Naa … it's the 21st century that is being dismantled … and not nearly fast enough … we are trying to get back to the 20th century
you know those traits, personal responsibility, hard work, integrity, and honesty. Unlike those of today, where we whine and cry, that we are Americans and are owed everything …that hard work is for suckers, and we shouldn't have to worry about such mundane things, because we are owed all those things that the generations before us had to work for. In the 21st century we are responsible for nothing, we didn't get good grades it school .. . why it's someone else fault … we couldn't get into a good college because of those grades .. well thats just unfair … it's not my fault, flunked out of college, because the professors didn't like me .. . it wasn't my fault, commit a crime … why of course it societies fault not mine, get out of jail, and it's our jails fault that I can't survive cause they didn't teach me any skills. Now I want SS benefits … I didn't earn them but they are owed to me .. because … will I don't know .. but it wasn't my fault for how I turned out.
Not quite true, she spilled it on her lap, had 3rd degree burns, had to have skin grafted, and had over 10 grand in medical expenses. That case is a little more complex then people give it credit for. The quality of the lid, and the temp of the coffee played a big role in the case.
Recently watched a documentary detailing the case
I think what this is trying to do is stop this nonsense of million dollar payoffs for some one who spills hot coffee on their lap while driving, case in point McDonalds. Now one extreme to the next isn't healthy and this is where I can understand your concern.
LegalNewsline | Governors of Texas, South Carolina sign tort reform into law
BOOYAH! Proud day for the Citizens of the Lone Star State (And South Carolina too )
You take a sip of hot coffee and burn your tongue so you sue McDonalds.. The person that did that actually won and got damages, and now on the bottom of their cups is the message 'The beverage you are about to enjoy is hot.'..
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
$640,000 for being a dufus when it comes to drinking a hot cup of jo..
She still put the cup of HOT coffee between her legs. This is not a smart thing to do regardless if you are in a car,at home or in the office.Some facts about the case...
1 - She wasn't driving.
2 - The temp of the coffee was proven to be FAR too hot and would absolutely cause serious burns.
3 - McDonald's had a history of people being terribly burned by their coffee. They knew it was dangerous.
4 - The lid was part of the problem.
LegalNewsline | Governors of Texas, South Carolina sign tort reform into law
BOOYAH! Proud day for the Citizens of the Lone Star State (And South Carolina too )
That case is not so much a case of people shouldn't be allowed to sue; it has more to do with the stupidity of juries these days. Which is another big problem we actually have with the system
Get your facts straight people:
Hot Coffee Official Trailer - YouTube
| HOT COFFEE, a documentary feature film
| HOT COFFEE, a documentary feature film
That further highlights the problem with this law. We live in a country where a jury let OJ walk free. Would you gamble even if you thought you had a good case?
That's the real problem I see with laws like this one. If we don't define "frivilous" well enough (and judges can already toss cases out of court as stands), now there is more incentive not to sue. That's not particularly a good thing, our court system was meant to be open and people meant to have access to it. Now a company can just say "well we're going to hire a very expensive team, so I hope you have the money to cover their bill" to intimidate people out of suing. If these laws are not made well, they will act more AGAINST the People than for.
this is why I support the following stipulations.
1. The loser only pays for one lawyer's services.
2.The loser only pays the going rate for the average lawyer, not what ever Johnny Cochran and Robert Shapiro makes.
That's the real problem I see with laws like this one. If we don't define "frivilous" well enough (and judges can already toss cases out of court as stands), now there is more incentive not to sue. That's not particularly a good thing, our court system was meant to be open and people meant to have access to it. Now a company can just say "well we're going to hire a very expensive team, so I hope you have the money to cover their bill" to intimidate people out of suing. If these laws are not made well, they will act more AGAINST the People than for.
Everything has tradeoffs. I prefer the tradeoff of having a more open legal system where it is easier to sue, but the system gets abused a bit, than having a system where people won't sue when they should, and perfectly reasonable lawsuits can cost those filing them a years income or more.
The facts are straight
1.Only retard puts a cup of hot liquids between their legs and then proceeds to take the lid off.
2.The coffee was served at optimum temperature.
3.No one should be awarded money because they were injured due to their own stupidity or carelessness. It would be like awarding a fat person money because they out of their own free will chose to eat nothing but fast food and not exercise.
No, your facts are not straight at all. You're just parroting some information that was given to you, and honestly regarding this case I did the same thing.The facts are straight
1.Only retard puts a cup of hot liquids between their legs and then proceeds to take the lid off.
2.The coffee was served at optimum temperature.
3.No one should be awarded money because they were injured due to their own stupidity or carelessness. It would be like awarding a fat person money because they out of their own free will chose to eat nothing but fast food and not exercise.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
Wrong....you are completely misinformed like so many other people.
The coffee was served at a temperature that was WAY too hot. Coffee should not be served at a temperature that causes the level of burning that occurred in that case.
Second, McDonalds had been warned numerous times before this incident and chose to do nothing.
Third, the lawsuit involved in that case did not occur until after McDonalds refused to cover the medical damages. The family involved was not looking for punitive damages until McDonalds took an irresponsible route.
I agree with you on one point. Contributory negligence should factor in. However, when you have a situation where a corporation is aware of the dangers and aware of problems and choose to ignore them, then it isn't because of the injury parties carelessness that the injury occurs.
Here is a picture of what the McDonalds coffee did in that case. Be warned...its graphic: Google Images
No, your facts are not straight at all. You're just parroting some information that was given to you, and honestly regarding this case I did the same thing.
Do some actual research on the case. You'll see you're absolutely incorrect.
Better yet, let me do it for you since I don't believe you'll actually do it.
The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case
Views like that are a cartoon stereotype wrapped in a Halloween costume of what self serving right wingers want to think progressive politics are.
The progressive reforms of the 20th century in America are indeed under attack and being repealed piece by piece and state by state. We will soon be wallowing in a new Gilded Age where corporations run the nation like slave masters on the old plantation and corporations control state houses and Congress like the old trusts did in the late 1800's.
And we will have people like Paul Weyrich, the Koch Brothers, Grove Norquist and their sycophants and toadies in the conservative and libertarian movements to thank for it.
I can't tell you how many times I have aruged this case over the years, even here at DP. Seems people make opinions without knowing all of the hard facts and think they are making a sound judgement. I know, because I was once in the camp of thinking this woman deserved what she got. I am grateful someone corrected my stance with sound logic.
I have not seen this doc yet, but it's on my list.
Edit to add: Here's a post I made on the topic in 08.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...ikely-sued-climate-change.html#post1057843931
So 700 claims in 10 years. That's 70 a year. Do you know how many coups of coffee McDonald's sells in a year? Take 70 and divide by that number, tell me what you got. I know the answer, it's near zero. Meaning the probability of burning yourself on a cup of McDonald's coffee was incredibly low. It was probably never going to be zero exactly, you rarely get those cases. But statistically it was zero.
There are reports that Healthcare Indemnity, a large insurer for hospitals, has reduced premiums by 20%. Texas Medical Liability Trust, a large insurer, initially reduced rates by 12%, and then decreased them by another 5%.
...notice the insurance premiums reduced are insurance for the hospitals and malpractice insurance. Great for the doctors, hospitals and insurers.The effect of this cap on noneconomic damages has been dramatic. Since 2003, every malpractice insurance carrier in Texas has reduced their premiums for physicians. Texas Medical Liability Trust, the largest carrier in Texas has reduced its average premium by over 50%. Claims and lawsuits in most Texas counties have been cut in half.
And it's progress views like yours that we have had for the last 20 to 30 years that has us 15 trillion dollars in debt .. . has us spending 1.5 trillion dollars a year more then what we take in, have unfunded liabilities in SS and Medicare in the 10's of trillions of dollars. That has this once great nation of our on the very brink of total collapse. So pardon me if I don't think that your brand of progressive politics is working so well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?