- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,957
- Reaction score
- 19,695
- Location
- Rocky Mtn. High
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
YEs it is a frivolous lawsuit injury. The degree of injury she suffered is totally irrelevant.
Again, those are two seperate points and you have not made a very good case for the first one.
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.
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?
At the time, any person using McDonald's coffee as intended would have suffered burns to the mouth and throat.
This is just nonsense. People do it all the time. It may be safer than putting a top heavy cup into many cup holders.
Sorry...but repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true.....
I had nothing to do with that.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.
Most people blow on their coffee and sip it.Not chug it.
So you placed a cup of hot liquid in between your legs and not only that but also removed the lid while this cup of hot liquid is in between your legs?
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?
Say what? The degree of injury one suffers in totally irrelevant? If so, please explain what is relevant.
Is just me our or are some of our liberals come another planet where no one uses common sense or thinks they should be reward for injuring themselves.Is it just me, or are some of our conservative friends just from another planet what callouses grow 1 foot thick over the heart?
Is just me our or are some of our liberals come another planet where no one uses common sense or thinks they should be reward for injuring themselves.
Hot coffee is sipped and enjoyed slowly.Not drank fast or chugged.If you blow on your coffee and drink it slowly you will not scald your mouth or lips.No one said anything about chugging it. They acknowledged in court that they were aware that it would burn the mouth and throat if used as intended.
Maybe you should have been there to coach them on lying.
But they were so arrogant about it that they apparently did not think it was necessary.
Again, two seperate points. She was neglingent in taking off the lid in the way she did and the court ruled that way. That does not absolve McDonald's of all responsibility for their actions. The case showed that they knew full well the danger and did nothing to prevent it, even obstinately refused to do anything about it. Just because the plaintiff is partially to blame does not absolve McD's from liability for exposing their employees and customers to unreasonable risks.
It's just the anti-corporate, anti-rich/wealthy contingent. Anything that proffers up the common man against the eeeevvvviiiilllll corporations... even when the common man is wrong is a good cause to some.
It's just the anti-corporate, anti-rich/wealthy contingent. Anything that proffers up the common man against the eeeevvvviiiilllll corporations... even when the common man is wrong is a good cause to some.
The link doesn't work for me. In any case, the extent of the injury doesn't matter if the injury was caused by her own negligence and not someone else's. I believe that holding a scalding cup of coffee between one's legs while driving an automobile is a reckless and stupid thing to do. Therefore, I believe the lawsuit was frivolous and she should not have been awarded damages.
The link doesn't work for me. In any case, the extent of the injury doesn't matter if the injury was caused by her own negligence and not someone else's. I believe that holding a scalding cup of coffee between one's legs while driving an automobile is a reckless and stupid thing to do. Therefore, I believe the lawsuit was frivolous and she should not have been awarded damages.
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.1 - Should McDonald's assume that their coffee is occasionally going to be spilled, regardless of the person's sense of balance, common sense, or the circumstances in which the spill occurs?
yes it's reasonable.Is that a reasonable expectation?
If looking at this after the 700 injuries have occurred? The answer is maybe. It depends on the make up of the 700 injuries. As you know it's sometimes cheaper to pay out than to litigate.2 - If you've paid for a previous 700 injuries to people based on the temperature of your coffee, isn't it good business sense to perhaps lower the temperature of your coffee?
I can't weigh in on what most people's expectation is. I would say it's reasonable to expect to be burned if a hot coffee was spilled on a person - but depending on the temperature of the beverage, the types and quantity of clothing and where the beverage (what part of the body) it was spilled on.3 - Most people expect coffee to be hot. At least until this case occurred, I knew of no one who would have a reasonable expectation of suffering 3rd degree burns due to a beverage they've ordered, spilled or not.
No one has answered what the manufacturers of the coffee making equipment suggested temperature was. Someone posted 180 - 185 degrees F. (that 82 - 85 degrees celcius).McDonald's was fully aware that their coffee was causing injury and they made the choice to continue serving it at temperatures that cause 3rd degree burns in a matter of seconds.
In some cases, however that was not the case in all 700 cases. Do not lump in everything and make a claim here.When they chose not to accept the modest settlement requested by the plaintiff in this case, they made a business decision and suffered the consequences.
If what you say is true, they must not mind paying out the amount of money if they lose a court case or, they don't mind settling out of court for a specified amount of money. That's a business decision on McDonalds part - I'm not making any moral judgement here.McDonald's made all of these choices with the knowledge of past injuries, past settlements, and a customer survey that told them that people who order coffee to go will most likely drink it in their vehicle (despite claiming that they expected people to take it home or to the office to consume).
Again, it goes back to the manufacturers suggested temperature of the equipment and coffee made through that equipment.Or could it be that the coffee shouldn't be so hot as to cause 3rd degree burns within seconds?
After viewing the injury do you believe that the injury that occurred and the lawsuit that ensued were frivious?
and if you were a judge you never would have been assigned the case due to clear bias. and your verdict would have been reduced as was the case in this matter (its a jury that decided the verdict not the judge in the McD's case)Not frivolous in the slightest. Yes, she should have been more careful. But McDonald's should have some kind of notification as to how hot the coffee is. Plus, 70 people? 70 people??? I don't think you alll realize how many 70 people are. 70 people with 3rd degree burns, no matter how many they're out of, is way too many. People shouldn't be statistics- if a single person gets injured as a result of your drink being too hot, that should be a serious thing to consider. 10 people? IMO, that's gross negligence and the store should be temporarily shut down until the FDA can figure out the cause and stop it. If 70 people are injured as a result of a beverage's heat, and I were among that 70, I would be demanding McDonald's locates each of those 70 people, gives them a ridiculous amount of money, and then they shut down until they find a way of guaranteeing this madness stops. I'm sorry- but this is just wrong. If the woman had tried to dump the coffee on herself on purpose, or if McDonald's drinks came with a warning *If this drink spills, it will give you 3rd degree burns in less than 5 seconds*, or they just would put the cream and sugar in themselves, I would be less irritated. But they gave her a 180-200 degree drink without even telling her how hot it is- that's just stupid. I think McDonald's got off really easy, and that if I had been judge there, McDonald's would have been screaming for mercy by the time I was done with them.
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?
and if you were a judge you never would have been assigned the case due to clear bias. and your verdict would have been reduced as was the case in this matter (its a jury that decided the verdict not the judge in the McD's case)
McDonald's had been warned before this case the coffee they served was far to hot. Nothing frivolous about 3rd degree burns.
"It was McDonald's policy to "hold" coffee at a temperature of 190°."
What kind of lunatic thinks coffee should be served at 190 freaking degrees????
She was not driving, she was in the passengers seat. And the car was parked. These are established facts of the case.
That you immediately went to "she was driving with the cup between her legs" only proves that you have believed 20 years of propaganda about this case.
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?