You think the other Walmart lawsuit was crazy (1 Viewer)

[Cees Alons]

That's where we disagree, Andrew. I think she was handed a (mostly, at least in respect to this discussion ) proper product, which she mis-handled in an unusual way, causing her injury.

I also think that most of the other arguments center around this believe (or the rejecting of it).

Let's agree on that.


Cees

 

[AjayM]

I agree that's where the argument centers, if everybody agreed on one side or the other than the rest of it all falls apart.

 

[RobR]

Likewise, I've researched all the facts and formed my own opinion. If the National Coffee Association or any such organization actually recommends a lower temperature than McDonald's servings, then I would've taken the opposite stance and found McDonald's at fault.

Again, you've provided no real justification that 3rd degree burn shouldn't happen with hot coffee, or any hot liquid for that matter.

 

[AjayM]

Straight from law school webpages describing another case;


Any other hot liquid? What are you talking about. And have you provided anything that says that it is perfectly normal to cause serious burns from a coffee spill. How many people do you know that have spilled at least some semi-decent amount of coffee on themselves (say more than a few drops)? How many have had 3rd degree burns and needed skin grafts? If this is so normal, you should be able to list off at least 10 people you know personally, right? How about 5 people? How about one person you know personally that's required skin grafts because of a coffee spill.

Amazing how doctors don't think that's normal or a good idea. McDonalds defense was basically "well you still get burned at 140 degree, so we'll make it REALLY hot" (despite the grade school logic and lack of high school science knowledge there).

Anyway, I've had enough of this round and round stuff. You think one way, I another. I'll leave it at that.

Andrew

 

[MarkHastings]

I once strained a muscle in my mouth from trying to drink one of McDonalds "Shakes" - Can I sue?

 

[Cees Alons]

OK, Andrew, so will I.

But you left out a small but not totally insignificant (in my view) part of the Liebeck story, that I will quote here, without further comment. It's the part before Stella Liebeck started screaming:



Cees

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I have, and have seen others, set the cup down on the floor before trying to open it up. Setting even a cold drink cup between your knees is almost certain to give you a chill! Between your knees is about the worst place you could set it.

All of us have gotten burned at least once. After a 'good' burn, you learn to respect things that are hot. If you forget and do it again, you don't have anyone to blame but yourself. Dave- potholders! That's what they are there for. You do have some, right?

Just kidding. I got nicked the other day too. The potholder wasn't in the position it should have been. My fault.

Glenn

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

Ajay, ironically you are arguing your points against a doctor (Cees).

 

[DaveGTP]

Very good points you posted there IMO. The coffee was being served abnormally hot for practical $ reasons @ McD's. You expect if you are going to be burned by coffee it's going to hurt like hell (like my fingers) - not put you in the hospital. They were serving coffee so hot it burns in the 3rd degree in 3 seconds? ? ?

I felt the same way as many of you about the coffee case at first. But when I found out more information about it, about how hot the coffee was, etc, I was convinced that there was some legitimacy to her side.


Yeah she shouldn't have had it in between her legs. But so what if she had 3rd degree burns on her arm instead, or her fingers. The coffee was still being served too hot, despite apparently numerous reports from folks about it.

 

[Dave Gorman]

LOL Most people I know have enough sense not to put a flimsy paper cup of hot coffee between their knees!

 

[Brian Perry]

But that's one of the points...there's no way she gets 3rd degree burns on her arms or hands because she would have quickly wiped the coffee off. The problem was the sweat suit, which trapped the liquid. McDonald's shouldn't be responsible for a freak circumstance like that.

 

[MarkHastings]

Listening to the back and forth arguments, I think we can sum it all up between wether negligence matters when stupidity is involved.

Example: McDonalds serves coffee that's SUPER hot. Obviously this would be a case of 'negligence', but if the person (who buys the coffee) opens it right away and dumps it over their head, why are they allowed to sue for negligence.

I think the point that most of us are making is, stupidity should ALWAYS supersede negligence.

Unfortunately, you can't define stupidity when it comes to the law, so negligence always wins out :frowning:

 

[Joshua Clinard]

Actually, after reading all the facts, I am even more convinced that it was negligence on the woman's part, not McDonalds. And I hate McDonalds with a passion. Haven't stepped foot in one in proabably 10 years.

One, the coffe was served at the proper temperature, according to 2 different authority groups. She should have waited a few minitues before opening it. If she had ever drunk coffe before, she should have known it would be hot. And it was totally stupid to put it between her legs. Pulling off the lid would shake the cup enough to spill it. That's just common sense. She apparantly had none.

 

[MikeH1]

But she's rich! Like the "I refuse to change the channel while watching people eat rats until I puke" guy, her lack of common sense netted her some big coin. Lets wait and see what happens though to rat man, I think it will be thrown out of court.