How Low Will The Lawyers Go?

[rextorres]

It wasn't just that the coffee was too hot. Although they did sell coffee that was hotter than normal so that they could keep it around longer.

They were also providing coffee cups with lids that had a huge tendency to come off. This might not sound like a big deal, but they were selling them at a drive through. Which is not good if the coffee you sell has a tendency too cause major burns.

I might add that the women's lawsuit was not in a vaccuum other people had complained about these issues and McD's had chosen to ignore them.

Anyway - might point wasn't to debate the merits of this particular lawsuit I was just trying to point out that sometimes the only way to change a corporation's bad behavior is through litigation and that if a company acts reponsibly they will avoid these big legal challenges.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Growltigger:
DavidG, dunno what surveyors earn but before I met the current Mrs GT, I did go out with a rather nice young surveyor who had a very nice sports car, an expensive flat and cash to burn, as well as rather nice legs.

There is an office of surveyors next to me, and they all seem to drive rather expensive cars!

Yea things are a little different here. :-) UK surveyors are guys that examine your house before you buy it right? looking for dry rot and whatnot? Here we just dig around in the dirt and set metal bars on property corners.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

according to past Posts when the subject was Last brought up: normal coffee - 140'F Mcdonalds coffee in that incident - 180'F.

If the company sells malfunctioning products to the public and people suffer from it, the solution is simple (at least over here): The company pays for the damage it caused (and to some extend for physical pain, but seldom more then 20k €). As a punitive, we get the heads of the people responsible that such a product entered the market, be it on purpose or negligence. They will go to jail for it and no legal construct will help them.
Result: The consumer gets his damage replaced and the responsible person will get his punishment. I see absolutely no need to punish the company and all the honest people working for it by enforcing punitive damage on the company when the few people that are responsible can be punished directly. Just my 0.02$

good point, and the way i think it should work to.

[ January 29, 2004, 22:10: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[rextorres]

Originally posted by DavidG:
Rex I thought we were talking about frivolous lawsuits not ones against companies that act recklessly and criminally?

You are absolutely right, but the rhetoric from politicians equates frivolous lawsuits done by ambulance chasers with people sueing ford for knowingly selling SUVs that roll and kill people.

Anyway our legal system isn't set up to prosecute someone for a crime that isn't in the books. I don't know how it is in Germany - but here you would have to show criminal intent to prosecute in the criminal courts - the coffee guy wasn't commiting a crime so there would absolutely be know way to prosecute him.

That's why you go after the profits - because that's the only recourse we have as an average citizen.

[ January 29, 2004, 22:28: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Mephisto]

In Germany the state attorney could accuse the MD manager of "physical injury by negligence".
If the manager was required to know that it coffee was extremely hot and that the cups tend to fall over but never bothered to check, it would have been negligence. Nevertheless the intervention of a third person, in this case the victim, would probably stopped the case as it is also negligence to not put your cup on a secure surface/not drinking hot coffee while driving.

[rextorres]

Quite honestly the merits of this particular case wasn't meant to be the focus of my post - I was just trying to point out that what pundits might consider a "frivolous" lawsuit at its surface might actually have some merit once you scratch the surface and that taking away a citizen's right to sue a corporation is not a good thing.

Anyway - here is an interesting article from the wall street journal about the McD's case.

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

People can draw their own conclusions.

[Mephisto]

Ok, I see. Of course it is your good right to sue a company or person that did you harm and it should be possible to do so for the rich and poor alike. But the possibility to earn such big sums of money opens up a can of worms. People will sue you because if they win they are rich. It’s a bit like a lottery – in most cases you lose bit if you win, you win big time.
Personally I think that the responsibility of companies for its customers is taken much to far if you demand that they should protect you from every possible error you could possibly do with their products.
The sentence “He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible” really made me wonder. So what do most people think what will happen if they spill hot fluids over themselves?
Well, I think I will let the case rest. You know my feelings about this and I’m not on a crusade to make you feel the same way.