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.

(Cracked)   We all have heard about frivolous lawsuits that make us laugh, but here are 5 famous ones that really did not happen   (cracked.com) divider line 16
    More: Interesting, frivolous litigation, bladder control, Mouseketeer, retrials, Disney characters, breathing difficulties, Judith Haimes  
•       •       •

18458 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jun 2013 at 3:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-16 03:16:26 PM
4 votes:
How about the lawsuits everyone remembers incorrectly? Like the McDonald's Hot Coffee lawsuit. Everyone thinks the old lady was careless with her coffee and spilled it all over herself, then sued McDonalds, and then a gullible jury awarded her millions of dollars she actually collected. It always stuns me that the majority of people would never think that a big innocent corporation like McDonalds would be at fault in the lawsuit.
2013-06-16 12:00:29 PM
3 votes:
"Laugh" is not a word that comes to mind with Cracked.
2013-06-16 03:59:33 PM
2 votes:

skinink: How about the lawsuits everyone remembers incorrectly? Like the McDonald's Hot Coffee lawsuit. Everyone thinks the old lady was careless with her coffee and spilled it all over herself, then sued McDonalds, and then a gullible jury awarded her millions of dollars she actually collected. It always stuns me that the majority of people would never think that a big innocent corporation like McDonalds would be at fault in the lawsuit.


1. She was careless
2. She did spill it all over herself
3. She did sue
4. She did win because a gullible jury believe the coffee was too hot

and 5. the coffee was served at the correct temperature.

The popular conception of the McDonalds suit is exactly correct.
2013-06-16 03:10:20 PM
2 votes:
I like cracked.

I guess that makes me inferior to all of your tastes then huh?

seriously though, watch some of their after hours vids and come back and tell me cracked sucks.
2013-06-16 05:49:32 PM
1 votes:
TonyDanza:
Errr...yeah, I'm with the "but that is what happened" folks.  She bought hot coffee (not hotter than coffee is supposed to be brewed at), put it in her lap, and spilled it.  She then sued, and was awarded a total of $2.9 mil.  The only part that you don't mention, and many people may not realize, is that the judge did reduce the amount awarded to $680,000.  However, that dollar amount is likely incorrect too, since Mcdonalds settled for an undisclosed amount, so nobody really knows how much she ended up getting.

Stick your shlong in water hot enough to melt the skin off.  Now, once you've finished screaming like a little pussy come here and explain to us in graphic detail exactly how much 3rd degree burns (that is all 3 major layers of skin just melted off) to an area with that many nerve endings hurts.  For added 'female effect' pull a pair of pantyhose over your shlong so the nylon can melt in to your flesh as well.

Should coffee be hot?  Yes.  Should coffee be hot enough to scold?  Yes.  Should coffee be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns?  No actually it shouldn't.
2013-06-16 05:44:27 PM
1 votes:

skinink:  It always stuns me that the majority of people would never think that a big innocent corporation like McDonalds would be at fault in the lawsuit.



That's probably because McDonalds paid a lot of money to make sure people would remember that case in that manner.  Actually there's no probably about it. They did spent a lot of money to make sure people think of that case as a frivolous lawsuit instead of the culmination of several years of them screwing around AND being warned by authorities for doing so.

It's why when anyone tries the line "Do you really think company X cares about what people say about them?" the answer is always: Yes, yes they do.  So much that they will spend a great deal of time, effort and money to defend themselves.
2013-06-16 05:23:41 PM
1 votes:

Last Man on Earth: Yankees Team Gynecologist: YoungLochinvar: So if the entire industry is serving a dangerous product, that's somehow ok?

Not if it really is "dangerous." But in this case it wasn't.

That was a question for the jury to decide, and they disagreed with you.  You must be very familiar with negligence law to know better without seeing any of the evidence presented.  Can you also make better calls than an umpire without ever seeing the actual play?

Food and drink are regularly served at burn-causing temperatures.  McDonalds, Starbucks, etc. still serve coffee at 180+.  It was, and still is, understood that you need to consume carefully, even if it means waiting a while.  This is perfectly acceptable, and there are all kinds of valid reasons for having it start that hot, like wanting to add milk without it becoming lukewarm.

YoungLochinvar: As far as settlements - they just show that McDonalds knew the product could cause harm to consumers.

And they still know their coffee CAN cause harm, just like matches, light bulbs, and chain saws. So what?

So there's a reason those things have warning labels, that's so what.  Some of them may seem stupid, but it's important to have them just so you can say people were warned.  Those prior settlements demonstrate occasions where a potential problem was brought to their attention, and they just threw money to make the people go away, while doing nothing to either look into any issues or even warn their customers of the risk.  As a matter of law, that's practically the definition of negligence.  It wasn't necessarily conclusive, but combined with their subsequent dicking with the machine, it was definitely persuasive evidence.


In the hot coffee case, the cups did have warnings on them (but the jury found them "insufficiently large" or something), and there's also the common knowledge that hot coffee is hot. I mean, at some point, we have to fall back on common knowledge - cars don't have "don't stand in front of car when it is in motion" printed on the front bumper.

/insert mandatory "dodge" joke here
2013-06-16 05:02:13 PM
1 votes:

YoungLochinvar: So if the entire industry is serving a dangerous product, that's somehow ok?


Not if it really is "dangerous." But in this case it wasn't.

Food and drink are regularly served at burn-causing temperatures.  McDonalds, Starbucks, etc. still serve coffee at 180+.  It was, and still is, understood that you need to consume carefully, even if it means waiting a while.  This is perfectly acceptable, and there are all kinds of valid reasons for having it start that hot, like wanting to add milk without it becoming lukewarm.

YoungLochinvar: As far as settlements - they just show that McDonalds knew the product could cause harm to consumers.


And they still know their coffee CAN cause harm, just like matches, light bulbs, and chain saws. So what?
2013-06-16 04:50:56 PM
1 votes:

gibbon1: It does if you can prove for instance that the manufacturer didn't temper the steel correctly and knew their hammers had a tendency to throw splinters.


But, McDonalds served the coffee correctly, according to industry standards. So that's irrelevant.

I also don't see why prior burn settlements are relevant to actual right or wrong. Settlements often happen just to avoid inconvenience.
2013-06-16 04:31:56 PM
1 votes:

zamboni: Speaker2Animals: "Laugh" is not a word that comes to mind with Cracked.

I find that "ennui" isn't too far off the mark. (Featured Partner)


Isn't Enwii the new Nintendo console?

/I love Super Mario Weltschmerz.
2013-06-16 03:41:24 PM
1 votes:

Lord Dimwit: I don't know how I feel about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit, honestly. McDonald's served coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns in seven seconds, but that is within the recommended range for coffee temperatures and McDonald's and other coffee vendors serve coffee as hot or hotter today. She wouldn't have been burned so badly if she had worn different pants that wouldn't have absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin. So...yeah. I really don't think McDonald's is to blame there, if the temperature they served their coffee at was and is considered "normal".


For me the two things that make that case not outrageous are. The old lady was only suing for actual damages, 28k in medical bills or some such. No pain and suffering. McDonald's lawyers showed up in court totally unprepared and were massive pricks. In response the jury let em have it with both barrels. okay.jpg
2013-06-16 03:31:00 PM
1 votes:

Dumb-Ass-Monkey: skinink: How about the lawsuits everyone remembers incorrectly? Like the McDonald's Hot Coffee lawsuit. Everyone thinks the old lady was careless with her coffee and spilled it all over herself, then sued McDonalds, and then a gullible jury awarded her millions of dollars she actually collected. It always stuns me that the majority of people would never think that a big innocent corporation like McDonalds would be at fault in the lawsuit.

Problem is, that's pretty much how it was reported.Reading the actual details show that it was a pretty damn horrible incident, but every story I can recall about it pretty much laughed about this careless old lady who spilled coffee on herself and then sued.


In the end, though - that's kinda what happened. The coffee she spilled on herself was served at the temperature recommended by the National Coffee Association and coffee today is still served at the same or hotter temperatures. Contrary to popular myth, the coffee wasn't significantly hotter than that of other coffee vendors. She put the coffee in between her legs, and then spilled it on her cotton pants which then held the hot coffee against her legs, causing the burns. It was tragic, but it would have happened with just about any cup of coffee from anywhere. The lesson that should've been taken away from that case is "don't put coffee somewhere where it can spill on your absorbent clothing."
2013-06-16 03:24:30 PM
1 votes:

skinink: How about the lawsuits everyone remembers incorrectly? Like the McDonald's Hot Coffee lawsuit. Everyone thinks the old lady was careless with her coffee and spilled it all over herself, then sued McDonalds, and then a gullible jury awarded her millions of dollars she actually collected. It always stuns me that the majority of people would never think that a big innocent corporation like McDonalds would be at fault in the lawsuit.


I don't know how I feel about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit, honestly. McDonald's served coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns in seven seconds, but that is within the recommended range for coffee temperatures and McDonald's and other coffee vendors serve coffee as hot or hotter today. She wouldn't have been burned so badly if she had worn different pants that wouldn't have absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin. So...yeah. I really don't think McDonald's is to blame there, if the temperature they served their coffee at was and is considered "normal".
2013-06-16 03:23:35 PM
1 votes:

skinink: How about the lawsuits everyone remembers incorrectly? Like the McDonald's Hot Coffee lawsuit. Everyone thinks the old lady was careless with her coffee and spilled it all over herself, then sued McDonalds, and then a gullible jury awarded her millions of dollars she actually collected. It always stuns me that the majority of people would never think that a big innocent corporation like McDonalds would be at fault in the lawsuit.


Problem is, that's pretty much how it was reported.Reading the actual details show that it was a pretty damn horrible incident, but every story I can recall about it pretty much laughed about this careless old lady who spilled coffee on herself and then sued.
2013-06-16 03:19:33 PM
1 votes:
I miss Nanny Dickering.

I also miss John Severin and Howard Nostrand.

/that is all
2013-06-16 03:07:50 PM
1 votes:

basemetal: I've never hear about any of those.


Speaker2Animals: "Laugh" is not a word that comes to mind with Cracked.


Both of these.

Here's a hint: if you're paying for links, it's because your site is shiat.  Thanks.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report