HOT COFFEE!

Wow, I would have thought that too...But after seeing some preview clips from something called "Undefeated" we know what a silly assumption that is on your part.

PrintSmith wrote: A documentary is not supposed to be an unabashed propaganda film Dog. McDonald's did nothing wrong. It did not cause her injuries, her own actions were the cause. Might as well hand a plaintiff $800K for melting an article of polyester clothing to their skin when they attempt to iron the wrinkles out of the clothing while wearing it.

I do feel some sympathy for the pain she caused herself, but the law was never intended to protect you from your own actions. I'm sure that the jury was moved by the photographs, but the reality of the situation is that McDonald's didn't spill the hot coffee on her, she managed to do that all by herself. I would certainly agree that McDonald's bore some responsibility if one of their employees injured her by spilling hot coffee on her, but as that was not the case here, it seems pointless to punish a company for the irresponsible acts of a consumer.

A jury that heard the actual facts determined that McDonalds did wrong and unanimously awarded the judgement. The film interviewed the jurors who on camera pointed out the actual evidence that they based their determination. That evidence included actual documents from McDonalds that showed over 700 instances of actual injury from the too hot coffee that McDonalds was aware of prior to that particular instance. Perhaps you should actually watch the film before passing judgement, but then again facts are not really your strong point are they?

This lawsuit is a mile marker on the road to the decline of American society. No longer is anyone responsible for themselves or their own actions, when something bad happens to you it is automatically the fault of someone else, especially if they have deep pockets or even better if it is a huge evil corporation. Common sense no longer applies, grab the blade of the chainsaw while the saw is running. The company that manufactures the the saw will pay you for your injuries and a nice tidy sum to keep you quiet, meanwhile they'll lobby the Gubment for mandatory safety regulations and legislation while they mark every new saw, instruction manual, and the box the saws come in with warning labels (and raise the price of every saw) so they can avoid the next moron who does the same thing.

OF COURSE THE COFFEE IS HOT! If you spill it on yourself it's your own fault, not the restaurant that served the coffee to you. What's next? A lawsuit that contends the coffee isn't hot enough?

PS, you have a strange view of documentaries. Every documentary has a bias, that of the director. But for you to label this a propaganda piece without even viewing it, is typical of conservatives. This is not a propaganda piece but a factual film from the viewpoint of several individual's suffering from the wrongdoing of another uncaring corporation. Perhaps you could take the time to view it before rendering your opinion on it

The film did bring out several interesting issues with the push for tort reform. Not only is clearly unconstitutional to attempt to implement it on a federal level, but even more so it is unconstitutional on its face. The Constitution provides for the right of an individual to be tried by a jury of peers. Legislative caps on jury awards denies the individual the right to have the damages determined by the jury of peers, instead putting the legislature in the place of the jury.
It also pointed out that many states limit the entire jury award regardless of how badly the individual is injured due to wrongdoing by another. This then places a burden on the individual, and usually on the taxpayer to foot the bill for Medicaid and social security instead of the entity that created the wrongdoing. So there is little burden on the wrongdoer for their actions and no incentive to change their behavior.

otisptoadwater wrote: This lawsuit is a mile marker on the road to the decline of American society. No longer is anyone responsible for themselves or their own actions, when something bad happens to you it is automatically the fault of someone else, especially if they have deep pockets or even better if it is a huge evil corporation. Common sense no longer applies, grab the blade of the chainsaw while the saw is running. The company that manufactures the the saw will pay you for your injuries and a nice tidy sum to keep you quiet, meanwhile they'll lobby the Gubment for mandatory safety regulations and legislation while they mark every new saw, instruction manual, and the box the saws come in with warning labels (and raise the price of every saw) so they can avoid the next moron who does the same thing.

OF COURSE THE COFFEE IS HOT! If you spill it on yourself it's your own fault, not the restaurant that served the coffee to you. What's next? A lawsuit that contends the coffee isn't hot enough?

Wow, you bought right into the corporate pr. The coffee in question was served at 190 degrees, when the standard for resteraunts is under 180. McDonalds had a corporate policy requiring this temperature, even though they had over 700 complaints of injury from the coffee temperature. McDonalds did this to drive thru coffee claiming that they did not expect anyone to drink it until they arrived at their destination some time away. The doctors testified that anytime the skin comes into contact with liquids over 180 degrees, serious injuries could occur. The photos of this poor woman are horrifying.

It is amazing that people still provide such comments without knowing or investigating the actual facts but simply buy into the corporate pr machine.

That jury decided they felt sorry for the old lady and redistributed a bunch of other people's money to her because they felt bad for her. It's easy to spend other people's money after all. 700 injuries out of billions of cups of coffee served. That's got to be one of the highest injury rates of all time - certainly worth at least a few million in punitive damages. That's what, a 0.00007% chance of being burned by a cup of McDonald's coffee if 700 of the 1 billion people who were served a cup of joe were injured? My goodness, we just can't allow such a huge possibility of someone being so irresponsible that they might injure themselves in a civilized society. Let's go after the automakers next. I'm certain the injury rate is much higher for that dangerous product than it is for a cup of coffee from McDonald's. And no, we're not talking Pinto fuel tank product liability here, we're talking about the fact that they make them at all. They shouldn't be allowed to make them because the injury rate is much higher for automobiles than hot McDonald's coffee. Next we'll go after the makers of guns and ammunition - oh wait, they've already tried that one - what product should we invent a problem with next.............

Something the Dog Said wrote: PS, you have a strange view of documentaries. Every documentary has a bias, that of the director. But for you to label this a propaganda piece without even viewing it, is typical of conservatives. This is not a propaganda piece but a factual film from the viewpoint of several individual's suffering from the wrongdoing of another uncaring corporation. Perhaps you could take the time to view it before rendering your opinion on it

The film did bring out several interesting issues with the push for tort reform. Not only is clearly unconstitutional to attempt to implement it on a federal level, but even more so it is unconstitutional on its face. The Constitution provides for the right of an individual to be tried by a jury of peers. Legislative caps on jury awards denies the individual the right to have the damages determined by the jury of peers, instead putting the legislature in the place of the jury.
It also pointed out that many states limit the entire jury award regardless of how badly the individual is injured due to wrongdoing by another. This then places a burden on the individual, and usually on the taxpayer to foot the bill for Medicaid and social security instead of the entity that created the wrongdoing. So there is little burden on the wrongdoer for their actions and no incentive to change their behavior.

The facts are plan and simple, you order coffee and you expect that it will be hot when you are ready to drink it. If you lack the common sense to let it cool off to the temperature you prefer THAT IS YOUR OWN FAULT. Let's say for argument's sake I that if I hand you a sharp knife, caution you that the knife is sharp, and you cut your own fingers off. By your logic that is my fault. Try again.

PrintSmith wrote: That jury decided they felt sorry for the old lady and redistributed a bunch of other people's money to her because they felt bad for her. It's easy to spend other people's money after all. 700 injuries out of billions of cups of coffee served. That's got to be one of the highest injury rates of all time - certainly worth at least a few million in punitive damages. That's what, a 0.00007% chance of being burned by a cup of McDonald's coffee if 700 of the 1 billion people who were served a cup of joe were injured? My goodness, we just can't allow such a huge possibility of someone being so irresponsible that they might injure themselves in a civilized society. Let's go after the automakers next. I'm certain the injury rate is much higher for that dangerous product than it is for a cup of coffee from McDonald's. And no, we're not talking Pinto fuel tank product liability here, we're talking about the fact that they make them at all. They shouldn't be allowed to make them because the injury rate is much higher for automobiles than hot McDonald's coffee. Next we'll go after the makers of guns and ammunition - oh wait, they've already tried that one - what product should we invent a problem with next.............

Let's be quite clear, you are simply spouting out opinions based on nothing but your own conjecture, with no basis in facts. Try finding out the actual facts before rendering judgements on others.

Something the Dog Said wrote: PS, you have a strange view of documentaries. Every documentary has a bias, that of the director. But for you to label this a propaganda piece without even viewing it, is typical of conservatives. This is not a propaganda piece but a factual film from the viewpoint of several individual's suffering from the wrongdoing of another uncaring corporation. Perhaps you could take the time to view it before rendering your opinion on it

The film did bring out several interesting issues with the push for tort reform. Not only is clearly unconstitutional to attempt to implement it on a federal level, but even more so it is unconstitutional on its face. The Constitution provides for the right of an individual to be tried by a jury of peers. Legislative caps on jury awards denies the individual the right to have the damages determined by the jury of peers, instead putting the legislature in the place of the jury.
It also pointed out that many states limit the entire jury award regardless of how badly the individual is injured due to wrongdoing by another. This then places a burden on the individual, and usually on the taxpayer to foot the bill for Medicaid and social security instead of the entity that created the wrongdoing. So there is little burden on the wrongdoer for their actions and no incentive to change their behavior.

By that twisted logic the sentences for crimes are also unconstitutional because they are set by the legislature instead of the jury of peers. Your (il)logic dictates that only a jury can decide on the proper punishment for any perceived offense. Utter and complete nonsense.

And it might be unconstitutional, or at least it would have once been unconstitutional had not the regressives spent the last 100 years interpreting into existence a federal government with no limits to its powers. I'm happy to have you paying the piper for the erosion of the Constitution that regressives have accomplished this time around. It fails any test of logic to suppose that a government that has the power to stop you from growing your own food doesn't also have the power to limit the amount of money that you can be awarded for damages. Welcome the the regressive nightmare Dog, perhaps this will help clear your vision to the point where you recognize that a government with no limits of power is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

otisptoadwater wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: PS, you have a strange view of documentaries. Every documentary has a bias, that of the director. But for you to label this a propaganda piece without even viewing it, is typical of conservatives. This is not a propaganda piece but a factual film from the viewpoint of several individual's suffering from the wrongdoing of another uncaring corporation. Perhaps you could take the time to view it before rendering your opinion on it

The film did bring out several interesting issues with the push for tort reform. Not only is clearly unconstitutional to attempt to implement it on a federal level, but even more so it is unconstitutional on its face. The Constitution provides for the right of an individual to be tried by a jury of peers. Legislative caps on jury awards denies the individual the right to have the damages determined by the jury of peers, instead putting the legislature in the place of the jury.
It also pointed out that many states limit the entire jury award regardless of how badly the individual is injured due to wrongdoing by another. This then places a burden on the individual, and usually on the taxpayer to foot the bill for Medicaid and social security instead of the entity that created the wrongdoing. So there is little burden on the wrongdoer for their actions and no incentive to change their behavior.

The facts are plan and simple, you order coffee and you expect that it will be hot when you are ready to drink it. If you lack the common sense to let it cool off to the temperature you prefer THAT IS YOUR OWN FAULT. Let's say for argument's sake I that if I hand you a sharp knife, caution you that the knife is sharp, and you cut your own fingers off. By your logic that is my fault. Try again.

The facts are that if McDonalds had not served their coffee at a much higher temperature than would be expected, and failed to warn their customers that their coffee was extra hot, despite having over 700 previous injuries reported from the extra hot coffee, then the customer could be faulted. The jury did take her culpability into consideration and decided that she was 20% at fault, but that McDonalds bore most of fault for the severity of injury due to the facts that the temperature of the coffee was at a higher temperature where it would lead to severe burning, and that McDonalds knew there was risk due to over 700 complaints of injuries from their coffee temperature and refused to make changes. The injuries that this poor woman suffered were nearly life threatening and the photos of the injury were simply horrifying, not something that you would expect from a coffee spill of normally brewed coffee.

Your analogies are simply silly, not having any bearing of the facts of the incident of the litigation. Try learning the facts before rendering judgement.