker, not the company that served and sold the coffee. Totally different test. This is more like the car analogy. There is nothing wrong with making a coffee maker that will make coffee very hot, just like you can make a car that goes fast, but it is the guy who drives it fast who is liable...

As far as I can tell they didn't even sue the place that sold them the coffee...very odd pleadings indeed.

Even then I don't think McMahon would have survived a vigorous appeal.

 

[Aardvark154]

There sure was

"Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her body and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds. Two years of medical treatment followed

McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.

New Mexico being a comparative negligence (non-absolute contributory negligence) state, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault.

RLD certainly beat me to it but when you actually look at Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants it isn't quite what popular myth would have it.

 

[Aardvark154]

I read the whole article rld. I find nothing compelling to sway me. 700 claims in 10 years is nothing.

Legally, however, it is termed "being on notice" McDonalds was well aware that other people had been badly burned although not as severely as Mrs. Liebeck, they couldn't successfully argue but we didn't know.

 

[SoftHands813]

FYI, the true Stella Awards website can be found at http://www.stellaawards.com/. It's brought to you by the same guy who authors "This Is True" http://www.thisistrue.com and an excellent weekly e-newsletter (not to mention the Get Out Of Hell Free cards...).

 

[St Nick]

I get annoyed when I get a coffee with breakfast that is too hot to drink while eating. It's happened numerous times.. I just ate you stupid egg mcmuffin now I'm thirsty, not in 15 minutes. But sueing for that is a little ridiculous, it causes us to have to put big warnings on everything.

Like flammable and explosion labels on bottles have to be a certain percentage in size. People have to be told not to light their Axe on fire!? Seriously I take pride in Canada not being as dumb as the Americans (no offense USA), I hate that we follow them on these issues. If you look at Axe cans in Europe you will notice that they don't need big explosive and flammable logos on their products for people to know that it's stupid to use Axe as a torch.

 

[St Nick]

 

[rld]

I was actually involved in one of the cases that got those things put in TO.

 

[rld]

100%

Actually 20% and she is counting her money.

 

[Tangwhich]

700 is "nothing" except if YOU are ONE of them. I assure you that if it was your scrotum that was burned to the balls, that you'd sing a different tune... and at a higher pitch!

You're missing the point Rub. I am sympathetic to the lady. However people need to be responsible for their own actions. I can walk through my home and probably find dozens of products that if I use them incorrectly would harm or perhaps kills me. The cup did not fail. The lid did not fail. The lady removed the lid in a method that showed poor judgement. It's extremely unfortunate, but the lady was not a 3 year old learning about hot things. A woman of her age should know that coffee is hot. Evidence since the event has shown that even if the temperatures were lower (as she and her lawyers claimed was the real reason for the suit) she still would have been burned badly.

Anyways, I don't really see any point continuing this discussion. We've made our arguments. I've not been swayed by anything that's been presented and the person I'm mainly arguing with appears to be a lawyer that profits from being involved in such lawsuits so it's unlikely I would be able to change his/her mind. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Aardvark154]

You're missing the point Rub. I am sympathetic to the lady. However people need to be responsible for their own actions. . . .

That is why the jury held that McDonalds was 80 percent responsible and she was 20 percent responsible.

the person I'm mainly arguing with appears to be a lawyer that profits from being involved in such lawsuits.

Yes to the first, no to the second.

 

[picketfence]

This seams to be a debate between common sense and legalese. It should be common sense that coffee can burn and we should be careful around it,but legalese likes to place blame. I personally like common sense,why?because it works. The legal system does not work. I would not consider it sane,truthful ,rational or workable in any way. It is workable that we educate ourselves and our children so they don't die when we cross the street-covering the streets so children don't get hurt is not workable.Brewing coffee at 50 degrees is also unworkable-no one would drink it.It was unwise to try to hold your coffee between your knees in your car-a paper cup is soft and coffee is hot,i bet she knew this but just messed up.
I don't want to live in a world where I have to remove the rocks from my property up north or cut down my 1000's of cedar trees because they have pointy branches,so someone does not get hurt.Maybe I should because the legal system says so,but that’s a fault with the legal system,not with reasonable sanity and common sense. Again you could say its not reasonable that someone should be burnt from coffee,but you have to look at the larger unworkable outcome of that stance. It would only lead us down a dark road of being dumbed down.Where will we evolve to or de-evolve to if we don't take responsibility for our own stupid mistakes. It would be a messed up world to live in if we have to constantly worry and think about being sued if someone gets hurts,there's a million ways someone can get hurt ANYWHERE,ANYTIME. But,if we don't have some reasonable common sense and responsibility in the legal system,I’m afraid we are headed down that road

 

[Aardvark154]

This seams to be a debate between common sense and legalese.

Yes, everyone hates the legal system until they need it. Somewhat like all physicians are quacks except for my physician.

 

[picketfence]

Yes, everyone hates the legal system until they need it. Somewhat like all physicians are quacks except for my physician.

but does the legal system work???Is it sane ,rational and fair????

 

[Aardvark154]

but does the legal system work???Is it sane ,rational and fair????

Most people find comparative negligence (non-absolute contributory negligence) to be a reasonable system of allocating responsibility for harm.

 

[picketfence]

Who are these "most"?Those who profit from the system?I would wager a guess that "most" thing the system is broken,corrupt and does more damage to society than good,especially if your have to survive going trough the system.Was't there some report that came out recently that greatly condemned the system as being abusive and dysfunctional where 93% of the cases where plea bargained with no real regard or care for guilt,innocence or basic truth.Is this a reasonable working legal system?

 

[Aardvark154]

Seemingly your vote for the Rhinoceros Party Candidate in the coming federal election can resolve this.

 

[rld]

Who are these "most"?Those who profit from the system?I would wager a guess that "most" thing the system is broken,corrupt and does more damage to society than good,especially if your have to survive going trough the system.Was't there some report that came out recently that greatly condemned the system as being abusive and dysfunctional where 93% of the cases where plea bargained with no real regard or care for guilt,innocence or basic truth.Is this a reasonable working legal system?

That is the criminal legal system, we are talking about the civil one here. Confusing the two just shows you don't know the first thing about our legal system.

I don't know if 93% of cases are plea bargained but when they are plea bargained the probability of proving guilt is KEY to the resolution. Anyone who tells you otherwise is uninformed.

The studies done in Canada I have enjoyed are the pones about people like you PF, and they show that most people don't understand how the legal system works. Not even close.