How Low Will The Lawyers Go?

[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.

[Growltigger]

Mephisto, congrats on your job, hope you find real life law to be as much fun as learning it!!

My spin on this is that yes, of course companies need to be able to be sued as much as anyone else, and personally, I think company directors should be capable of being got at for their company's misdemeanors, but I agree with Mephisto.

Just because the defendant is a company, they should not have to pay inflated damages because of that. Damages need to be realistic and rational.

[Wardad]

Yes, the high damage awards can be considered punishment, and possibly an attitude correction.

Typically not everyone hurt is going to sue, so a few reasonable awards will not cause a change of behavior.

Unfortunitly, these large awards have created a circus and lottery atmosphere.

I say, let's take some of the reward out of the large awards. Donate the bulk of it to charities.

[DavidG]

When I first heard of the McD's case I had the same reaction as everyone else. Then after reading details i thought McD's was in the wrong. Now I'm not so sure.
Why shouldn't McD's be able to sell hot coffee? Many people like hot coffee. I think that when I pour boiling water into a cup at home it's likely hotter than McD's coffee. The idea that companies cannot sell products that are potentially dangerous is ridiculous. When I cut of my hand with a saw (one with a higher RPM than normal saws) or shoot myself with a gun (wich deadlier that average ammo) can I sue the maker of the saw or gun? Likely not. The reason would probably be something like it is self evident that these products can hurt you. Same should be true of hot coffee.

[Roanon]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Similarly, the coffee in that case can be best described as way too hot. Coffee should not cause third-degree burns..

Coffee should be made with hot water. The hotter, the better. Boil, then brew. So coffee can never be too hot, because hotter than boiling is steam, not coffee. If everyone only gets lukewarm coffee now because nobody wants to be sued when some idiot cannot handle it with care, you get what you deserve. Thats how I would solve the issue as shop owner. Anything else would be a too high risk - because taking the utmost possible stupidity as what I have to care for as vendor, I would otherwise risk that someone sues me next time when he slices the cup open with a knife and burns himself.

I do not agree with the lid issue. Who really expects that the lid of a cheap pLastic pot is 100% safe and tight, regardless of how rough it is handled? It is something to avoid spillage when transported, not something to enable people to drink while the cup is upside down. I think, a minimum of care when handling hot beverages should be expected - and handling hot coffee while driving is not what courts should encourage.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Roanon:

I do not agree with the lid issue. Who really expects that the lid of a cheap pLastic pot is 100% safe and tight, regardless of how rough it is handled? It is something to avoid spillage when transported, not something to enable people to drink while the cup is upside down. I think, a minimum of care when handling hot beverages should be expected - and handling hot coffee while driving is not what courts should encourage.

I'm not so sure the lid was an issue in this case. If you read Rex's link you will note that the women was removing the lid when she spilled it. But yea I agree with you.