LOL
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
Lawyer: Was it in a cup holder?
LOL: no
There's the problem. There was no cup holder. It's the car manufacturer's fault. The lady was forced by the car manufacturer to put the coffee between her legs. Everyone who gets in a car assumes they'll be one.
LOL: no
There's the problem. There was no cup holder. It's the car manufacturer's fault. The lady was forced by the car manufacturer to put the coffee between her legs. Everyone who gets in a car assumes they'll be one.
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
Except she wasn't driving and the car wasn't moving.
What she DID do is misuse the lid of the cup. It has a little tab to pull open. You drink out of it and pour the cream into it. My understanding is she pulled the top completely off. That is not easy to do as the lid fits very tight. The cup most likely collapsed on her when she did that.
I don't think McD's made much of that argument so they may have thought their cup/lid combo would be accused of being poorly designed.
Just think, the jury most likely saw pictures of grandma's burnt out crotch. Next time you are getting all romantical with your partner, run that picture through your head.
I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
What she DID do is misuse the lid of the cup. It has a little tab to pull open. You drink out of it and pour the cream into it. My understanding is she pulled the top completely off. That is not easy to do as the lid fits very tight. The cup most likely collapsed on her when she did that.
I don't think McD's made much of that argument so they may have thought their cup/lid combo would be accused of being poorly designed.
Just think, the jury most likely saw pictures of grandma's burnt out crotch. Next time you are getting all romantical with your partner, run that picture through your head.
I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [j p o]
[ In reply to ]
j p o wrote:
Except she wasn't driving and the car wasn't moving. What she DID do is misuse the lid of the cup. It has a little tab to pull open. You drink out of it and pour the cream into it. My understanding is she pulled the top completely off. That is not easy to do as the lid fits very tight. The cup most likely collapsed on her when she did that.
I don't think McD's made much of that argument so they may have thought their cup/lid combo would be accused of being poorly designed.
Just think, the jury most likely saw pictures of grandma's burnt out crotch. Next time you are getting all romantical with your partner, run that picture through your head.
A picture is definitely worth more than a thousand words. Once they got to damages, it was katy bar the door as I have seen a number of burns and they aint good. A visceral response is likely from a jury if they get passed the fact she should have secured it and it never should have spilled knowing how bad the result of a spill could be.
Moral of the story is be careful when dealing with hot items in vehicles. Or not and sue the pants off someone for your own negligence. Whatever floats your boat. Jackie childs would be proud...
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [50+]
[ In reply to ]
50+ wrote:
BLeP wrote:
50+ wrote:
BLeP wrote:
vitus979 wrote:
Pretty extensive. Which, again, is largely attributable to her age.
How close to death was she?
Don't know. Video says she went into shock, so I assume it was pretty serious. Also attributable to her age. I don't think the severity of her injuries really makes McDonald's more responsible for causing them.
So McDonalds should be allowed to burn old people with their exceedingly hot coffee and it's their own fault for growing old?
In a word yes, seriously she put a cup of hot coffee in a paper cup between her legs! How this case ever got to court is beyond me.
Then you haven't read/listened to the facts of the case ever. Which is fine, just stop chiming in on which you know nothing about.
I've been in the industry for 40 years, I know this case inside out and backwards and bottom line is coffee is brewed hot! Between 195 and 205 degree's, ever temp a pot that has just finished brewing? I have, many times it's still around 188-190, so tell me what are company's supposed to do, tell their customers sorry we can't we can't serve you until the coffee has cooled? It takes anywhere from 8 to 10 minutes for a pot of coffee to cool down to 170 depending on the warmer, know how many pot's of coffee a busy Tim's goes through in 8 to 10 minutes? No company is going to wait before they serve it. I don't care how many complaints McDonalds got coffee is brewed hot and there are a lot of idiots out there who don't get that. This case should have never made it to court.
I think the lawsuit was stupid also but the only time I recall buying McD's coffee, it was way hotter than any coffee I've ever had and way larger than any coffee I've ever had, so it took forever to cool off. I was in an airport and desperate for coffee. Once it cooled to a normal temp, I took 2 sips and chucked it as it was disgusting. So disgusting that I thought about suing. When you buy a cup of coffee, you assume it will be drinkable.
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [ACE]
[ In reply to ]
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [50+]
[ In reply to ]
Quote:
No company is going to wait before they serve it. I don't care how many complaints McDonalds got coffee is brewed hot and there are a lot of idiots out there who don't get that.Hence the reason why McDonalds lost.
Q: What's the difference between 160 degrees and 190 degrees.
Common sense answer: 160 degree is safer for the consumer in case of accident.
Answer that the conservatives of the LR will understand: because YOU will get sued meaning YOU will lose MONEY
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [chriskal]
[ In reply to ]
chriskal wrote:
windywave wrote:
j p o wrote:
slowguy wrote:
windywave wrote:
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
I don't agree with the jury (or the laws/regulations, whatever they are) that coffee can't be served hot.I don't think that's the issue. It's how hot. At 180-190F, it can cause 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds apparently. At 160F, it would take more like 20secs. That's plenty of time to pull wet sweatpants away from the skin.
I'm not heavily on one side or the other on this case. I can see both sides. However, this case is frequently cited as grossly frivolous, and people assume she was driving, or that she just got a little 1st degree burn (because that's what you might expect from hot coffee). It's not quite so clear cut, especially when the coffee (that you're supposed to be able to drink) causes such nasty burns so quickly. What might have happened if instead of spilling it, she had taken a swig? 3rd degree burns down her esophagus?
The objection is not to liability, it's to the amount of damages especially the punitive awarded.
Well, that might be your objection, but it's not the objection vitus voiced.
And the judge reduced the award from almost $3 mil to $460k so not really an issue.
That was on appeal, the initial judgement was obscene.
Why do you consider the original judgment obscene? The purpose of punitive damages is to deter and punish.. McDonald's is an enormous corporation and one of the factors taken into account is the financial wherewithal of the bad actor. McDonald's is an enormous company that made a calculated financial decision to continue serving dangerously hot coffee despite knowledge of prior injuries from that practice. Given the context 2.7 M hardly seems obscene.
As a rule I'm generally opposed to punitive damages.
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [schroeder]
[ In reply to ]
schroeder wrote:
Lawyer: Was it in a cup holder? LOL: no
There's the problem. There was no cup holder. It's the car manufacturer's fault. The lady was forced by the car manufacturer to put the coffee between her legs. Everyone who gets in a car assumes they'll be one.
She wasn't forced to purchase the coffee.
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [windywave]
[ In reply to ]
windywave wrote:
schroeder wrote:
Lawyer: Was it in a cup holder? LOL: no
There's the problem. There was no cup holder. It's the car manufacturer's fault. The lady was forced by the car manufacturer to put the coffee between her legs. Everyone who gets in a car assumes they'll be one.
She wasn't forced to purchase the coffee.
Nobody argued that she was. Nobody has ever been forced to buy cigarettes yet many lawsuits have come From them.
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [BLeP]
[ In reply to ]
BLeP wrote:
windywave wrote:
schroeder wrote:
Lawyer: Was it in a cup holder? LOL: no
There's the problem. There was no cup holder. It's the car manufacturer's fault. The lady was forced by the car manufacturer to put the coffee between her legs. Everyone who gets in a car assumes they'll be one.
She wasn't forced to purchase the coffee.
Nobody argued that she was. Nobody has ever been forced to buy cigarettes yet many lawsuits have come From them.
You really want to bring government sanctioned extortion into the mix?
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [windywave]
[ In reply to ]
windywave wrote:
BLeP wrote:
windywave wrote:
schroeder wrote:
Lawyer: Was it in a cup holder? LOL: no
There's the problem. There was no cup holder. It's the car manufacturer's fault. The lady was forced by the car manufacturer to put the coffee between her legs. Everyone who gets in a car assumes they'll be one.
She wasn't forced to purchase the coffee.
Nobody argued that she was. Nobody has ever been forced to buy cigarettes yet many lawsuits have come From them.
You really want to bring government sanctioned extortion into the mix?
We're lacking in government coffee temperature testers
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [windywave]
[ In reply to ]
Should companies ever been held responsible for anything? It would appear that you don't believe that they should.
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [triguy101]
[ In reply to ]
HBO did a documentary about tort reform a few years ago using this case as the backdrop for the whole thing.
http://www.hbo.com/...mentaries/hot-coffee
They showed the pics of her injuries and I was taken aback by how bad it was.
http://www.hbo.com/...mentaries/hot-coffee
They showed the pics of her injuries and I was taken aback by how bad it was.
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [chriskal]
[ In reply to ]
chriskal wrote:
windywave wrote:
j p o wrote:
slowguy wrote:
windywave wrote:
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
I don't agree with the jury (or the laws/regulations, whatever they are) that coffee can't be served hot.I don't think that's the issue. It's how hot. At 180-190F, it can cause 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds apparently. At 160F, it would take more like 20secs. That's plenty of time to pull wet sweatpants away from the skin.
I'm not heavily on one side or the other on this case. I can see both sides. However, this case is frequently cited as grossly frivolous, and people assume she was driving, or that she just got a little 1st degree burn (because that's what you might expect from hot coffee). It's not quite so clear cut, especially when the coffee (that you're supposed to be able to drink) causes such nasty burns so quickly. What might have happened if instead of spilling it, she had taken a swig? 3rd degree burns down her esophagus?
The objection is not to liability, it's to the amount of damages especially the punitive awarded.
Well, that might be your objection, but it's not the objection vitus voiced.
And the judge reduced the award from almost $3 mil to $460k so not really an issue.
That was on appeal, the initial judgement was obscene.
Why do you consider the original judgment obscene? The purpose of punitive damages is to deter and punish.. McDonald's is an enormous corporation and one of the factors taken into account is the financial wherewithal of the bad actor. McDonald's is an enormous company that made a calculated financial decision to continue serving dangerously hot coffee despite knowledge of prior injuries from that practice. Given the context 2.7 M hardly seems obscene.
If I remember correction from law school (proving more and more difficult as the days pass!): the number they came up with wasn't arbitrary either but rather based on a day's sales of coffee or something of the sort. The case is ridiculed of course but if you take in the whole picture from injury, negotiation, trial and reduced penalty from judge the case is quite boring and not sensational.
Re: Truth of McDonalds coffee case [The Wall]
[ In reply to ]
That's what I recall as well from my one law class, 18 years ago.
(Damn I'm old).
(Damn I'm old).
Two days of coffee sales was the number.
----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter
----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter