![]() |
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Wow even my math is no good at 3:30am is there someone I can sue about that lol....well if you and Fyron agree I must then truely be wrong what was I thinking.....perhapes some sleep will help.
|
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Spilling coffee that is not at such a dangerous temperature is, as Fyron pointed out, no big deal. You stain your pants, you yell, you go on with life. So while you know that you just might spill it, you have a reasonable expectation that if you do you won't be badly burned.
It's not about whether she thought she was going to spill it, or if the thought even occured to her that she *might* spill it. It is not reasonable to expect that spilling coffee on yourself would cause burns severe enough to warrant hospitalization. |
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
That wasn't the only time McDonalds got sued lately by some stupid.
A couple of idiots sued the Big M a while ago for..... making them fat. |
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
And they would be perfectly in the right...If most food only made you a little fat if lot's of it were eaten.
A society is run on general expectations. |
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Quote:
Quote:
The exact temperature is not the issue. It can not possibly be known just how hot the coffee that the woman spilled was. If Slick's numbers are right, it could have been a bit hotter still... It is the fact that at 180 to 190 degrees (or hotter), the coffee was extremely dangerous. At around 160, it is still quite hot, but won't send you to the hospital over a spill. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Boys,
Atrocities brought the McD coffee case up already on January 2004. Growltigga had some very nice posts about the topic in this thread that sumarize it quite nicley: Link Long story short: As an European laywer my point of view is that you can only be sued if you are guilty of neglect. The amout payable can only be as high as the damage (no punitive damage, this is civil law, not criminal law) and of course every one has to stand in for his own neglect. So in the end if you spill anything, may it be hot or not, it is your own fault and no one else. You know that coffee is hot and that you are not supposed to spill it no matter how hot it is. You can't possibly argue that the women would be any more dilligent if you knew that the coffee was 180 instead of 165 degrees. She still knows that both are hot and that she shouldn't spill it. Just because it is more hot then you think doesn't change a thing about the fact that you spilled it, not McD. Why should McD be required to tell you how hot your coffee is exactly (even if they could tell you the temerature when they serve it which the don't...)? Just don't spill hot stuff! |
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
If the issue is polarized, it comes down to 'Seller beware' or 'Buyer beware'. Modern capitalism is run on 'Seller beware', because otherwise you can be sold a pig in a poke.
Or so my elementary social studies course said, in one of those grades. |
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
I would argue that, Narf. It is of course to some point a seller/buyer beware. But just how silly do you have to take your customers for? Common sence should be the border. Hot is hot, sharp is sharp and a dog or cat doesn't belong in the microwave. Even if the seller didn't told you that's just common knowledge. If someone fails to see this he shouldn't get money from the seller.
|
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Imperator, the only influence the temperature has is the amount of time to make a first degree burn (sunlight burn) to a second degree (red skin) to a third degree (black skin/negrosis of tissue). The difference are mere seconds. The coffee served before and past the accident will both burn you.
|
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Quote:
|
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Quote:
First degree burn = only the dead top layer of your skin. Can be sunburn, but can also be something else. Second degree burn = also the underlying layer of tissue. Third degree burn = a burn all the way down to the deepest flesh. If you have these you'll have to have a skin transplant, if not more - the category "third degree burns" covers everything from just underneath the second layer to burns where your bone itself is blackened and scorched. |
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Good morning everyone I hope you all slept well and are ready to go at it again....I know I am http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Phoenix-D You are quite correct when you say that it would not still be 212F by the time I drank it......but it would be when I poured it and if I were to spill it on myself it would be more serious than coffee at a mere 180F since numerous people drink instant coffee at home it is not unreasonable to expect some coffee to be very hot.Upon some thought I have realized that the only place I have ever burned my toung with coffee is at home so mine is definatly hotter than McDonaslds. As to your second point about the NORMAL car versus the hot rod I'm afraid that in your on words you have answered your own arguement......the motor vehical industry is highly regulated if I am buying a car from you I have a reasonable expectation of how it will preform ie that it will be a NORMAL car , there is an accepted norm that I can judge it against.....you would be liable...lol and yes I would sue you.There is no accepted norm for coffee or rather since McDonalds sells so much of the stuff I might well argue that they have set the norm. You say that the fact that the coffee was hot made it worse well yes but what if there coffee was 169F and everyone elses was 150F 169 is less than 180 but more that 150F would you still argue that McDonalds coffee was too hot? Sivran you are quite right the differance between 180 and 212 is 32 not 22.You say that spilling coffee on yourself that is not such a dangerous temperature is not a big deal I can easily argue that spilling a glass of water on myself is not as dangerous as spilling a cup of coffee that is 158F but what does that have to do with the price of coffee beans nothing it is not a question of how hot the coffee was but her negligance in spilling it .Lets say the coffee is a mild 158F which will cause a burn in what was it 60 sec or something....now I have my fresh McDonalds coffee driving down the freeway at 110 kmh and I spill the coffee on my well you know...I must decelerate and pull off the road to deal with the problem in the time it takes me to change lanes come to a full stop and pull the jeans off I have been burned by your much safer temperature .They knew I might be driving and would not nessarialy be able to pull over right away are they not still to blame and must they now lower the temperature again? Fyron I realized that your razor blade coment was tounge in cheek however even your second example does not hold up cars with sharp edges would not pass the accepted norm test...the toy industry also has rules and regulations you would have a reasonable expectation that McDonalds would not give children toys which fall beneath the accepted norm....a norm which actually exists.Since there is no norm for coffee you have no such expectations but rather you know its hot and you shouldn't spill it.And if you have ever had McDonalds coffee you know its very hot which really does or atleast should set a norm for what you expect from their coffee. The exact temperature is not the issue....how can you argue that the coffee was dangerously hot and say that the exact temperature was not the issue. The only to issues are either her negligance in spilling the coffee or McDonalds negligence in having coffee that is"TOO HOT" since you are arguing that it was not her negligance the only issue that remains is the temp of the coffee.....arguing that the temp of the coffee is not the issue is my position as I hold her compleatly responsible. You said "Yes, spilling coffee on yourself is stupid. Spilling hot coffee on yourself is quite stupid. However, it is not unreasonable to expect to not need to be hospitalized as a result. With coffee as hot as it was, there was nothing at all she could do. The damage was done extremely rapidly. If McDonald's had acted sooner to remedy the dangerous product, which they knew full well to be dangerous, there would not have been a law suit (from this lady, at any rate). But they did not. They were negligent." How can you concider it to unreasonable to expect to be hospitilized by spilling very hot coffee on yourself? The tests of McDonalds coffee after the insident aswell as there operating manual amply demonstrated that McDonalds coffee was and always had been very hot it would be very reasonable to expect to be seriously burned by it if you did not show proper caution.And again I will point out that their coffee is signifagantly cooler than the coffee that I make at home....I use an electric kettle if I spill the water which is boiling on myself would the company that made it be liable.....should they make it heat to some safer temp?If your response is that I would know how hot boiling water is ....well maybe I did back in school but certainly not now and even if I did remember what the temperature of boiling water was how many sec at what temp causes what deg burn that I certainly did not know....what I did know was common sense hot is hot don't pour water from kettle on self. For the record the coffee was between her legs....prehapes it was I don't recall from the article but if it was between her knees and spilled on her crotch she must have really short legs....hmmm maybe its just that I have long legs. That Sivran and agreeing obviously made me wrong was just a joke I realized....by 3am I was starting to get pretty silly myself. Practice makes perfect ....I'm working on it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif The whole question boils[sorry for the repeated use of puns]down to wheather or not it is reasonable to expect to recieve third degree burns from a cup of coffee I say yes you say no. |
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
It's simple. You spill something on yourself, it's your own fault. Don't try to blame your own stupidity on someone else.
Hey, I got a promotion! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif |
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Congrats, Sir.
I can imagine how it would happen..... it wouldn't open properly so she pulled on it a little harder or in some other way that made the cap fly off, she "started" as the term goes and her legs twitched, the coffee cup toppled and the coffee flew out of it and into her..... ehm..... *cough* guys there are people on this forum too young for that. |
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Quote:
And I never mentioned the price of beans, nor did anyone else... Where the hell did that come from? Let's play another analogy game. If I open up my computer monitor and stick my bare hands in it, I have a reasonable expectation that--gasp--I might get severely injured (or even killed) by the current running through it. Assuming I lived through it I would have no grounds for sueing anyone. Coffee on the other hand is a different matter. Coffee is spilled every day, whether we like it or not. Coffee is expected to not cause serious injury, even if spilled. If it does, then either willfully or negligently, someone sold some needlessly dangerous stuff. Remember that this was not an isolated incident with McDonald's: they had been warned, multiple times, that their coffee was dangerously hot. So hot that if spilled, it would burn before cooling to the point where it wouldn't cause a problem. Can we get back to the roof jumping now? |
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Time to open another can of worms.....
I'm not sure if this made t to national levels, but at a local McD here in tidewater, a lady presumably got a chicken head in her chicken nuggets. The odd thing is that she was a dine-in costumer and didn't tell anyone til after she left the store. The only evidence that the head ever existed was a blurry photo, that looked like a rubber chicken, that was mailed to McD. McDonanlds said that they would pay settlments (don't remember how much) if only she would send them the head. She refused and teh whole thing boiled down to nothingness in less than a month. Some people are just plain stupid... |
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Quote:
Now we can jump of the roof. Yiipeee! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif |
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
/me pushes Mephisto before he can jump. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif
|
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Never trust a mouse... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
|
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Man, I'm just sorry I brought it up to begin with http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
|
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
And let's not forget the girls that were sued for giving away cookies. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=473840&page=1
|
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Deleted, because, after all, I don't know wether there are additional factors.
|
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
bearing in mind that many people had been injured by the McDonalds coffee. The reason they kept it at 180 is that it was fractionally more profitable because it would stay saleable longer. They had done this a long time. It was cheaper for McDonalds to fight lawsuits in court than it was to chill the coffee. Horrendous, but justified on a business level.
It isn't on the same level as the now-infamous (brought by John Edwards) case where for want of a cheap drain cover a spa had badly mutilated several people. I just ate so I'm not gonna talk about it, but you can probably google it pretty easily. In this roof jumping case- It wasn't the first time, so the city could be negligent. There's obviously a case that could be argued in court here, so I don't think the standard of frivolous lawsuit applies here. Although this is applied of by association- the main thrust is that the roof jumper and his family are not taking responsibility for his actions. Which to some extent they are not, though many minors undoubtedly engage in the activity. (The article does not make clear whether the injured jumper was a minor or not, and the pic is inconclusive) But...75% of all bankruptcys are for medical reasons, and given the trends it's increasingly unlikely that insurance companies will cover something like this. I think it behooves the city to at least pay medical expenses and agree to combat the trend of roof jumping actively and passively. Realistically, there does not seem to be much of a problem with frivolous lawsuits. Most lawsuits are filed by businesses (very few places track this, but those that do in the US indicate that business vs business comprise about 75% of all lawsuits) so personal lawsuits are not cramming the judicial system. Lawsuits which are actually frivolous tend to be thrown out. There is a wide perception of common place ludicrous lawsuits because these stories are often blown all out of proportion and lied about. Any that remotely fit the criteria are often picked up and distributed. For several years I believed in the McDonalds coffee canard- I was horrified when I learned the details of the case. In my opinion, the whole idea is a stalking horse for deregulators. But whatever. |
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping - best electric kettle
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.