Thread: Switch hitters need not apply.

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.

i herd about this on a AM station the other day....i couldnt help but just laugh....
did anyone ever hear about the guy that broke into someones home then broke his leg while trying to rob these people that were on vacation and they come back to find the guy have starved to death they called the cops and what not....this clown ended up suing them and won..i think it was by the fact that he got hurt on thier property....i bet the guy that owned that house was thinking man i just should of shot that guy then called the cops

Originally Posted by BAMARACING8

i herd about this on a AM station the other day....i couldnt help but just laugh....
did anyone ever hear about the guy that broke into someones home then broke his leg while trying to rob these people that were on vacation and they come back to find the guy have starved to death they called the cops and what not....this clown ended up suing them and won..i think it was by the fact that he got hurt on thier property....i bet the guy that owned that house was thinking man i just should of shot that guy then called the cops

Question. If he starved to the point of death how did he sue?

he was only half starved

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.

Not to get off-topic but she did sue for damages. The millions came from punitive damages which were awarded, not requested.

I'm torn because I hate McDonald's, but I also think it's a bit ridiculous to hold them accountable for hot coffee.

Originally Posted by commiecat

I'm torn because I hate McDonald's, but I also think it's a bit ridiculous to hold them accountable for hot coffee.

They were not held accoutable for HOT coffee. They were held accoutnable for serving a product in a condition that they KNEW to be unsafe. The coffee was served at a temperature well above the norm for economic reasons, if memory serves (to eek more coffee out of the beans, saving $$). They had been warned in the past.

I've spilled freshly made coffee out of the coffee pot directly onto myself. It's damned hot. My skin got a little red. Maybe one little blister. This woman suffered second (and do I remember even some third? Is that possible?) degree burns, requiring a hefty amount of medical treatment.

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.

Sorry, that's about all i remember...I took torts more years ago than my memory really likes to acknowledge. As such, my brain may have made up any or all of the "facts" as I remember them. pelase refute me if this is the case.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

They were not held accoutable for HOT coffee. They were held accoutnable for serving a product in a condition that they KNEW to be unsafe. The coffee was served at a temperature well above the norm for economic reasons, if memory serves (to eek more coffee out of the beans, saving $$). They had been warned in the past.

I've spilled freshly made coffee out of the coffee pot directly onto myself. It's damned hot. My skin got a little red. Maybe one little blister. This woman suffered second (and do I remember even some third? Is that possible?) degree burns, requiring a hefty amount of medical treatment.

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.

Sorry, that's about all i remember...I took torts more years ago than my memory really likes to acknowledge. As such, my brain may have made up any or all of the "facts" as I remember them. pelase refute me if this is the case.

Got the rest for you.

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

Just remember for every successful lawsuit there is another warning label.

You know the type:

Warning not for use while in the bathtub/shower ( actually on toaster boxes)

Warning not for internal consumption ( on any external cremes like Preparation H )

Warning HOT ( any coffee cup coming out of a drive through window )

Imho one thing that makes the law system bit different there in U.S is that there it is possible to ask and get money - a lot of money - for emotional distress in no-crime cases like this. So why wouldn't people (and their lawyers) take advantage of it?
Is it lawyers, victim or judge that decides what is the real value of emotional distress (= someone feels bad or hurts his mind) and how does money compensate it?

Originally Posted by Sailor

Imho one thing that makes the law system bit different there in U.S is that there it is possible to ask and get money - a lot of money - for emotional distress in no-crime cases like this. So why wouldn't people (and their lawyers) take advantage of it?
Is it lawyers, victim or judge that decides what is the real value of emotional distress (= someone feels bad or hurts his mind) and how does money compensate it?

yea if you find yourself in one of these kangaroo court cases you can ask for alot of money and get it...thats all fine and dandy but guess what those top execs dont like paying out of thier pocket so they raise prices and let the consumer pay for another consumers bone head mistake....NO THANKS