If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Courier Mail)   Shoppers are being paid more than $100 million a year in personal injury lawsuits after they slipped on grapes at the grocery store. Still cheaper than covering the world in bubble wrap   (couriermail.com.au) divider line 78
    More: Asinine, Woodside, mats  
•       •       •

3471 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 May 2012 at 11:00 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-06 03:35:38 PM

Sum Dum Gai: The temperature coffee should be served at depends strongly on how it will be contained and consumed, because what really matters is the temperature at the time you drink it (150 to 170 degrees to avoid burns) not the temperature it was initially brewed at.


And coffee served at a 'drive-thru' has to last until the driver gets to their destination. (Unless you condone drinking while driving, which is dangerous).

She pinched the cup between her knees, reached over the cup, and pulled the far side of the lid towards her. This caused the cup to pivot and dump in her lap. if she has handled it more carefully, the spill (and resultant injury) would not have happened.

Which is why she was found partially at fault


IMO, she was totally at fault.

The reason she still received damages is because without hospitalization and skin grafting the injuries she sustained would have been fatal.

Perhaps. She had "third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent". Generally speaking, "Burns of 10% in children or 15% in adults (or greater) are potentially life threatening injuries". Without knowing the severity of the 'lesser burns', we can't tell if it would have been fatal. (First degree burns don't count.)

However, as horrible and painful as her injuries were, they were her own fault. She is the one who mis-handled the coffee. If a McDonalds employee had spilled the coffee, or had McDonalds knowingly used defective cups, then I would agree that McDonalds was responsible.
 
2012-05-06 03:57:17 PM

fredklein: McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80-90 °C (176-194 °F), relying on more sternly-worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.


I knew I should have looked that up.

fredklein: had McDonalds knowingly used defective cups, then I would agree that McDonalds was responsible


They did improve the packaging and warning, indicating that the lawsuit did cause them to revise their policies, which is, in effect, a recognition of their culpability. They'd had something like 700 prior hot coffee lawsuits, so it is likely that they knew that something was wrong.
 
2012-05-06 04:13:27 PM

jules_siegel: They did improve the packaging and warning,


They increased the size of "Caution: HOT" printed on the cups. Big whup.

They'd had something like 700 prior hot coffee lawsuits, so it is likely that they knew that something was wrong.

As pointed out already, those 700 burns (of all degrees) were out of hundreds of millions of cups sold. Only one cup out of 24,000,000 resulted in a burn. The other 23,999,999 didn't.

By way of comparison, there are about 156,000 injuries in bathtubs and showers. Per year. A mere 700 burns over 10 years is, statistically speaking, nothing.
 
2012-05-06 04:39:01 PM

fredklein: A mere 700 burns over 10 years is, statistically speaking, nothing.


There were 700 lawsuits, not 700 injuries. In order to make a valid comparison you would have to calculate how many baths and showers are taken daily.

They also made the packaging heavier and more rigid. It was not originally suitable for mobile use.

Go ahead and defend McDonald's and corporate America. They are definitely on your side. Which is what exactly?
 
2012-05-06 04:55:52 PM

fredklein: "McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee... [in] cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability"


Relevant part. The suit wasn't just "your coffee's too hot" but "your flimsy cheap-ass cups melt when you put your lava-temp coffee into it".
 
2012-05-06 04:58:48 PM

fredklein: had McDonalds knowingly used defective cups, then I would agree that McDonalds was responsible

fredklein: McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee... [in] cups made of rigid foam


'nuff said.
 
2012-05-06 05:25:23 PM
If it weren't my fault, if I were just minding my own business buying groceries and I fell, damn straight I'd sue.

And you have to go above and beyond what you would think is reasonable compensation for something like this. You don't know what lingering after-effects you might have to deal with for the rest of your life. And with the way the healthcare industry is, treatment gets expensive real quick.

/is all for taking money from businesses, for individuals
//not a logical argument, doesn't have to be
 
2012-05-06 05:57:46 PM

jules_siegel: There were 700 lawsuits, not 700 injuries.


"Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000." -wiki

"It was learned that McDonald's was aware of more than 700 claims brought against it between 1982 and 1992 due to people being burned by its coffee." -http://www.thehoustonlawyer.com/aa_july07/page24.htm

You have a cite as to these 700 lawsuits?

They also made the packaging heavier and more rigid. It was not originally suitable for mobile use.

Cite?

Oh, and if it "was not originally suitable for mobile use", how was it used... mobiley... for so long with so few problems??

Go ahead and defend McDonald's and corporate America.

In this case, I do. And I don't require or request your permission to do so.

They are definitely on your side. Which is what exactly?

What side am I on? The side of truth. What side are you on?
 
2012-05-06 06:06:45 PM

Theaetetus: fredklein: "McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee... [in] cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability"

Relevant part. The suit wasn't just "your coffee's too hot" but "your flimsy cheap-ass cups melt when you put your lava-temp coffee into it".


1) There is nothing to indicate what their cups were made of before. If I "had a bunch of car accidents, but now rely on driving my Ford more carefully", that doesn't mean my car was/wasn't a Ford before.

2) If the cups were so flimsy, why were there so few injuries?

3) There was no accusation made about the cup "melting".

4) The coffee was 185 °F. Lava is a liquid at temperatures from 1,292 to 2,192 °F. Exaggerate much??

/where's that Captain Hyperbole picture when you need it?
 
2012-05-06 06:09:30 PM

Theaetetus: fredklein: had McDonalds knowingly used defective cups, then I would agree that McDonalds was responsible
fredklein: McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee... [in] cups made of rigid foam

'nuff said.


There was nothing in the Liebeck case regarding the cups being defective.
 
2012-05-06 07:05:12 PM
I used to work as a personal injury firm about 15 years ago. While there, the majority of slip & fall claims we handled were a direct result of mis-aimed misting units spraying a light coating of water on the floor, instead of exclusively on the produce. So the store created the hazardous condition and an unsuspecting shopper would miss the small amount of water on the floor and slip on it and injury themselves.

About four or five years ago, most supermarkets (at least around here) started using floor mats in the produce section as a cheap means to protect shoppers from this commonly occurring issue, and shoppers are safer for it. Had the supermarkets been immune from these claims there would have been little motivation for them to make the produce section safer. It is just sad that it took them so long to start using the mats.
 
2012-05-06 07:46:39 PM
My wife slipped, fell on a grape with injury. The store didn't even cover her trip to urgent care. They told her "as long as we adhere to our cleaning schedule we aren't liable for any slip and fall injuries."

She got the same advice from a lawyer. She missed 3 days of work and had to pay out of pocket for the MD visit.

I guess the gravy train doesn't stop in California anymore.
 
2012-05-06 10:03:48 PM
I haven't read the thread yet, but my mom slipped on a grape in 1996 in Food4Less in Allentown. She sprained her wrist in the process, banged up her knee, tweaked her back. Didn't seem all that bad at first. Went to an urgent care center, where they diagnosed the sprained wrist, sprained knee, but couldn't diagnose anything with her back.

At the urging of family and friends, she contacted a lawyer. Lawyer took the case, said it was cut and dry, guaranteed to get her medical bills paid, blah blah blah. Two years later, the case finally made it in front of a judge, where the lawyer decided then that maybe it wouldn't be a good idea for him to represent Mom anymore, since, ya know, he was marrying the daughter of the store's CEO. Oh, and Mom still owed him for all the legal bills to that point. At that point, Mom lost all faith in lawyers.

My mom is turning 50 this year. She needs a knee replacement, but she's too young. She has a herniated disk, but it's not bad enough to need surgery. Her wrist healed, though, so she's got that going for her. She's dealt with depression and suicide attempts. She had to leave her job at a state hospital because of her injuries and basically is unemployable at this point because she can't stand for long periods of time (due to her knee), can't sit for long periods of time (because of her back), can't walk without pain, and lifting is straight out of the question. Dad has had to work two full-time jobs constantly to support her and my siblings.

So if any of you farkers sit there and say, "Blah blah grapes don't cause injury, hurr hurr these people are faking it," then fark you very much.
 
2012-05-07 12:05:45 AM
Injury lawsuits should be limited to financial loss (medical expenses, lost work etc.) and a cap on pain and suffering of $250 a day not to exceed $50k
 
2012-05-07 12:48:06 AM
My mother worked at a sub-contractor doing inventory for Disney. She was about one and a half stories high on a ladder when the ladder collapsed in half under her and she fell to the ground causing bad injury. She was told to get up because if they called 911 she would lose her job and disney would cancel the contract.

She was pulled to her feet then into an office chair and wheeled away. She later sued and was awarded $5,000. The ladder was trashed and thrown away and was not available for view during the trial. Her lawyer, a big ambulance chaser, Jacobs and Goodman (who no longer exists) refused to sue Disney, and didnt even get her a settlement to cover her future medical expenses.

She is currently unable to walk because of her injuries many years later.. that 5 grand did her a crapload of good. My mother may not have deserved a huge settlement but all medical costs due to her injury for life should have been covered.
 
2012-05-07 08:50:53 AM
birdistasty:

My mom is turning 50 this year. She needs a knee replacement, but she's too young.

I'd get a second opinion. My mom is 55 and has had 3 of them so far - she tore her knees up being on ski patrol for many, many years. She was in so much pain beforehand - I send your mom warm thoughts.
 
2012-05-07 09:14:15 AM

fredklein:
2) If the cups were so flimsy, why were there so few injuries?
3) There was no accusation made about the cup "melting".

fredklein:
There was nothing in the Liebeck case regarding the cups being defective.


From the Stella Liebeck complaint:
C. The coffee was defectively manufactured, served in a container that had design defects, and the coffee itself was manufactured defectively due to excessive heat; further, the container that it was sold in had no warnings, or had a lack of warnings, rendering the product defectively marketed;

Myth Busted.

And let us not forget:
fredklein: had McDonalds knowingly used defective cups, then I would agree that McDonalds was responsible

Sorry, Fred. Actual quotations disagree with your shilling. Ever going to "agree that McDonalds was responsible"? Of course not... your paycheck's on the line, I'm sure.
 
2012-05-07 12:36:10 PM

Theaetetus: From the Stella Liebeck complaint:
C. The coffee was defectively manufactured, served in a container that had design defects, and the coffee itself was manufactured defectively due to excessive heat; further, the container that it was sold in had no warnings, or had a lack of warnings, rendering the product defectively marketed;

Myth Busted.


Cite?

"Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient." - wikipedia

"McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80-90 °C (176-194 °F), relying on more sternly-worded warnings on cups..."-wiki (can't have "more sternly-worded warnings", if there weren't original warnings to be "more stern" than)

Your little 'quote' claims the cup "had no warnings", when it clearly did.

I don't like liars.

Also, you neglect the fact that she was pinching the cup between her knees. ANY cup, when held like that (one might say "held negligently like that"), will be unstable. Also, she reached OVER the cup to pull the lid from the far side. Again- her negligent action. Had she pulled the lid from the side, it would not have pivoted and dumped. Had she pulled up the near side of the lid, it might have dumped... on the floor of the car.

It was her actions that led to her injuries.


Sorry, Fred. Actual quotations disagree with your shilling. Ever going to "agree that McDonalds was responsible"? Of course not... your paycheck's on the line, I'm sure.


Again, the case was not about the cups- it was about the temp of the coffee.

In any case, even IF (and it's a big if!) the coffee was indeed "served in a container that had design defects"- you have not proven that McDonalds knew about those defects. What I said (and you conveniently edited out) was "had McDonalds knowingly used defective cups, then I would agree that McDonalds was responsible". (I bolded it, so you wouldn't miss it this time.)

And I don't work for McDonalds, you idiot.

Oh, and A little research found the following:

http://abnormaluse.com/2011/01/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-hot-coffee.ht m l

Lets look at sections B and D, as well as the section C you quoted.

B. The product in question, coffee, was and is routinely sold and manufactured by the Defendants, and it reached Plaintiff in the same condition as it was at the time of the sale; further, Plaintiff in no way is guilty of any fault and the Defendants are strictly liable to Plaintiff under the Restatement of Torts Second, §402(a);
...
D. The producing cause of Stella Liebeck's injuries was the exclusive fault of the Defendants;


"Plaintiff in no way is guilty of any fault"? "exclusive fault of the Defendants"? She spilled the coffee on herself!!

Thus, we can already see that is filled with lies. But let's see McDonalds reply:

...McDonald's asserted the following affirmative defenses:

SECOND DEFENSE

If the Plaintiff was injured and damaged as alleged, then her injuries and damages were the result of her own negligence or of the negligence of a third person or party for whom this Defendant may not be held responsible.
...


Which is perfectly true. By spilling the coffee on herself, "her injuries and damages were the result of her own negligence".

In its memorandum in support of its post trial motions, filed on August 29, 1994, McDonald's argued as follows:

There can be no doubt that potable coffee is, by its very nature, hot. The evidence in this case establishes that there is nothing unique about McDonald's coffee in this regard: although billions of cups of coffee are consumed without incident every year, all restaurateurs serve coffee at temperatures high enough to cause third-degree burns under certain conditions. Indeed, the courts of New Mexico have cited coffee spillage (not service) as a classic example of a negligent act, presumably because this sort of accident so often has consequences serious enough to merit the law's attention. The scalding potential of coffee is so well understood that the courts almost take it for granted.


"the courts of New Mexico have cited coffee spillage (not service) as a classic example of a negligent act"- thus it was Stella's own negligent act that led to her injuries.


You (falsely) accuse me of working for McDonalds, and thus being biased. Yet, I use facts and simple logic to support my case. What accounts for your bias? You cherry-pick quotes, make false allegations with no evidence, refuse to look at the facts, and... you know what? Nevermind. You're set in your ways and won't change, and no one else is probably following this anymore. Good luck on your anti-corporation, anti-personal responsibility crusade.
 
2012-05-07 01:04:56 PM

FarksResidentFeminist: I'd get a second opinion. My mom is 55 and has had 3 of them so far - she tore her knees up being on ski patrol for many, many years. She was in so much pain beforehand - I send your mom warm thoughts.


I've asked her several times to come down our way (to the Philly area) to see the Rothman Institute - they're one of the best orthopedist firms in the area, and they're the team doctors for all of the Philly sports teams, so they deal with younger patients. She snapped at me the last time I asked her to make an appointment. That was a year ago last summer when she promised she'd see someone about it.

I haven't brought it up since.
 
2012-05-07 01:43:11 PM

fredklein: Theaetetus: From the Stella Liebeck complaint:
C. The coffee was defectively manufactured, served in a container that had design defects, and the coffee itself was manufactured defectively due to excessive heat; further, the container that it was sold in had no warnings, or had a lack of warnings, rendering the product defectively marketed;

Myth Busted.

Cite?


Perhaps you missed the From the Stella Liebeck complaint part. That's the citation. I'm sorry, did you want APA form or some thing?

Your little 'quote' claims the cup "had no warnings", when it clearly did.

I don't like liars.


My little 'quote' claims the cup had "no warnings, or had a lack of warnings," the latter phrase meaning insufficient warnings. In other words, existing warnings that weren't enough, just like the jury found.

But I notice you removed that part of the quote, since it directly contradicts your statement. If you don't like liars, then why are you being one?

Also, you neglect the fact that she was pinching the cup between her knees.

I'm not neglecting anything. Once more, Fred:
1. The complaint claims the cup was defectively designed.
2. McDonald's redesigned their cups to be thicker foam.
3. You said that you would admit and agree that McDonald's was responsible if the cup was defective.

and now...
4. You're blaming her knees.

I don't like liars either, Fred.

In any case, even IF (and it's a big if!) the coffee was indeed "served in a container that had design defects"- you have not proven that McDonalds knew about those defects. What I said (and you conveniently edited out) was "had McDonalds knowingly used defective cups, then I would agree that McDonalds was responsible". (I bolded it, so you wouldn't miss it this time.)

So you agree that the issue of defective cups was in the case? Contrary to what you claimed previously when you said "there was nothing in the Liebeck case regarding the cups being defective"?
Just trying to make sure we're all on the same page, and not letting you slip out of a falsehood.

And I don't work for McDonalds, you idiot.

Never said you did. I think it's likely you do work for an insurance company, however.

And finally:
Oh, and A little research found the following:
http://abnormaluse.com/2011/01/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-hot-coffee.ht m l
Lets look at sections B and D, as well as the section C you quoted... "Plaintiff in no way is guilty of any fault"? "exclusive fault of the Defendants"? She spilled the coffee on herself!!


Learn to read, Fred. That's the complaint. McDonald's gets a chance to respond. My point in quoting it was not to show that it was true, but that it raises the issue of the allegedly defective design of the cup... an issue that you said was never raised. Whoops.

You (falsely) accuse me of working for McDonalds, and thus being biased.

I never once said or implied you work for McDonalds. Rather, I'm saying and implying you work for an organization that has a financial interest in stifling even legitimate product liability claims, such as an insurance company. And yes, I'm accusing you of being biased.

Yet, I use facts and simple logic to support my case.

Like "there was nothing in the Liebeck case regarding the cups being defective"? That's the opposite of a fact, as you even confirmed when you quoted the complaint above, so I wouldn't go throwing stones about liars.
 
2012-05-07 02:44:31 PM
One more response before i have to go to work:

Perhaps you missed the From the Stella Liebeck complaint part. That's the citation. I'm sorry, did you want APA form or some thing?

How about a link to the document?

My little 'quote' claims the cup had "no warnings, or had a lack of warnings," the latter phrase meaning insufficient warnings.

In other words, existing warnings that weren't enough, just like the jury found.


And they found incorrectly.

Again, I point out that for every idiot who burned themselves, 23,999,999 managed not to. If the cups were "defective", if the warnings "weren't enough", then why didn't 23,999,999 out of 24,000,000 people hurt themselves?

I'm not neglecting anything. Once more, Fred:
1. The complaint claims the cup was defectively designed.
2. McDonald's redesigned their cups to be thicker foam.
3. You said that you would admit and agree that McDonald's was responsible if the cup was defective.

and now...
4. You're blaming her knees.


1) You're right, there is mention that the coffee was "served in a container that had design defects". See, when I am wrong, I admit it. However, those supposed design defects were not the crux of the case, and were never proven.

2) Again, while McDonalds is said to be "relying on more sternly-worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability", that does not necessarily mean the foam was not rigid to begin with. (And it was "rigid", not "thicker".)

3) Again (see a pattern here? you keep ignoring what I write), I said "had McDonalds knowingly used defective cups, then I would agree that McDonalds was responsible". You have proven a a defect in the cups was alleged, but you have not shown that said defect was ever proven, or that McDonalds had knowledge about it.

4) I'm blaming her careless handling of the cup for the spill and the injuries that resulted from the spill, yes.

I don't like liars either, Fred

Good thing I'm not lying, then.

I think it's likely you do work for an insurance company, however.

Nope. I'm in an unrelated field. I don't deal in legal matters, and the only coffee I deal with is in the break room (can't stand the stuff).

That's the complaint.

And it was full of lies. Lies like "Plaintiff in no way is guilty of any fault" and "exclusive fault of the Defendants". Gee, if they lie about stuff like that, think maybe they lied about the cups being defective???

I'm saying and implying you work for an organization that has a financial interest in stifling even legitimate product liability claims, such as an insurance company.

And you are wrong.

By that same logic, you work for (or ARE) an ambulance-chasing lawyer.

And yes, I'm accusing you of being biased.

Of course I'm biased. I'm biased against stupid people who injure themselves and then blame everyone else.

If a McDonalds employee had handled the coffee negligently, spilling it on her, and she was injured, then I would agree with the lawsuit.

If McDonalds had knowingly(!) used defective cups, and the defect caused her injury, then I would agree with the lawsuit.

If McDonalds had their coffee at a significantly higher temps than other places, and the temp caused her injury (say by melting the cup), then I would agree with the lawsuit.

HOWEVER, NONE OF THESE IS TRUE. The spill was NOT caused by a McDonalds employee, the coffee cup defect, while alleged, was NOT proven, and the coffee WAS at comparable temps to other establishments.

Stella spilled the coffee on herself. That is no one else's fault.
 
2012-05-07 03:02:40 PM

fredklein: the coffee cup defect, while alleged, was NOT proven


[Citation needed]

AFAIK, the jury decision was based at least partially on the design defect.
 
2012-05-07 07:22:24 PM

Theaetetus: fredklein: the coffee cup defect, while alleged, was NOT proven

[Citation needed]


You're the one with the details of the complaint.

Wiki says only "A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[16] Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. " - no mention of a defective cup, only a too-small warning.

...and no other site or reference I see says anything about the cups being found defective. I know absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but on practical level, if it happened, it should be noted somewhere.

AFAIK, the jury decision was based at least partially on the design defect.

The jury decision was based on emotion.

The Wall Street Journal
September 1, 1994
A Matter of Degree: How a Jury Decided That a Coffee Spill Is Worth $2.9 Million

...At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens says he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."
...
What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and of her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and
daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror Jack Elliott.


They were thinking logically at the beginning (why were we needed "to settle a coffee spill"), but then were shown "gruesome photographs" of this poor little old lady's injuries, and then felt sorry for her.
They were informed of "700 reports of coffee burns", but either were not informed of the context (700 burns nationwide, over 10 years. Amounted to 1 burn for every 24,000,000 cups sold), or chose to ignore it. They then showed an obvious lack of knowledge regarding statistics:

Dr. Knaff told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the
billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually.
To jurors, Dr. Knaff seemed to be saying that the graphic photos they had seen of Mrs. Liebeck's burns didn't matter because they were rare. "There was a person behind every number and I don't think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that," says juror Betty Farnham.


I think it's obvious that they were 'thinking' with their emotions by that point. Blame a company pointing out statistics because they aren't "attaching enough importance" to the individual data points?? That's what statistics are- "The practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities." Not looking at the details- looking at the Big Picture. Don't get me wrong- the details can be important in other contexts. But when someone gives you an aerial tour of a forest, you don't complain they didn't 'attach enough importance' to every individual tree.
 
2012-05-07 09:31:24 PM

fredklein: Theaetetus: fredklein: the coffee cup defect, while alleged, was NOT proven

[Citation needed]

You're the one with the details of the complaint.


Again, you don't understand the difference between a complaint and a verdict. Really, shouldn't your employers teach you this stuff? It would make your astroturf so much more believable.

"...At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens says he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."

They were thinking logically at the beginning (why were we needed "to settle a coffee spill"), but then were shown "gruesome photographs" of this poor little old lady's injuries, and then felt sorry for her...
I think it's obvious that they were 'thinking' with their emotions by that point.


On the contrary, at that point, they were actually thinking in terms of the facts of the case. They were thinking with their gut emotions originally when they had no idea why they needed to be there, having no knowledge of the specific facts of the case... which, incidentally, is the same story you're pushing on everyone: "forget the facts, forget the details, ignore reality - this is about 'personal responsibility' and other buzzwords." Maybe they taught you that in business school, but people are smarter than to fall for that sort of misdirection.
 
2012-05-07 11:00:36 PM

Theaetetus: You're the one with the details of the complaint.

Again, you don't understand the difference between a complaint and a verdict.


So, you have the details of the complaint, but not the verdict? What kind of ambulance-chasing-wannabe are you??

Really, shouldn't your employers teach you this stuff?

Why would my employers teach me that? They just want me to sit here, answer the phones, and solve people's computer problems. I work in tech support, you see.

On the contrary, at that point, they were actually thinking in terms of the facts of the case.

What the fark are you talking about? 'They were thinking more logically after being shown the gruesome crotch burn photographs.' Yeah, right. Because when people want to think clearly, they immediately look at third degree burns.

the same story you're pushing on everyone: "forget the facts, forget the details, ignore reality - this is about 'personal responsibility' and other buzzwords."

1) "'personal responsibility'" is not a buzzword. There are two kinds of people in this world- those who were raised right and accept responsibility for their actions, and those like you, who seek to blame others. Spill coffee on yourself? Sue the restaurant because they didn't warn you enough about how hot it was. Crash your car? Sue the manufacturer because the pedals were 1/2" to close together. Get shocked while using the hair dryer in the shower? Sue because the warning not to do that was 'too small'. Blow yourself up while juggling bottles of nitroglycerine while standing on a rickety stepladder? Sue, because the ladder didn't have a warning not to do that.

But never take responsibility for your own actions.

And it's sad. And infuriating.

I was on a jury case many years ago. Long story (you can find the details online if you care), but it involved a man who was walking diagonally down the street in the middle of the block, who got hit by a reversing car. The driver had checked her mirrors, and had twisted to look out the rear window as she backed up. But, because he was out in the middle of the street, in the middle of the block, where no one expects a pedestrian to be, he was in her blind spot, and she didn't see him.

My opinion was: 'He left the crosswalk, he admits he wasn't paying attention, it's 100% his fault. She took reasonable precautions before backing up, it's 0% her fault. She owes him nothing.'

What's your opinion? Lemme guess- 'It doesn't matter it was all his fault, she owes him a lot of money', right?

2) YOU are the one ignoring the facts.

FACT: she spilled the coffee on herself, due to her careless handling of it
FACT: McDonalds had their coffee at the same temp as other places

YOU are the one bringing up irrelevancies like the accusation the cup was defective.

You want to continue this discussion? Debate the FACTS. Don't muddy the issue with irrelevancies. Don't make wild accusations about me being a shill. Debate the facts.
 
2012-05-07 11:06:04 PM
BTW, Weird Al made a song about you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeXQBHLIPcw
 
2012-05-08 01:38:36 PM

fredklein: You want to continue this discussion? Debate the FACTS. Don't muddy the issue with irrelevancies


... says the man who raises his opinion that the jury was thinking emotionally.

Fred, you have no understanding of what facts even are. It's useless to debate this topic with you, particularly because in the many times we've been over this, you lie about the existence of actual facts in the case (e.g. whether her car was moving, whether design defects in the cup were an issue in the case, the settlement offer for medical bills, etc.). I've also shredded every single point you've raised with citations to actual case law: the "industry standards" argument, the contributory negligence argument that is inapplicable, etc.

Between the lies and the constant personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you, it's obvious you have a serious agenda, particularly with how infrequently you post in any other thread.

You're not even amusing, like SkinnyHead.

You want to continue this discussion? Then how about debating actual facts, like the defective cup issue, without simply claiming everything other than your facts are either "not facts" or are "irrelevant". Otherwise, you're just a waste of time.
 
2012-05-08 06:07:20 PM

Theaetetus: fredklein: You want to continue this discussion? Debate the FACTS. Don't muddy the issue with irrelevancies

... says the man who raises his opinion that the jury was thinking emotionally.


Well, they sure as hell didn't use logic.

you lie about the existence of actual facts in the case (e.g. whether her car was moving, whether design defects in the cup were an issue in the case, the settlement offer for medical bills, etc.)

To the contrary- I have actually corrected other posters misconceptions as to some of these.
*The car was Not moving- it was parked in the parking lot. I have never claimed otherwise.
*The design defects were claimed (along with other things shown to be lies, as mentioned before), but never proven, and weren't a big enough part of the case to be reported by... anybody.
*The settlement offer for medical bills? Stella wanted $20,000. Her medical expenses were ~$11,000. Thus, she wanted more than just her medical expenses. This is not in dispute.

I fail to see any "lies".

I've also shredded every single point you've raised with citations to actual case law: the "industry standards" argument, the contributory negligence argument that is inapplicable, etc.

ctrl-F, "industry standards" - no results found on this page

Between the lies and the constant personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you, it's obvious you have a serious agenda, particularly with how infrequently you post in any other thread.

Personal attacks? You're the one calling me a shill for either McDonalds or the Insurance industry, and thus implying I'm lying. I take offense at that.

And talk about lies...

Your 45 posts in last 15 days:
(Some Guy)
last post 2012-05-08 [Main] How does NASA deal with a UFO coverup conspiracy charge? By taking away all those cool toys the public gets to play with (1 post of 85) (+1)
(Some Guy)
last post 2012-05-07 [Main] Shoppers are being paid more than $100 million a year in personal injury lawsuits after they slipped on grapes at the grocery store. Still cheaper than covering the world in bubble wrap (12 posts of 77)
(Some Guy)
last post 2012-05-06 [Main] Trying to acquire drugs legally can get you arrested too (2 posts of 156)
(NW Florida Daily News)
last post 2012-05-05 [Main] Most awesome response ever after a cop asks for a man's ID just because he was walking through a neighborhood known as a high-crime area: "(Expletive) you, that's for you to figure out" (1 post of 323)
(SFGate)
last post 2012-05-04 [Main] Captured documents from the Bin Laden raid revealed plans for a "human lawnmower," which involved ramming a truck outfitted with spinning blades into crowds of people. No word on development of rocket skates or green bat suit (2 posts of 100)
(NJ.com)
last post 2012-05-04 [Main] If you're waiting for a commuter train and someone asks what's on your mind, don't say, "Just wondering what a grenade attack on Times Square would look like." Just say, "Nothing" (1 post of 60)
(Some Guy)
last post 2012-05-01 [Main] Try to pass a real $50 bill at a Quick Mart in Tennessee? That's a jailin' (1 post of 190)
(BBC)
last post 2012-04-29 [Main] London council to residents: "Thanks for all your complaints about drug addicts causing problems. Due to an administrative error we have given your names and phone numbers to the drug addicts....we're good though, right?" (1 post of 73)
(CBC)
last post 2012-04-29 [Main] Jury finds that cop who beat up a legally blind doctor, from behind and without provocation, is a total prick. Bonus: police internal affairs cleared the cop and recommend the man be charged after defending himself (1 post of 166) (+1)
(nbc philadelphia)
last post 2012-04-28 [Main] Finders, keepers / Losers, weepers.... as long as there's no security camera (3 posts of 85)
(Some Guy)
last post 2012-04-26 [Main] Family misses flight after TSA agents have an aggressive grope with their 7-year-old daughter. Bonus: The would-be terrorist has cerebral palsy (15 posts of 348) (+3)
(BBC)
last post 2012-04-25 [Main] When life gives you lemons make lemonade. When life gives you a kebab, use it to stem the flow of blood from your neck (1 post of 25)
(Some Guy)
last post 2012-04-24 [Main] Four year old hugs her grandma and then gets an extra special hug from the TSA (1 post of 236)
(WISHTV)
last post 2012-04-24 [Main] Police would like to remind people searching a major highway for money that "finders keepers" doesn't apply when the cash was stolen from a bank (3 posts of 52)


...but I "infrequently" post in any other thread. Riiiight.

As for my "agenda"- I simply don't like people who don't accept responsibility for their actions.

You want to continue this discussion? Then how about debating actual facts, like the defective cup issue, without simply claiming everything other than your facts are either "not facts" or are "irrelevant". Otherwise, you're just a waste of time.

There is no "defective cup issue". As you pointed out, the Complaint does indeed allege that "The coffee was defectively manufactured, served in a container that had design defects", but that is the last you hear of any such defect. Considered they also allege things like "Plaintiff in no way is guilty of any fault " and "the producing cause of Stella Liebeck's injuries was the exclusive fault of the Defendants", when she actually spilled it on herself, that Complaint needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

YOU are the one who claimed "AFAIK, the jury decision was based at least partially on the design defect.", without offering any evidence.

Unless, of course, you are referring to the size of the 'Caution: HOT' warning printed on the cup as a "design defect". If so, you should be more clear. And, if that is the case, then I will admit that the jury did indeed find that "the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient". (Of course, there is plenty of evidence that customers don't read signs/warnings/etc., no matter what the size. See the forums on Customerssuck.com for numerous examples, but that's getting off point.)
 
Displayed 28 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report