Now I completely understand America

[sling322]

 

Originally posted by Nifty:
What ever came of that?  I remember hearing about it going on, but don't remember any resolution.  

Actually the final Supreme Court decision just came down last week I think.  They decided that he is allowed to use a cart under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  I dont necessarily disagree with the decision....I just think people are overreacting thinking that all golfers are gonna try to take advantage of it.  I mean if its covered by the ADA then wouldnt the other golfers who wanted to use a cart have to have a documented disability also?  Its not like you could just show up one weekend and say "My back hurts....I wanna ride a cart this week."

[Hairball]

LOL Rip.. now that u understand America... share with us yer understanding of women.
 
 

Bye the bye.. at one time England ruled a mighty empire.. and had about 5000 lawyers. Total. Then one day they discovered they had 2 million lawyers... and no empire.

I'm wondering if we're gettin into the same boat now...

[Gadfly]

"Society has lost it's finesse"

Name the movie, win a dollar

[Karnak]

Ripsnort,

The only one of the cases that you list, that I know the real details of, that is justified was the coffee incident.

Here's why:

1:  McDonald's had recieved many (hundreds) of prior complaints about the tempature of their coffee.  The coffee was so hot, 180 degrees farenheight in fact, that it would cause 3rd degree burns within a second of contact with human skin.

2:  She was not driving.  She was a passenger in her grandson's car.  He stopped in a parking lot whereupon she went to remove the cap in order to add the cream and sugar that had been provided by McDonald's (showing that they intended the cap to be removed).

3:  She initially asked them for $20,000.00 to help with the medical bills incurred by the 3rd degree burns she received over most of her lap and thighs.  McDonald's told her to get lost.  $20,000.00 would not have cover all of the bills, it simply would have helped.

4:  She was not awarded "millions" as is most often said.  She was initially awarded a total, from both the damages and punitive, of about $750,000.00, or about 1 day's coffee profits.  The amount was reduced by a judge to about $250,000.00.

5.  Lawsuits such as this are supposed to discourage companies from releasing products that are forseeably dangerous.  It is easily forseeable that somebody will spill coffee on themselves.  McDonald's had the same liability that a auto manufactuer has when an automobile is prone to combustion in a collision.  Coffee is not being used as it is intended when it is spill on one's self, but neither is an automobile being used as intended when it is being crashed.  In both cases it is reasonble to assume these things will occur occasionally and reasonable for the manufacturer to take reasonable steps to make the product safer in such an event.  Coffee can be made safer by heating it to a tempature that is actually consumable and automobiles can be made safer by using more durable fuel tanks in more protected locations.

What it comes down to is that McDonald's knew their coffee was dangerously hot from the prior complaints and did nothing about it when it was reasonable for them to reduce the tempature by 10-20 degrees.  A large part of the jury's punitive damage penalty was due to the callous manner that McDonalds had treated her.

Those are the facts, and that's the way I see it.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak

[Dead Man Flying]

Crazy lawsuits are nothing new.  Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about the extreme litigiousness of American society way back in the 1820's.

-- Todd/DMF

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying:
Crazy lawsuits are nothing new.  Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about the extreme litigiousness of American society way back in the 1820's.

-- Todd/DMF

Yes, but he was french, and immigrated, so whats your point?  

[-lynx-]

not sure whether to trust it or not but an LA jury awarded 2 billion dollar damages to a guy dying of cancer to be paid by Philip Morris??? If it's the case (and there was a clip of a really not very brainy sounding lady juror explaining their decision attached to this news section)

 

If a woman burns her thighs on the hot coffee she was holding in her lap while driving, she blames the restaurant.

 

Karnak - let's replay this scenario replacing Macdonalds with her own kitchen (I guess you can choose different drink too as long as it's hot). Using your logic she could have sued:

a. at least 2 utility companies - water and gas/electric depending on how her stove is wired;
b. a kettle manufacturer;
c. a mug maker;
d. Nescafe for supplying the coffee so tasty that she just had to have a cuppa etc

Where does this stupidity end? Maybe the restaurant should have put some rat poison in that coffee so that the world would be rid of one more stupid? There's enough of them going around as it is... But I guess even that wouldn't work - she spilled the darn thing instead of drinking it - we are doomed!    

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: -lynx- ]

[Karnak]

lynx-,

Your counter is a "straw man" argument.  You substitute the events that happened for another set and say that because suing in the context of this other event would be stupid (I agree that it would be a idiotic lawsuit that any judge should toss out) then the other scenario is also stupid.  That doesn't fly as a logical argument though.

In your changed event the lady in question had both the control and knowedge of how hot her coffee was, thus any harm she does to herself is entirely her fault.

In the real event the lady had neither the knowedge, nor complete control over the tempature of her coffee.  True, she could have waited for it to cool off, but to know to do that requires her to know that the coffee is way, way too hot, information that she did not have.

There is also the purpose of allowing consumers to sue negligent corporations, the purpose of which is to disuade corporations from selling products that are known to be dangerous.  McDonalds knew the coffee was dangerously hot because they had received hundreds of prior complaints.  There was a cheap and easy solution to the danger, simply reduce the tempature by 10 degrees.  Instead they gambled, and when she recognized that McDonald's was partially at fault, she asked them to assist her with the medical bills (she wasn't even asking then to pay all of her medical bills, let alone for pain and suffering) and they told her to get lost.  Because of this McDonald's lost.

BTW, she did not suffer minor damage.  Her genital area was severly burned, 3rd degree burned, requiring extensive surgery.  She also had extensive 3rd and 2nd degree burns on her inner thighs.  There was lots of medical wotk.  She recognized that she was partially at fault by only asking for McDonald's to pay some of the total medical bill cost.  Only when McDonald's refused did she sue, and at that point what was asked for and awarded was really in the hands of her lawyers and the jury.

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]

[-lynx-]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree  

I don't think it takes more than a couple of brain cells to see that the coffee was hot. I am not familiar with McDonald's coffee brewing technique but normally a boiling water is used in the process. Who in his right mind would start driving with a hot coffee in his/her lap anyway??? I have to refer you to my previous statement about stupids and their abundance in the world. I think you might also add to it that there are way too many lawyers out there who finally realised that only by suing large companies you can get anywhere with the damages amounts. And those lawyers are complemented by vindictive juries who are supposed to be all neutral and impartial and stuff and are in fact (case after case) on the warpath after the Big Guys. The case should have been dismissed by a judge outright as wasting court time but hey - I guess they didn't serve him a tasty enough burger or something...

I would also be very careful about reports on injuries and how severe those are in the light of this or similar cases. There was an episode of Simpsons just on the subject... 3rd degree is the least dangerous one of burns, that is, any burn can be a third degree burn...

Under no circumstances I'm trying to say that the big corporations are whiter than white but a bit of common sense should apply in many cases when people are suing for god knows what...

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: -lynx- ]

[Ripsnort]

"There is also the purpose of allowing consumers to sue negligent corporations, the
purpose of which is to disuade corporations from selling products that are known to be dangerous."

See Lynx's post about obvious things like "Coffee=Hot"

Unfortunatly, this has been taken advantage of , via the lawyers looking to make a buck.(BAR association is today, primarily democratic)

Don't fall for the typical party line, look at it from all angles, when they tell you Corporate America is evil, then think again when you are employeed by them, have a decent retirement years from now, and enjoy the pleasures that life in America offers you, you wouldn't have those pleasures without 'Corporate America'...they employee over 1/2 the country!

[Karnak]

Ripsnort,

Yes, coffee is hot.  She knew that and did not intentonally spill the coffee on herself.

Coffee should not be so hot that it causes 3rd degree burns after less than 1 second of contact with human skin.  It is forseeable that people will accidentally spill coffee onthemselfs.  Hell, I know I've accidentally spilled drinks on myself, my dad even had a cup of gas station coffee go from the dashboard to his lap, spilling of course, while driving down the freeway.  Now, that gas station had its coffee at a hot tempature, he said it hurt, but not at a dangerous tempature.  The issue isn't whether or not coffe should be hot, it is whether or not it should be dangerously hot.  The crux of the matter is that McDonald's knew their coffe was too hot.  They had received hundereds of complaints about injuries caused by it.  The fix for the problem was both easy and cheap, just lower the tempature.  It was not something expensive and unreasonable to expect McDonald's to do to make their product a little bit safer for their customers.

Coffee is not intended to be spilled and cars are not intended to be crashed, but it is reasonable to assume that both will happen.  We expect auto manufacturers to make their products safer in the event of a crash, why should it be unreasonable for McDonald's to make sure their coffee is not dangerous when spilled?  McDonald's frankly has it easy compared to Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, ect, ect, who must spend millions of dollars devloping saftey systems.  McDonald's could simply have revised the rules in their book to have coffee heated to 165 degrees instead of 180 degrees.

-lynx-,

Agreeing to disagree seems reasonable to me.

[Ripsnort]

FYI, they were 2nd degree burns, not 3rd..big difference!

Anyway, agree to disagree.

FYI, everytime you think that Corporate America has got what they deserved (ie. laswsuits won against them) think again, its costing the consumers money.  Cost goes up when they get hit like this (not in the coffee deal, but possible the tobacco settlement?)

Anyway, I'm all for sueing big corporations on prudent issues, but hot pickles and coffee is truly the "Fleecing of America" in my eyes.

[Karnak]

Ripsnort,

I do agree that there are many, many frivilious lawsuits that are filed and go through the system without being thrown out.

I used to use the "McDonald's Coffee" case as an example, but after reading the actual facts of what happened I came to the conclusion that that one was justified.

You are correct that there are an awful lot of really, really stupid lawsuits filed by people who did stupid things, willfully stupid things, and then expect somebody else to pay for it.  Its quite a sad comment on those people, maybe even on our civilization.

I am generally skeptical of lawsuits, but they are sometimes needed.

[Staga]

Did McDonald's employee pour that coffee to that lady's "Genital areas" ?

If yes then its justified that company pays the bills.
If not... Why should someone else pay for the mistake lady did her self ?  

[Karnak]

Staga,

Did Ford crash people's Pintoes?

If she had intentionally spilled the coffee on herself I would agree with you, but she didn't.  Accidents happen and products should be made as safe as reasonably possible in the event of foreseeable accidents.

People spilling coffee on themselves is a foreseeable accident, just as cars being rear-ended is foreseeable.

Selling coffee that is 15 degrees cooler is a reasonable expectation.

If the solution to the problem cost 50 Million dollars, then it wouldn't be reasonable.  But the solution was inexpensive, they knew there was a problem, and they did nothing.  Lawsuits are designed to guard against that kind of behavior.

They are not intended to reward somebody who intentionally hurts themselves with a product or who ignores common sense repeatedly and get hurt.  Those people are just idiots and should get nothing.