Yep, you missed the point. Here is an especially relevant quote:
Quote:
In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald's behavior “callous.” Moreover, “the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.” Id.
|
Hmm... third degree burns in 2 seconds, or third degree burns in 60. I don't see how you can make a case the McDonald's was not at fault for serving coffee that was way too hot. This is especially dangerous when a large portion of it gets sold to people in vehicles... Again, the case was _never_ about spilling coffee, or being stupid, or anything like that. It was about McDonald's serving coffee that was way too hot, hence very dangerous. It is exactly the same as if the toy included in a Happy Meal was a razor blade. It is unnecessarily dangerous. Lawsuits are often the only recourse that a consumer has against a corporation that is selling products that unnecessarily endanger people. Buying coffee should not be an extremely dangerous affair, yet it was at the 180 degree threshhold. At the new 158 degree level, spilling some of the coffee on yourself will only result in minor burns, rather than those that require hospitalization. Purchasing fast food should not result in hospitalization.
Where did legislation come into this? McDonald's voluntarily lowered the temperature of their coffee. There was no law passed or court mandate requiring them to do so.
Get a thermometer and measure the temperature of that coffee you buy. I bet it won't be close to 180 degrees...
Quote:
Imperator you said that all she really wanted was money for her medical bills...and that may have been true in the begining but when she sued it certainly wasn't...in fact it wasn't even just for medical bills and legal fees but rather it was for 1 million.....
|
Not true:
Quote:
Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle.
|
She did not want one million dollars, just $20,000 to cover her medical bills.
McDonald's was selling coffee many degrees hotter than other restaraunts, without informing them that it was extremely hot. Many people had been harmed as a result of this, yet McDonald's did nothing. Something had to happen, lest their negligence cause harm to more people.
Quote:
I know your going to argue that if they had just paid her in the first place it would have been much less and in fact they had settled other similar frivolus claims out of court
|
As stated above, legal action is all that consumers have to take against companies selling unnecessarily dangerous products. There was nothing frivolous about this lawsuit. McDonald's was negligent in their service, either in serving coffee that was far too hot in the first place or in failing to inform customers that it was as hot as it was.
Quote:
The legal standard should be what can we reasonably expect I submit that we can reasonably expect coffe to be hot and that if we dump it on ourselves we can reasonably expect it to burn everything else is nonsense.
|
Causing 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds is most assuredly
not part of a resonable assumption that hot coffee is hot. It would be reasonable to expect minor burns and scalding, but not reasonable to expect hospitalization and skin therapy. There is a world of difference.
Once again, this case is not a valid example of a frivolous lawsuit. It was a perfectly legitimate, even necessary, lawsuit.
Re: OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping
Linear Mode
