Thread: Switch hitters need not apply.

Originally Posted by JMS

My point is that no matter the law these sorts of suits and others such as the infamous hot coffee suit, the pants suit, the motor home suit where the guy sued because he went back to get a drink and the vehicle went of the road, etc. etc. etc. make a joke of the whole damned system. When will common sense be restored?
Reminds me of little children fighting. Where is the guiding influence for these "children"?

It's sad, but true, that common sense isn't very common.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Not quite. Coffee should be served scalding hot. If that women was stupid enough to put scalding hot coffee between her legs, then she had it coming. And I don't blame MickyD for not wanting to mediate. If she had had integrity, she would have sued for damages, not for a big lottery style 'never have to work again' paycheck for something that was caused by her own stupidity.

You should spend some time examining this case. It is very interesting and quite easily proved McDs was entirely at fault. It is also interesting how McDs spun reality in order to maintain their reputation.

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

You should spend some time examining this case. It is very interesting and quite easily proved McDs was entirely at fault. It is also interesting how McDs spun reality in order to maintain their reputation.

I have looked through the case in the past and yes in the case provided McD was at fault and did do a great job spinning the case. I still think that they as a corporation where idiots since the lady did come and ask them for them to cover her expenses and they laughed at her. I feel for anyone who has need for skin graphs since my wife was a burn nurse for a few years before switching to pediatrics.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

The corporation was warned that they were doing something dangerous (mroe dangerous than just "hot coffee') and they disregarded customer safety for profits. Why should they NOT be held accountable for the damage they cause by this decision. A corporation has the DUTY to not hand out a product more dangerous than a customer ought reasonably believe it to be.

Well, yes, but what's the alternative?
Serving lukewarm coffee to appease the people who want to be insulated from life? Some things in our daily lives have the potential to hurt us. It is our own responsibility to make sure that they don't.

If I buy a hammer and hit on my fingers, the hardware store is not to blame.
Same if the hammer were an axe. It is understood that buy buying the axe, I take responsibility for using it. Come to think of it, it's the same when using a straight razor. If you buy one and cut yourself, you can't hold dovo accountable.

Imo, if you buy coffee, you know it will be hot enough to hurt you. If it then does, it is a bit lame to hold McD accountable. Yes, they were warned that their product was very hot. But that doesn't change the fact that coffee should be like that. They put a number of coffee experts on the stand who testified that indeed, coffee should be that hot. But to no avail.

I'd like to get back on topic guys but as an aside there would have to be some very special circumstances for me to consider McDonalds responsible for that poor lady's injuries...like an employee of McDonalds intentionally pouring coffee into the ladies lap, or even accidentally through inattention.
The court may have decided in favor of the lady, The law may be on the side of the lady, but unlike the lady I do not look down the barrel of a gun with my finger on the trigger assuming the gun is unloaded, I do not saw on my fingers with my knife assuming the knife is dull, and I always remember that the coffee I am about to enjoy is likely scalding hot.

thats a good point, since the coffee was poured on her . . . but, I'll leave you back on topic, -- research in understanding what actually happened makes both arguments easier to discuss.

Originally Posted by Bruno

\Yes, they were warned that their product was very hot. But that doesn't change the fact that coffee should be like that. .

Actually, they were fined, repeatedly, for serving coffee that was too hot to drink . . .

680 teams!!! Wow! That is amazing. I think the suit is bogus. How do they justify $75,000? I lost a chess game recently, I think I have some damages coming my way too.

I think it's okay for them to stay private even if they use public parks, but it sounds like they should stop referring to themselves as a public institution.

I thought it was funny though that they let two straight people play on a team . . . is that because all non-professional sports use ringers?

Originally Posted by sicboater

Ever read this one?

It wasn't just "hot" coffee. It resulted in third degree burns. The woman took a risk putting it between her legs sure. It was proven in court that McDonald's (who refused initial settlements that were ONLY for her medical costs) knowingly provided coffee that was hot enough to cause serious burns even in the face of evidence that their reason for selling coffee so hot was not valid.

I can't comment on the rest of these cases, but in this one there is certainly a lot more to the story than most people realize. She tried mediation and McD's denied. She went to court and McD's got what they deserved based on the facts of the case.

-Rob

Rob, you know I like you, but you cannot be serious. Yes, coffee is hot. The sky is blue, and water is wet, too. If it wasn't that hot, she'd have probably sued them for serving her a cup of lukewarm coffee. And if she's dumb enough to put hot coffee between her legs, why should McDonald's (and I'm not defending McDonald's, but the principle) be responsible for her medical costs? I mean, do you have to have a warning label to tell you not to put your hands on a hot stove? Is it the stove's fault or yours if you get burned? So I guess I don't see how McDonald's got what they "deserved". If anything, the woman got what "she" deserved for being somewhat retarded. And think about it...the coffee could only get somewhere ~ 212 degrees, which I think is the boiling point of water. And it doesn't retain a whole lot of residual heat, like say, cooking grease. 3rd degree, full-thickness burns? I've spilled boiling water fresh off the stove on myself before, and the worst I got was a couple blisters. She must've had the skin of an infant, and if she were that sensitive she shouldn't have been drinking coffee anyway. Point is, it was HER fault she got burned, and someone else had to pay for it. I could understand a bit of her point if the shape of a coffee cup was designed to be placed between one's legs, but common sense says it's HER fault.

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

You should spend some time examining this case. It is very interesting and quite easily proved McDs was entirely at fault. It is also interesting how McDs spun reality in order to maintain their reputation.

I'll admit I haven't read the case, other than what made the "news", but how is a woman spilling hot coffee on herself anyone's other than HER fault? Had McDonald's poured the coffee on her, fine, but how can it be spun that she spilled the coffee on herself and it was McDonald's fault. It goes against reason and sense.

Addition: I reread the facts of the case from the link posted earlier in the thread. Ok, McDonald's coffee was served hotter than is usual. Still doesn't change the fact it was HER carelessness that caused her to get burned. That would be like me suing KMG because I ground the tip off my finger (and have done that several times) while making a razor with their grinder, or suing the grinding belt maker because their belts were too sharp, and cut my skin. Sheesh...where does personal responsibility come into play?