Well, if you must know, I also don't think that fear of litigation should be what causes these decisions to be made. If I thought it was because of a genuine concern for human life, then by all means, but I'm not really convinced that that is the case.
Of course, living in one of the most litigious societies in the world can have its ups and downs.
Director of Game Development
|
Ugh- I'm just getting tired of this PC nanny state bollox.
It's like they want a new breed of compliant, incurious, inoffensive, comsuming cabbages-Speaking as one of the werecabbages I'd just like to point out that cabbages are among the most active of all the vegetables :)
Not at all like those apathetic rutabagas...
It's hard to believe that people still get worked up about kids using their imagination.
I heard we were the most brilliant and creative too, but what do I know? I was educated in Texas public schools. ;P
Not only do people sue at a drop of a hat, but they deny responsibility for their own actions. Anyone remember the woman who sued McDonald's, and won, when she spilled a cup of coffee on herself in a car acident? It was McDonald's fault that they neglected to warn customers that hot liquid can cause burns.
yeah, that was and still is incredible; I have a hard one choking down reality sometimes; warning; coffee is hot; and other obvious things that are the manufactures fault; not a trend in law I care for or will support.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Not only do people sue at a drop of a hat, but they deny responsibility for their own actions. Anyone remember the woman who sued McDonald's, and won, when she spilled a cup of coffee on herself in a car acident? It was McDonald's fault that they neglected to warn customers that hot liquid can cause burns.
Well...actually McDonald's was negligent. We spent close to 4 days examining the case in law school. My clients always cite it as the reason why they should recover "X" dollars in their particular case.
Short story: McDonald's basically testified that they heat their coffee to nuclear levels so that when someone gets to work, it will finally have cooled down to an acceptable level. There are no warnings on the cup as to how hot the coffee is.
McDonald's also disturbingly testified that they knew people were getting burned from their coffee - but they didn't care. The number of people who got burned vs. the amount of money they made from the coffee was ok with them. They didn't want to spend the money to reconfigure their machines. They did a cost analysis and said they were willing to risk the fact that "X" number of people got burned every year because they made more money by selling coffee that way. It was a certainty, X number (at least) of serious burn cases arose every year from their coffee and they could care less.
Basically, their business model was to burn people and just pay the injured people. The jury and court were shocked by the callousness.
The lady was also very seriously injured - she had 2nd and 3rd degree burns to her vagina and buttocks, and her abdomen and legs. She required multiple skin grafts and surgeries. The extent of her injuries were so great that merely "hot" coffee wouldn't have caused them. It's kind of like handing your grandma a cup of lava and not caring about the outcome.
So, in context, it's not such a bad ruling. It was done for punitive reasons to McDonalds. Guess what? They don't care. Their coffee is still made the same way it was before.
EDIT: Seriously, if you read the case, you wouldn't think she got enough money. The amount she was awarded was whittled down significantly on the multiple appeals the case went through. She really didn't end up with what most people think - she walked away with a small fraction of what everyone heard.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Well...actually McDonald's was negligent.
Probably not shocking to say that I agree with the above. The McDonald's case is so often mis-cited by the general public that it's practically an urban myth. There is a significant difference between hot coffee and coffee so hot that it can give you 2nd and 3rd degree burns, which is what McDonald's was serving.
hmm, i just assume all coffee is boiling hot and treat it that way; of course, I am biased after having been injured by a fresh thermos of boiling coffee that was poored all over me and gave me blister and scabs as well as a very painful burned area; certainly was negligence, but as I was 8 years old I did not sue.
Man, how hot was that coffee? I mean, how hot can coffee get before it just evaporates into steam? Is it like some sort of chemical burn? As someone who'd always wondered if that was even a true story and not an urban legend, I'm curious to know.
|
Man, how hot was that coffee?
Well sources say that McDonalds held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit.
I can only state that it is always easier (especially on one's mind and self-esteem) to blame (and with the US-legal system, sue) someone else, than to take a critical look at one's own shortcomings and delusions. If I receive a hot cup of coffee, it does not matter how hot it is, I am going to handle it with respectful care, out of common sense - 40° celsius coffee is just as annoying when spilled as 70°C coffee. Coffee is brewed at 100° C (boiling point of water), so fresh coffee is HOT, big surprise... Actually steaming hot is what people want and order, not some lukewarm dregs.
Life does require some sensible care, not a "sue them !" attitude....
And if I was a teacher, in 4th (?) grade, I would ask the "culprit" about the origins of the verse/song in the notebook and not to go into alarmist stance and phone everyone, showing that I have have no degree of responsibility and judgement. AKA "common sense"
As for the "McDonalds" case - the truly neglicient one around that case is the law firm who handled that case.... Speaking from the position of a law-student, that is.
to the OP - you son shows commendable spirit ! Give him a notebook to doodle in so the busy-body teacher won't go into a fit again.
Not only do people sue at a drop of a hat, but they deny responsibility for their own actions. Anyone remember the woman who sued McDonald's, and won, when she spilled a cup of coffee on herself in a car acident? It was McDonald's fault that they neglected to warn customers that hot liquid can cause burns.Well...actually McDonald's was negligent. We spent close to 4 days examining the case in law school. My clients always cite it as the reason why they should recover "X" dollars in their particular case.
...
The lady was also very seriously injured - she had 2nd and 3rd degree burns to her vagina and buttocks, and her abdomen and legs. She required multiple skin grafts and surgeries. The extent of her injuries were so great that merely "hot" coffee wouldn't have caused them. It's kind of like handing your grandma a cup of lava and not caring about the outcome.
She got the burns because she was holding the cup of coffee between her legs. Sorry, but that is her negligence. Yes, the coffee was almost boiling, which made the burns that severe, but when people fail to consider the risks of things they know can cause injuries, they should not blame anyone but themselves.
well, it is not just heat; I was at 4300 ft altitude at the time which affects the boiling point; the coffee had just boiled before being put in the thermos for me and had been in a Coleman thermos for only about 5 minutes; length of contact makes a big difference and what your car seats are made of; if the car has plastic vinyl seat covers then the liquid has no were to go and is absorbed by the clothes you wear and in my case leaves the most serious burns on your posterior and upper rear legs.
So given that even back then I wore a seatbelt, but back then kids could ride in the front seat, the length of contact and the amount of liquid, about a quart, makes a big difference. This lady from the McDonald's case is just a bigger wimp and a whiner in my book and the reward was way over the top excessive.
In this case, if you know where it happened you can find the altitude and simply look up the boiling point. Coffee made in most modern devices made for coffee do not boil the water as that is not considered optimum for quality. You could do some simple experiments by measureing the temperature of the coffee that you brew and then brew some in boiling water or just boil some water and measure it; or just look up the boiling point for your altitude. Air density and fluid dynamics made a difference, but coffee and water are fairly similar in the properties your interested in, only consider that coffee also adds some oils to the process which also affect burns.
Man, how hot was that coffee? I mean, how hot can coffee get before it just evaporates into steam? Is it like some sort of chemical burn? As someone who'd always wondered if that was even a true story and not an urban legend, I'm curious to know.
Contributor
|
She got the burns because she was holding the cup of coffee between her legs. Sorry, but that is her negligence. Yes, the coffee was almost boiling, which made the burns that severe, but when people fail to consider the risks of things they know can cause injuries, they should not blame anyone but themselves.
There are many misconceptions about this case. She was holding the cup between her legs, but she was not driving: she was in the passenger seat of a parked car. She held it between her legs while taking off the lid to add cream and sugar. Part of the problem is that in order to add these things she had to do this: no provisions was made for the fact that they were serving superheated coffee at a drivethrough, such as adding sugar and cream for the customer before sealing the cup.
That said, the woman was possibly clumsy and careless. But the reason McDonald's paid out as much as they did was that they refused to admit any responsibility and meet much lower settlement requests made by the woman, even though their quality control guy admitted that the coffee served at McDonald's is consistently so hot that you cannot drink it at the served temperature without getting serious burns.
McDonald's should have simply apologised, paid up, and changed the way they serve their coffee.
And while the sum paid out seems high (not that the actual settlement amount has been publicly revealed), I personally feel no sympathy for McDonald's on general principle.
And while the sum paid out seems high (not that the actual settlement amount has been publicly revealed), I personally feel no sympathy for McDonald's on general principle.
And therein lies another crux of the problem - lack of sympathy for the "rich and entitled", regardless of fairplay and circumstance.
And the expectation of a pay off for blackmai.., ahem, sueing someone publicly.
Interestingly, in Europe the corresponding number of incidents and lawsuits claiming neglectful action is.... much lower, since, there are no huge pay-offs to be expected for the claimant. And there being strict criminal statutes about fraudulent lawsuits in addition as protection versus such legal harassment and freebooting, perhaps... initiated and prosecuted by the courts themselves, against both the party and their legal counsel. See any connection ?
Actually, my lack of sympathy is for the corporation that behaves like a psychopath, and wants to be viewed as having a human face when it gets it sympathy, but disconnects itself from any humans involved with it when it gives it a legal advantage.
Justice is (meant to be) blind and impartial, hence even unsympathetic people (and who defines who is anyway) have their rights.
I don't know about anyone else, but I personally am very sensitive to temperature in my nether regions and never allow anything remotely hot near my crotch.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
hmm, i just assume all coffee is boiling hot and treat it that way; of course, I am biased after having been injured by a fresh thermos of boiling coffee that was poored all over me and gave me blister and scabs as well as a very painful burned area; certainly was negligence, but as I was 8 years old I did not sue.
And you have a creature of the elemental plan of fire as your avatar. Very amusing ;-)
So let me get your position right Rambling Scribe, you believe a company is acting like psychopaths for providing an object that practically all of their customers who purchase it want it to be (in the case of the coffee, they want it to be hot when they get to work), but a few of their customers will have an problem with? That is your position, really? So companies that sell chainsaws that are actually functional and able to cut are psychopaths because even though they know most of their customers want a chainsaw that cuts, some of their customers will have accidents and harm themselves, and the company refuses to redesign the chainsaws not to cut?
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
She got the burns because she was holding the cup of coffee between her legs. Sorry, but that is her negligence. Yes, the coffee was almost boiling, which made the burns that severe, but when people fail to consider the risks of things they know can cause injuries, they should not blame anyone but themselves.
I'm not going to argue with you, you can believe as you want.
There is a principle in the law called contributory negligence - basically your own negligence is counted against the negligence of the party that is responsible for injuring you, thus reducing your recovery. (Each state has a different take on this, so your state laws may be different.)
The amount the woman received was far less than many think, in part due to her own negligence (and a host of other factors).
As Rambling Scribe (and others) have explained, McDonald's attitude was horrible, and they could have ended this matter cheaply and quietly. There is a difference between hot and scalding hot, and serving coffee so hot that it takes a very long time to cool down without warning.
This (and the many other burn cases that McDonald's has been sued for) probably surround the recent marketing for "let us add the cream and sugar for you" signs you see posted at their drive throughs.
Was it smart to have it between her legs? Absolutely not. Do you have to agree with the decision? Nope.
We're just trying to provide context for it, as it has become the Sasquatch of American Litigation.
|
Contributor
|
So let me get your position right Rambling Scribe, you believe a company is acting like psychopaths for providing an object that practically all of their customers who purchase it want it to be (in the case of the coffee, they want it to be hot when they get to work), but a few of their customers will have an problem with? That is your position, really? So companies that sell chainsaws that are actually functional and able to cut are psychopaths because even though they know most of their customers want a chainsaw that cuts, some of their customers will have accidents and harm themselves, and the company refuses to redesign the chainsaws not to cut?
No that is not what I believe.
I believe that corporations behave like psychopaths when they make decisions to continue to behave in a manner that injures or kills their customers because settling the law suits will cost less than making a change or recalling a product. Like not changing the temperature of coffee when they know it injures their customers. Or not recalling the Ford Pinto when it is known to explode in collisions. Or chemically engineer cigarettes to fool government tests into showing a lower tar and nicotine count than they produce when smoked by a human and calling them "light."
These kind of decisions are made by corporations, and the people behind them are shielded by the corporations (or blame the corporate legal structure). But corporations under public scrutiny turn around and garner sympathy by hiding behind the people that make up the corporation.
I do not feel sympathy for corporations, because they are abstract legal entities, not people. And when corporations' behaviours are tracked by psychiatrists as though they were humans, they are usually found to match those of psychotic humans.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So let me get your position right Rambling Scribe, you believe a company is acting like psychopaths for providing an object that practically all of their customers who purchase it want it to be (in the case of the coffee, they want it to be hot when they get to work), but a few of their customers will have an problem with? That is your position, really? So companies that sell chainsaws that are actually functional and able to cut are psychopaths because even though they know most of their customers want a chainsaw that cuts, some of their customers will have accidents and harm themselves, and the company refuses to redesign the chainsaws not to cut?
Not that you actually believe these things, right, you're just saying, that maybe someone does, and maybe that's what happens.
This is a gross oversimplification of the argument and not worth addressing. I know that in Right Wing Conspiracy land, all attorneys are liberal douche bags that just want everyone to be protected by the nanny state, but in the real world, there are conservative attorneys, they attend and teach at law schools, and even they are generally sympathetic to the McDonald's case because they have actually read it and understand how the law works.
Go read the McDonald's case, come back when you can explain the basic elements of a tort and the philosophy of punitive damages, and maybe we can have a discussion. Until then, I'm not wasting my time going through the idiotic arguments made by axe grinders in their first week of law school.
So why does McDonald's make their coffee hot if it is not what their customers want? Because they can? Wouldn't customers go to some other store to get their less molten coffee if that is not what they wanted? Or are people just mindless drones, unable to make decisions about what they actually want?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So why does McDonald's make their coffee hot if it is not what their customers want? Because they can? Wouldn't customers go to some other store to get their less molten coffee if that is not what they wanted? Or are people just mindless drones, unable to make decisions about what they actually want?
You're absolutely correct. McDonald's does it because Satan is real and owns 58% of the company. He uses orbital mind lasers to make people purchase coffee that is too hot and then injure themselves. I guess you support Satan and want to see people injured? Is that what you're saying, that you wish everyone would get hurt because you like it when people suffer pain for your master, Satan? Or is it because you have a job sweeping the floors at the orbital mind laser factory? Which is it?
Or are people just mindless drones, unable to make decisions about what they actually want?
Yes
Or maybe thats just my cynicism coming up after years of experience in customer service positions ;-)
BTW, I don't buy coffee from McDonald's, because it's too freaking hot. When I buy coffee, I want to drink it now, not later at work. And I do keep it away from my crotch.
How hot can coffee get?? Water boils at 100c and evaporates at anything higher... When we make coffee at home, we wait until the water boils, make the coffee, and start drinking (slowly) right away.
So home coffee is the hottest coffee you can get... I suppose Mc'Donald's makes their coffee the same way (how many ways is there to boil water?)... How is Mc Donald's coffee ridiculously hot? It's as hot as boiling water minus a degree or two. It's as hot as the coffee everyone makes at home... No more dangerous, no less.
What's the point of my argument? LOL!!
Ultradan
hehe more appropriate than you know; i have been on fire and burned a few times by various things and have scars to prove it :)
I know more first hand about burns and burn care than I hope anyone else ever has to...
my real concern in this issue is the paid out amount of the punitive damages; I have read a few papers written by people in the field, ie judges, attorneys; law school professors that all state that the trend in punitive damages is out of control and disabling to the legal system as it is one primary cause for cases, some perhaps frivolous, that would be best handled a different way; am just a lay person and not my field, but that is what I got out of it. I certainly can understand some punative cost if awarded by the court, but sheesh; that was out of control and admittantly, in my mind the woman in question was just a goober and not very bright; the frightening thing is that as she either has or has been convinced to expouse this attitude of denial of any self responsibility; this is the type of behavior she is likely to teach to any of her children; so the problem will just propogate, sigh, hmm should this be on my conspiracy theory thread; Sebastion suggests that Satan is involved; am think he may be, but on both sides as with the Enemy; everyone looses.
hmm, i just assume all coffee is boiling hot and treat it that way; of course, I am biased after having been injured by a fresh thermos of boiling coffee that was poored all over me and gave me blister and scabs as well as a very painful burned area; certainly was negligence, but as I was 8 years old I did not sue.And you have a creature of the elemental plan of fire as your avatar. Very amusing ;-)
So why does McDonald's make their coffee hot if it is not what their customers want? Because they can? Wouldn't customers go to some other store to get their less molten coffee if that is not what they wanted? Or are people just mindless drones, unable to make decisions about what they actually want?You're absolutely correct. McDonald's does it because Satan is real and owns 58% of the company. He uses orbital mind lasers to make people purchase coffee that is too hot and then injure themselves. I guess you support Satan and want to see people injured? Is that what you're saying, that you wish everyone would get hurt because you like it when people suffer pain for your master, Satan? Or is it because you have a job sweeping the floors at the orbital mind laser factory? Which is it?
Okay, which of you guys are part of the 5%?
wow are we off topic; but uhm, what 5% got a bit lost there....
Sebastion suggests that Satan is involved; am think he may be, but on both sides as with the Enemy; everyone looses.
I think he has controling rights in those pizza chains also. Damn you Satan and your delicious pizza that burns my mouth because I'm too stupid to let it cool, Damn You! Oh, I guess that has already happened, well can you pass the parmesian?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
my real concern in this issue is the paid out amount of the punitive damages; I have read a few papers written by people in the field, ie judges, attorneys; law school professors that all state that the trend in punitive damages is out of control and disabling to the legal system as it is one primary cause for cases, some perhaps frivolous, that would be best handled a different way; am just a lay person and not my field, but that is what I got out of it. I certainly can understand some punative cost if awarded by the court, but sheesh; that was out of control and admittantly, in my mind the woman in question was just a goober and not very bright; the frightening thing is that as she either has or has been convinced to expouse this attitude of denial of any self responsibility; this is the type of behavior she is likely to teach to any of her children; so the problem will just propogate, sigh, hmm should this be on my conspiracy theory thread; Sebastion suggests that Satan is involved; am think he may be, but on both sides as with the Enemy; everyone looses.
The problem with the McDonald's case is that most people are arguing the facts that go towards liability, and not the facts that go towards punitive damages. The question of how to divide up responsibility when both parties are at fault is a thorny one. The analysis of contributory negligence is not and cannot be as simple as "if your both at fault, no one recovers." Most of the arguments presented regarding the McDonald's case are of that flavor (e.g., it was her own fault).
I defer to the litigators in the room, but my recollection is that punitive damages arise for actors that will not be deterred by the actual damages involved. The theory would be that McDonald's is constantly harming people in minor ways that do not rise to the level of lawsuits (small burns) and do not provide an incentive to take a "reasonable" amount of caution. The only way to make them internalize the full cost of their actions is to aggregate all the unactionable harms in the form of punitive damages.
But anyway, I agree that the tort system is generally broken and riddled with problems. The McDonald's case just isn't the poster child that most people think it is.
Oh my, this sort of died down and I though it was all done, and I come back to find 74 posts!
I'll have to hop back and read up to this point, so if anyone asked me anything, I'll get right on it.
OK, this really went off rails.
This was all resolved without issue. I spoke to them about the game, and how we play as a family and quite enjoy it. All of them were fully aware of the game, and while they still felt the physical description and detail in the poem itself was not fully school appropriate, it was (as said to me) simply an over zealous teacher.
I asked, to be safe, if he was not allowed to bring his books to school to read, and if he had any inkling to play with friends on recess, should I be expecting another call. I sort of directed this to the counselor in front of the principal, as he seems to also be a bit iffy.
I was assured that this was not case, and he was fine to read and play.
I did correct him on his spelling of goblin, and suggested that if in the future he felt the urge to sing the song, perhaps he should do so in proper goblin dialect. We both agreed his teacher probably was low on her INT language bonus, and goblin wasn't one of them!
Frankly, I think the best solution to this whole thing would be to let it die down for a couple of years, and then find out where the teacher lives, chop up his dog and leave a dead horse lying on his dining room table.
This is all I have to say on this off topic matter
thanks Sebastion; I appreciate your informed inside responses to help clarify the issue; :) i certainly agree it is a thorny one.
my real concern in this issue is the paid out amount of the punitive damages; I have read a few papers written by people in the field, ie judges, attorneys; law school professors that all state that the trend in punitive damages is out of control and disabling to the legal system as it is one primary cause for cases, some perhaps frivolous, that would be best handled a different way; am just a lay person and not my field, but that is what I got out of it. I certainly can understand some punative cost if awarded by the court, but sheesh; that was out of control and admittantly, in my mind the woman in question was just a goober and not very bright; the frightening thing is that as she either has or has been convinced to expouse this attitude of denial of any self responsibility; this is the type of behavior she is likely to teach to any of her children; so the problem will just propogate, sigh, hmm should this be on my conspiracy theory thread; Sebastion suggests that Satan is involved; am think he may be, but on both sides as with the Enemy; everyone looses.The problem with the McDonald's case is that most people are arguing the facts that go towards liability, and not the facts that go towards punitive damages. The question of how to divide up responsibility when both parties are at fault is a thorny one. The analysis of contributory negligence is not and cannot be as simple as "if your both at fault, no one recovers." Most of the arguments presented regarding the McDonald's case are of that flavor (e.g., it was her own fault).
I defer to the litigators in the room, but my recollection is that punitive damages arise for actors that will not be deterred by the actual damages involved. The theory would be that McDonald's is constantly harming people in minor ways that do not rise to the level of lawsuits (small burns) and do not provide an incentive to take a "reasonable" amount of caution. The only way to make them internalize the full cost of their actions is to...
thanks for the update Soulkeeper.
She got the burns because she was holding the cup of coffee between her legs. Sorry, but that is her negligence.
Yeah! When I'm between an ladies' legs, the friction alone usually melts the bottom half of them. Should I feel bad that I didn't come with a warning?
"Warning! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARNIIIIIIIIIING!"
If they'd only taken the time to don asbestos-coated leggings they'd have been safe. Their incineration is on them and I'm always the one who has to pay to dry clean the ash stains from my 300 count Egyptian Cotton sheets. I'm the victim here.
|
Director of Game Development
|
She got the burns because she was holding the cup of coffee between her legs. Sorry, but that is her negligence.Yeah! When I'm between an ladies' legs, the friction alone usually melts the bottom half of them. Should I feel bad that I didn't come with a warning?
"Warning! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARNIIIIIIIIIING!"
If they'd only taken the time to don asbestos-coated leggings they'd have been safe. Their incineration is on them and I'm always the one who has to pay to dry clean the ash stains from my 300 count Egyptian Cotton sheets. I'm the victim here.
They have shots for that these days.
Shots to slow me down or shots to help keep their pelvises from exploding? Man, I can't even use smoke detectors anymore.
Shots to slow me down or shots to help keep their pelvises from exploding? Man, I can't even use smoke detectors anymore.
I think this should answer all your questions.
I... I feel so understood now.
No wonder I'm so scared of Irish Spring soap! It looks like Kryptonite!
I think this should answer all your questions.
*howls with laughter*
Oh that's great stuff! :D
I get my coffee at 7-11.
I hate McDonald's. They often diss me. I don't like getting dissed. Just want my food, thanx.
Dude, how do you get dissed at McDonalds? Do you mean verbal insubordination from the guy behind the counter? Or do they just mess up your order?
Remember what Joe Pesci said, "They always f*&# you in the drive-thru!"
OK, this really went off rails.
Isn't it great? Those are the best kinds of threads.
You're a celebrity OP now, you started a post with staying power.
If we've learned anything from DMotR, it's that "Rails are Bad."
I hate this campaign.
I think this should answer all your questions.*howls with laughter*
Oh that's great stuff! :D
Yeah, pretty sick stuff...