• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this a "frivious" lawsuit injury?

Is this injury and the lawsuit that ensured as a result, frivious?

  • Total voters
    29
disneydude

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Take a look at this photo (Be warned, it is extremely graphic):

Google Images


This is the injury related to the infamous McDonalds Hot Coffee case.
After viewing the injury do you believe that the injury that occurred and the lawsuit that ensued were frivious?
 
YEs it is a frivolous lawsuit injury. The degree of injury she suffered is totally irrelevant.
 
disneydude said:
Take a look at this photo (Be warned, it is extremely graphic):

Google Images


This is the injury related to the infamous McDonalds Hot Coffee case.
After viewing the injury do you believe that the injury that occurred and the lawsuit that ensued were frivious?
Click to expand...

I think she had grounds to bring a case to court. I think given what was involved there and her actions in the entirety of the situation, that McDonalds wasn't really at fault.
 
jamesrage said:
YEs it is a frivolous lawsuit injury. The degree of injury she suffered is totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The degree of injury is relevant only to the amount of the compensation. The grounds for the suit was based on negligence, which was proven in a court of law
 
Ikari said:
I think she had grounds to bring a case to court. I think given what was involved there and her actions in the entirety of the situation, that McDonalds wasn't really at fault.
Click to expand...

If she had grounds to sue, then it wasn't frivolous, by definition. (Note: I'm not saying that you said it was (or was not) frivolous. I'm just making a point)

BTW, what do you think her actions were that made McDonalds not at fault?
 
Ikari said:
I think she had grounds to bring a case to court. I think given what was involved there and her actions in the entirety of the situation, that McDonalds wasn't really at fault.
Click to expand...

Are you aware of all of the details of the case?
 
If not, it certainly opened the door. When I worked at the theater we had a lady who pinched her finger in one of those baby changing stations as she was closing it (she set her purse on it while using the restroom, even though there was a hook on the door). It wasn't a spring-load thing and only closes with the force you apply to it. She demanded that we pay the medical bills for what she claimed was a fracture in her index finger. We refused, she tried to sue for $1 million for "pain and suffering".

Case was (thankfully) dismissed, but it's really disturbing that people think their own actions should be covered by everybody else. It's come to the point where we almost need waivers before you even step on property at a place of busines these days, because some people will try to sue you for anything.
 
The Republicans are stupid to keep replaying this case. The case was not frivolous and could have been avoided except for the fact that McDonald's absolutely refused to bend on their policy of keeping crappy coffee at ridiculously high temperatures in order to mask the poor quality or do anything to help this woman with her huge medical bills. She had no choice but to sue.

What has been the result? McDonald's actually serves decent coffee now and is still quite profitable. OMG, what a disaster.
 
RStringfield said:
The Republicans are stupid to keep replaying this case. The case was not frivolous and could have been avoided except for the fact that McDonald's absolutely refused to bend on their policy of keeping crappy coffee at ridiculously high temperatures in order to mask the poor quality or do anything to help this woman with her huge medical bills. She had no choice but to sue.

What has been the result? McDonald's actually serves decent coffee now and is still quite profitable. OMG, what a disaster.
Click to expand...

...Who brought the case up here, again???
 
sangha said:
If she had grounds to sue, then it wasn't frivolous, by definition. (Note: I'm not saying that you said it was (or was not) frivolous. I'm just making a point)

BTW, what do you think her actions were that made McDonalds not at fault?
Click to expand...

I think that wearing cotton pants while removing the lid off of hot coffee which you are then going to put in between your legs while you are in a car is not the best of all life decisions. The coffee was hot, as coffee tends to be. There are various methods by which you can go around and not burn yourself doing this. She ****ed up. 70 in a billion is not significant enough to claim any dependency on McDonalds itself. I don't know if I'd say the case itself here was frivolous, but the punishment was obscene.
 
sangha said:
The degree of injury is relevant only to the amount of the compensation.
Click to expand...

The degree of injury would only be relevant if McDonalds splashed the coffee onto the woman. McDonalds did no such thing. The woman was burned because somewhere in her feeble mind she decided it was a bright idea to knowingly place a cup of hot liquid in between her legs and not only that she decided to open this cup of hot liquid that was in between her legs.


The grounds for the suit was based on negligence, which was proven in a court of law
Click to expand...

Negligence was not proven at all. The fact the jury agreed meant that they were bunch of idiots.

The coffee was served at or near optimal temperature. So this fact alone negates the claim it was too hot.


How To Brew Coffee - National Coffee Association
Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee.

snip...

Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!

Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.



BUNN Coffee Basics: Holding and Serving Know How
Ideal serving temperature: 155ºF to 175ºF (70ºC to 80ºC)
 
RStringfield said:
What has been the result? McDonald's actually serves decent coffee now and is still quite profitable. OMG, what a disaster.
Click to expand...

That's not because of the case, that's because of Starbucks.
 
Id like to ask all the individuals that said the case was frivolous to tell me the last time they drank coffee hot enough to do that kind of burn damage and where they bought it so i can stay the hell away from it.
 
What are you talking about? The degree of injury is one of the MOST relevant issues in any lawsuit.
 
Ikari said:
I think that wearing cotton pants while removing the lid off of hot coffee which you are then going to put in between your legs while you are in a car is not the best of all life decisions. The coffee was hot, as coffee tends to be. There are various methods by which you can go around and not burn yourself doing this. She ****ed up. 70 in a billion is not significant enough to claim any dependency on McDonalds itself. I don't know if I'd say the case itself here was frivolous, but the punishment was obscene.
Click to expand...

Coffee does not "tend to be" as hot as the coffee McD's used to serve. There was no reason to think that she had a "reasonable expectation" that the coffee would be so hot.

And if you're close enough to the coffee cup to open it, you're close enough to get burned by it. That's why this women wasn't the first to receive severe burns from McD's coffee

And what exactly do you think the punishment was?
 
disneydude said:
What are you talking about? The degree of injury is one of the MOST relevant issues in any lawsuit.
Click to expand...

I think that should only be true if you first demonstrate that McDonald's was negligent.
 
tessaesque said:
...Who brought the case up here, again???
Click to expand...

DemonMyst did in the thread concerning the new laws in Texas and SC. If you check you will see a "like" from disneydude to a response to DemonMyst and it seems pretty resonable to assume that this was broken out in response to it.

The media did a horrible job of reporting on this case and many supporters of tort reform (I would be supportive of tort reform if done properly) have continued to spread the misinformation.
 
This woman shouldn't have won anything. It was her actions, not McDonald's, that led to her injuries. It's a shame how people can sue for just about anything, it's disgusting.
 
lpast said:
Id like to ask all the individuals that said the case was frivolous to tell me the last time they drank coffee hot enough to do that kind of burn damage and where they bought it so i can stay the hell away from it.
Click to expand...

All those who do not think this is a frivolous lawsuit how many of you knowingly place a hot cup of liquid in between your legs and not only that but proceed to open it so that you can put cream and sugar in it?
 
sangha said:
Coffee does not "tend to be" as hot as the coffee McD's used to serve. There was no reason to think that she had a "reasonable expectation" that the coffee would be so hot.

And if you're close enough to the coffee cup to open it, you're close enough to get burned by it. That's why this women wasn't the first to receive severe burns from McD's coffee

And what exactly do you think the punishment was?
Click to expand...

The punishment was the monetary award to the plantiff, and it was obscene. If the coffee was as dangerous as you claim, there would be more than 70 cases in a billion which produced similar burns. But it didn't. She wasn't cautious and paid the price for it. Oh, and if you're wearing something very absorbant, like cotton, and you spill something either very hot or very cold on yourself...strip.
 
disneydude said:
What are you talking about? The degree of injury is one of the MOST relevant issues in any lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Not to nitpick but isn't the degree of injury the most relevant issue minimally in the % of liability section, and mostly in the monetary compensation portion.
 
Ikari said:
I think that should only be true if you first demonstrate that McDonald's was negligent.
Click to expand...

They were found to be negligent. Partially by records of their actions and knowledge and also by medical testimony that showed the damages that can be done by liquids served at the temperature that McDonalds was serving them.
 
??? Are you saying that it is not negligent to serve liquids at temperatures that can cause that degree of injury?
 
disneydude said:
What are you talking about? The degree of injury is one of the MOST relevant issues in any lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Did McDonalds splash coffee on her? No they did not. So the degree of injury is irrelevant. If someone jumped from a bridge and injured themselves should they be allowed to sue the city because the ground was too hard or that the river was not deep enough or bridge was too high?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom