HOT COFFEE!

PrintSmith 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.

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.

The Constitution allows the legislature to enact penalties for crimes but does not allow them to replace a jury decision. It is for a jury to make the decision whether or not the facts fit the crime. The plaintiff in a criminal trial is of course the government, not an individual. The constitution provides that a jury of peers determine the facts of a case, not the legislature. The award that an individual deserves is based on the facts of wrongdoing, the malfeance of the wrongdoer, the severity of the injury, the likelihood that a reasonable individual would avoid the injury, etc., all facts that the constitution requires to be determined by a jury of peers, not a legislative body. To mix up a criminal trial process with a civil tort is simply not valid.

As to your repeated blathering about "regressive nightmares" is simply tuned out by all, as it is not relevant to anything or anyone.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

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.

Wow! I apologize, I didn't know that McDoghole's corporate policy was honored as law in a US court of law. Want to borrow my really sharp knife or have a nice cup of hot coffee? It's all circuses and bread with you liberals.

Something the Dog Said wrote: 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?

I recorded it yesterday, but haven't watched it yet. I'll comment once I get a chance to watch it, assuming this topic is still relevent.

Having been on a few jurys, I will make a general comment. As a juror, you are supposed to follow the law and the instructions from the judge, whether they make sense to you or not. Yes, you are free to vote outside of that if you wish. But I think most stick to the instructions.

Years ago I was on a case with many charges. One of them made no sense to me as being against the law, but it was at that time and at that place (oral sex). Just because a jury votes one way or another does not mean it makes sense. They may just be following instructions from whatever judge.

otisptoadwater wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

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.

Wow! I apologize, I didn't know that McDoghole's corporate policy was honored as law in a US court of law. Want to borrow my really sharp knife or have a nice cup of hot coffee? It's all circuses and bread with you liberals.

Who said anything about McDonald's corporate policy being honored as law in a US court of law. Trying to misdirect or simply a case of posting while drinking? My point is that it would be nice if people would actually review the facts of an issue before passing judgement.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

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.

Indeed, let's be quite clear. It is a well known fact that coffee is made by running water that is near boiling through a layer of ground beans. The standard boiling point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100 Celsius, 373 Kelvin).

It is also a known fact that boiling water can cause serious, even fatal, injuries when it comes into contact with the skin.

It is also a known fact that customers of McDonald's could receive (at least before this sympathy award) a cup of coffee that had just finished brewing and that could be well above a temperature at which injury is a possibility.

It is also a well known fact that no employee of McDonald's spilled the coffee on the lady, she managed that feat all by herself with no help from anyone else.

It is also a well known fact that McDonald's has no input as to the clothing that their customers choose to wear, clothing that in this instance significantly contributed to the severity of the injury suffered as a result of the lady spilling the coffee into her own lap.

It is also a well known fact that the coffee the lady ordered is served hot, not cold or lukewarm. Cold and lukewarm coffee that is supposed to be hot results in dissatisfied customers.

It is also a well known fact that McDonald's had served well over a billion cups of their coffee at this temperature before the lady's actions resulted in this particular cup ending up in her own lap. We've already done the math on the likelihood of a person being injured by a cup of that coffee and it is actually lower than the figure since the number of cups of coffee was well in excess of a billion.

The jury felt sorry for the lady and gave her money that rightfully belonged to someone else as a result. Quite understandable, though still unjustifiable.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

otisptoadwater wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

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.

Wow! I apologize, I didn't know that McDoghole's corporate policy was honored as law in a US court of law. Want to borrow my really sharp knife or have a nice cup of hot coffee? It's all circuses and bread with you liberals.

Who said anything about McDonald's corporate policy being honored as law in a US court of law. Trying to misdirect or simply a case of posting while drinking? My point is that it would be nice if people would actually review the facts of an issue before passing judgement.

Clearly your view of the world and mine differ greatly; nothing productive will come from additional debate or "exchange of pleasantries." Thanks for the accusation of PWI, since I am currently working in Yemen so the likelihood for me getting a drink is low at best, I stand up for my own beliefs and I'm not shy about saying so. The jury deliberated the case and the rest is history, unfortunately they ruled in favor of the defendant. What grinds my gears is that people in the USA think this is a just lawsuit and that Corporate America is to blame for what citizens do to themselves. Flame me all you want and consider yourself ignored.

See how they got you brain dead drones to Argue to lose the RIGHT to have your day in court? See how they do that? And most of you saps swallow it hook line in sinker..Having your day in court is one of the pillars of democracy people...DON"T WILLING GIVE IT AWAY!

Vice Lord wrote: See how they got you brain dead drones to Argue to lose the RIGHT to have your day in court? See how they do that? And most of you saps swallow it hook line in sinker..Having your day in court is one of the pillars of democracy people...DON"T WILLING GIVE IT AWAY!

We simply recognize that the brain dead regressives have already given our right to our day in court away and wonder what mental deficiency prevents the regressives from recognizing this for themselves. We wonder how they can believe that after interpreting into existence a federal government capable of deciding what an individual farmer may or may not grow to provide for themselves they cling to a misguided notion that they have not also interpreted into existence the power for the federal government to limit the amount of damages an injured person may be awarded for the injuries they have sustained.

Either we have a federal government that is strictly limited in their ability to legislate domestic issues or we have one whose ability to do so is limited only by their own desires to wield their unlimited powers. The regressives want the latter option - the rest of us want the first one.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

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.

Indeed, let's be quite clear. It is a well known fact that coffee is made by running water that is near boiling through a layer of ground beans. The standard boiling point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100 Celsius, 373 Kelvin).

It is also a known fact that boiling water can cause serious, even fatal, injuries when it comes into contact with the skin.

It is also a known fact that customers of McDonald's could receive (at least before this sympathy award) a cup of coffee that had just finished brewing and that could be well above a temperature at which injury is a possibility.

It is also a well known fact that no employee of McDonald's spilled the coffee on the lady, she managed that feat all by herself with no help from anyone else.

It is also a well known fact that McDonald's has no input as to the clothing that their customers choose to wear, clothing that in this instance significantly contributed to the severity of the injury suffered as a result of the lady spilling the coffee into her own lap.

It is also a well known fact that the coffee the lady ordered is served hot, not cold or lukewarm. Cold and lukewarm coffee that is supposed to be hot results in dissatisfied customers.

It is also a well known fact that McDonald's had served well over a billion cups of their coffee at this temperature before the lady's actions resulted in this particular cup ending up in her own lap. We've already done the math on the likelihood of a person being injured by a cup of that coffee and it is actually lower than the figure since the number of cups of coffee was well in excess of a billion.

The jury felt sorry for the lady and gave her money that rightfully belonged to someone else as a result. Quite understandable, though still unjustifiable.

It is also a known factor that liquids above 180 degrees will cause significant skin damage, and that no but a complete fool would drink coffee at 212 degrees F or expect it to be served at that temperature. McDonald's own expert testified that of course liquid above 180 degrees would cause severe injuries, but McDonalds as a corporate policy insisted on serving it at 190 degrees, even while receiving hundreds of complaints of injuries from this practice. Experts sampled coffee at all neighboring resteraunts found that no other company served coffee within 20 degrees of McDonalds.

Of course your distortions and conjectures ignore these facts which were considered by the jury and found convincing. Here is commentary from someone who interviewed the jurors:
Only days before the trial, Judge Scott ordered both sides to attend a mediation session. The mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000, saying a jury would be likely to award that amount. The company didn't follow his recommendation.

Instead, McDonald's continued denying any liability for Mrs. Liebeck's burns. The company suggested that she may have contributed to her injuries by holding the cup between her legs and not removing her clothing immediately. And it also argued that "Mrs. Liebeck's age may have caused her injuries to have been worse than they might have been in a younger individual," since older skin is thinner and more vulnerable to injury.

The trial lasted seven sometimes mind-numbing days. Experts dueled over the temperature at which coffee causes burns. A scientist testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third-degree burns, so it didn't matter whether Mc Donald's coffee was hotter. But a doctor testifying on behalf of Mrs. Liebeck argued that lowering the serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees.

The testimony of Mr. Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, "There are more serious dangers in restaurants."

Mr. Elliott, the juror, says he began to realize that the case was about "callous disregard for the safety of the people."

Next for the defense came P. Robert Knaff, a human-factors engineer who earned $15,000 in fees from the case and who, several jurors said later, didn't help McDonald's either. 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.

When the panel reached the jury room, it swiftly arrived at the conclusion that McDonald's was liable. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," says Ms. Farnham. "They were not taking care of their consumers."

Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.

The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million.

http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

Do you really believe that a reasonable person would expect that coffee served to them is at a temperature that can cause third degree burns on 16% of your body requiring extensive skin grafts and reconstructive surgery? I don't. But go ahead and continue to be a corporate tool relying upon speculation and conjecture while ignoring the actual facts. McDonalds served a highly dangerous product at a temperature well above normal while aware that it could cause serious danger. I expect that when I spill coffee on myself that it will scald, with minor burning, not serious life threatening harm.

I posted the Truth about the Mcdonalds Coffeee case about 10 years ago on one of the local boards and its been revisited numerous times since then so I did'nt care to read this thread and cover this ground again, but...Just leave it to a jury of our peers!.. And watch the show. You don't hand someone in a car a cup of boiling fluid in a paper cup and not expect at least some of them to get severely injured, and a real American trusts the jury system and doesn't volentarily give up our right to have our day in court. If its a frivolous lawsuit you can be sure some people hating, corporate puppets like yourselves will be on the jury to shoot it down.. You right wing lemmings act like "we the people can't be trusted", but Corporate America can?

Where'd you Morons get that idea?