Is this a "frivious" lawsuit injury?

[Ikari]

The lid had not been removed. Mistating the facts does not strengthen your argument

Then perhaps you can share your magic through which you add sugar and cream without taking the lid off. Can you? Or are you just being obtuse and purposefully obstructionist because you don't really have a way to argue against the FACT that she was removing the lid?

 

[BayToBay]

Tort reform will protect us from improved coffee that is served at safer temperatures and in a safer manner (sugar and cream already added) which will then lead to McDonald's revenues being increased dramatically. Yeah that is a good selling point. The results of this case have all been positive.

 

[Middleground]

Not really. Yeah, she wanted to add cream and sugar, but the lid can hardly be faulted for that for as soon as you remove the lid you cannot reasonable expect the lid to function as a lid. She held it between her legs in a car and removed the lid and spilled the coffee. No matter how well designed a lid is, it's useless once you take it off.

The action of removing the lid caused the accident.

 

[sangha]

No, the lid did not pop off. The fact was she removed the lid. She was in the process of putting cream and sugar into the coffee. Do you normally do that with the lid on?

Straw man. I said nothing about "popping off" and if I did, it would be about all the caps some people are using.

And she was not in the process of adding cream and sugar to the coffee. This is another mistatement of fact coming from you

 

[sangha]

Then perhaps you can share your magic through which you add sugar and cream without taking the lid off. Can you? Or are you just being obtuse and purposefully obstructionist because you don't really have a way to argue against the FACT that she was removing the lid?

Again, she has not taken the lid off when the spill occurred.

You should make up your mind as to whether she was taking the lid off, or HAD TAKEN the lid off, when the spill occurred

 

[disneydude]

Did the cup contain a "contents are hot" warning on it?

Again....it is one thing to be "Hot"....it is quite another to be unreasonable negligently hot. There are reasons why, for instance, hot water heaters in homes are set to certain temperatures. When you purchase coffee, it should be served hot.....it shouldn't be served at a temperature that can result in third degree burns....I mean, we aren't talking first or second degree burns here, we are talking coffee that was served at temperatures causing third degree burns.

 

[jamesrage]

Common sense tells reasonable people that coffee should not be served at a temp that causes thrid degree burns in a few seconds.

Common sense tells reasonable people that you do not place hot liquids in between your legs and not only that but you also do not proceed to take the lid off while that cup of hot liquid is in between your legs.

And Mcd's kept their coffee at temps up to 190, above the advice your source gives

McDonalds at the time served it between 180-190. So that means it was at or near optimal temperature. Besides that 3rd degree burns can happen with liquid that is 150 degrees for 2 seconds. She was exposed for 90 seconds.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C)


Hot Water Burn & Consumer Safety: Chart - Accurate Building Inspectors ® | 1-800-640-8285 |
Most adults will suffer third-degree burns if exposed to 150 degree water for two seconds. Burns will also occur with a six-second exposure to 140 degree water or with a thirty second exposure to 130 degree water. Even if the temperature is 120 degrees, a five minute exposure could result in third-degree burns.

 

[Ikari]

No, lids are, or should be, designed to not cause a spill when removed

And she had not removed the lid when she was burned. Mistating the facts does not strengthen your points

How can a lid prevent spilling when removed?

 

[BayToBay]

If you read the court docs, then the info contained therein did not stick well in your mind. You made a mistatement of fact when you claimed that she had taken the lid off when she was burned, when the truth is that she had NOT taken the lid off when she got burned

She took the lid off according to everything I have read. That is why she was partially at fault.

 

[Ikari]

Again, she has not taken the lid off when the spill occurred.

You should make up your mind as to whether she was taking the lid off, or HAD TAKEN the lid off, when the spill occurred

It doesn't matter, once the lid no longer seals the cup, as would be the case either when removing the lid or having totally removed the lid, it no longer functions as a lid. Semantics will not make your case stronger.

 

[jamesrage]

Again, she has not taken the lid off when the spill occurred.

You should make up your mind as to whether she was taking the lid off, or HAD TAKEN the lid off, when the spill occurred

She was taking the lid off when the incident occurred.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.

 

[tessaesque]

:roll:

Give it a rest. Repubs bring this old case up all the time when talking about tort reform. It is a bad example and does nothing but discredit their position.

Your point would be relevant if it had been brought up by republicans here, but it wasn't. You just posted hackery for no reason.

 

[BayToBay]

Common sense tells reasonable people that you do not place hot liquids in between your legs and not only that but you also do not proceed to take the lid off while that cup of hot liquid is in between your legs.

People commonly hold coffee between their legs. Your claim on that point is wrong.

She should have shown greater caution in removing the lid. However, you cannot drink coffee without it coming into contact with your body. McDonald's did not care that they were causing harm to their customers and employees for no good reason.

 

[tessaesque]

People commonly hold coffee between their legs. Your claim on that point is wrong.

She should have shown greater caution in removing the lid. However, you cannot drink coffee without it coming into contact with your body. McDonald's did not care that they were causing harm to their customers and employees for no good reason.

Purely speculation.

And the fact that "people commonly hold coffee between their legs" doesn't mean it makes sense or reflects a logical decision. People used to commonly beat children who wrote left handed, too.

 

[BayToBay]

Your point would be relevant if it had been brought up by republicans here, but it wasn't. You just posted hackery for no reason.

Again, Republicans often bring up the case and you can see the division on the matter in this thread.

My reason, is that I support tort reform but that Republicans butcher it badly with their stupidity, misinformation and willful refusal to consider all the facts.

 

[BayToBay]

Purely speculation.

And the fact that "people commonly hold coffee between their legs" doesn't mean it makes sense or reflects a logical decision. People used to commonly beat children who wrote left handed, too.

Nope. It was shown at trial that they were aware of the danger but refused to adjust their policies in response.

 

[jamesrage]

No restaurant... I mean *NO* restaurant serves their coffee at those temperature. It's ****ing nuts to.

PFB Investigates - Coffee Temperature...A Hot Subject | PlanetFeedback
CoffeeGeek - Starbucks Coffee Makers - All - J. D.'s Review
Bottom Line: Brew temperature, as read by instant read thermometer, A MEASLEY 175 degrees for majority of the brew! The max, which was at the very, very end of the brew (when only the last little bits of steam are exiting the drip head; At the point when no more coffee is dripping into the carafe) a MEASLEY 180!

Because the design was poor. They are much better and safer today (more dome shaped)

Once the lib is removed or in the process of being removed it is no longer doing what it is designed for. So the condition or quality of the lid is irrelevant.

Yeah people accidentally spilling a drink makes them an automatic idiot. I'm a clutz so I guess that makes me a big time idiot.

Did you knowingly place a cup of hot liquid in between your legs and not only that but take the lid off?

 

[jamesrage]

People commonly hold coffee between their legs. Your claim on that point is wrong.

She should have shown greater caution in removing the lid. However, you cannot drink coffee without it coming into contact with your body. McDonald's did not care that they were causing harm to their customers and employees for no good reason.

A.McDonalds did not cause anyone harm.Liebeck is the one who who caused harm to herself.

B.Only retards put hot liquids in between their legs. Do you know why? Because most people do not like the idea of burning themselves.

 

[BayToBay]

And the fact that "people commonly hold coffee between their legs" doesn't mean it makes sense or reflects a logical decision. People used to commonly beat children who wrote left handed, too.

So common sense does not mean common sense? WTF does it mean then? Common sense has never been about whether the opinion was right or wrong but is used to describe what the reasonable man would do. And yes, changing social norms influence that, e.g., just because something may no longer seem reasonable does not mean that it was not reasonable at the time. What is reasonable is based on the context of our knowledge, which is fallible and expanding all the time.

A reasonable person may well place coffee between their legs. It is very common and few people would yell and scream at a person for doing it.

 

[jamesrage]

So common sense does not mean common sense? WTF does it mean then? Common sense has never been about whether the opinion was right or wrong but is used to describe what the reasonable man would do. And yes, changing social norms influence that, e.g., just because something may no longer seem reasonable does not mean that it was not reasonable at the time. What is reasonable is based on the context of our knowledge, which is fallible and expanding all the time.

A reasonable person may well place coffee between their legs. It is very common and few people would yell and scream at a person for doing it.

Common sense would tell you that it is not a smart idea to put a cup of hot liquids in between your legs and not only that common sense would also tell you that it is also stupid to try to take the lid off that cup of hot liquid that is in between your legs.


By the way common sense is not what people commonly do. Common sense is sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.

 

[BayToBay]

A.McDonalds did not cause anyone harm.Liebeck is the one who who caused harm to herself.

At the time, any person using McDonald's coffee as intended would have suffered burns to the mouth and throat.

B.Only retards put hot liquids in between their legs. Do you know why? Because most people do not like the idea of burning themselves.

This is just nonsense. People do it all the time. It may be safer than putting a top heavy cup into many cup holders.

 

[VanceMack]

So long as you keep the lid secure while doing so, you are likely going to be OK.

Even perfectly safe lids come off. SOmetimes extreme heat changes the way they operate. Sometimes the lid isnt put on correctly. Coffee cups are designed to safely hold coffee served at a safe temperature. When the temperature is routinely exceeded by the franchise and they have been cited for it, the franschise is liable. They knowingly and willfullly served an unsafe product, regardless of the state of the vessel.

 

[disneydude]

So common sense does not mean common sense? WTF does it mean then? Common sense has never been about whether the opinion was right or wrong but is used to describe what the reasonable man would do. And yes, changing social norms influence that, e.g., just because something may no longer seem reasonable does not mean that it was not reasonable at the time. What is reasonable is based on the context of our knowledge, which is fallible and expanding all the time.

A reasonable person may well place coffee between their legs. It is very common and few people would yell and scream at a person for doing it.

Not only that, no reasonable person would expect to get THIRD DEGREE BURNS if you happen to spill. Most people would expect to get burned perhaps first degree or even second, but not third degree.

 

[disneydude]

B.Only retards put hot liquids in between their legs. Do you know why? Because most people do not like the idea of burning themselves.

Sorry...but repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true.....and voting numerous times in a poll might make the poll outcome look swayed, but when it displays the actual people voting your attempts to alter the outcome are exposed.

 

[BayToBay]

Common sense would tell you that it is not a smart idea to put a cup of hot liquids in between your legs and not only that common sense would also tell you that it is also stupid to try to take the lid off that cup of hot liquid that is in between your legs.

Again, those are two seperate points and you have not made a very good case for the first one.

By the way common sense is not what people commonly do. Common sense is sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.

That definition works fine for me. Many people of apparent normal native intelligence place cups of coffee between their legs. I would assume that they do knowing that they are taking some risk, but not a risk that they are gonna need skin grafts and suffer third degree burns. McDonald's behavior showed a willful disregard of common sense. They KNEW that they were serving coffee that WOULD cause injury if used as INTENDED. They deserved to be sued and to lose.