another waste of the courthouse

Woman left on plane sues United Airlines.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37360330/ns/travel-news

I'd be too embarrassed to sue

Wonder if she knows the McDonald's-Coffee-in-my-Lap lady? This definitely ranks up there for Greatest Stupid Lawsuits.
"Gee, Your Honor, I thought a wake-up call was included in the price of my ticket."

Funny, when I used to travel a lot I was always nervous about sleeping on a plane and joked "but what if I miss my stop?" Who knew someone actually could? Good grief.

Now if it was the 'end of the line' you'd think that the flight attendants would ensure all passengers were off before they left, wouldn't you???

Remember people - having your day in court is one of the pillars of our democracy and 99% of frivilous lawsuits don't even make it to court. So don't believe the corporate interests that are trying to deny you your day in court.


McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

I didn't say she didn't have the right to sue (the UA woman), I just think it's stupid. I don't think anyone is denying her the right to look like an idiot on a national level. (That right is also one of the pillars of our democracy.)

Other McFacts:
Coffee is properly brewed at the temperature that McDonald's dispensed the coffee.
The plaintiff chose to wear clothing that absorbs, rather than repels, liquids.
Having chosen such apparel, she chose to remove the lid from the cup of hot liquid she had just purchased while bracing the container between her legs.
Said decision by the plaintiff altered the structural integrity of the container of hot liquid and the resulting change in form pushed the contents of the container outside the container and onto the absorbent material being worn by the plaintiff, which increased the amount of time the hot liquid was in direct contact with plaintiff's skin, increasing the severity of the burns suffered.
Plaintiff was wearing her seat belt, which restricted her ability to separate the clothing she chose to wear, which had absorbed and become saturated with the hot liquid, from her skin.

From a logical perspective, it seems that the only action that McDonald's failed to take was to print a warning on the cup akin to the label on a clothes iron that recommends one not iron their clothes while wearing them. When you consider that of the 10 billion cups of coffee served over the decade in which 700 people were injured, mostly when the employees of McDonald's spilled the coffee on the customer (a salient point about the 700 claims that were paid to rational and reasoned people which is curiously absent from the list that VL gave us a link to), your chances of being injured by a cup of McDonald's coffee are orders of magnitude less than your chance of being hit by lightning.

PrintSmith, I have to agree. I felt bad for the woman at the time, but always felt it was a stupid lawsuit and surprised that a) she asked them to pay her medical bills and b) a jury agreed with her.

Years ago my cousin came to work and had a burn mark on her neck, which she told everyone was due to a curling iron incident. She admitted privately that, in fact, she was in a hurry that morning and tried to iron the collar of her shirt. With a clothes iron. While wearing the shirt. Needless to say, she didn't sue the iron manufacturer.

I can understand asking for help with the medical bills given her age at the time of the incident, and I can also understand how, in our entitlement mentality era where everyone is a victim, how a jury would overlook the law and reward her out of sympathy for her ordeal. It would be a difficult thing to look at an injured person who was the age of your grandparents or parents and not wish to make sure they were taken care of.

What I can't understand is why McDonald's chose to spend the $20K on lawyers rather than simply paying an injured customer what they sought with the usual disclaimer about the money not encumbering them with responsibility, especially in light of the eventual outcome. I can see where someone looking at it from a logical and reasoned position would come to the conclusion that there is little chance of losing the lawsuit, but public relations is an important aspect to consider, especially for such a large and well known company and actually going to court over the matter would likely leave an unfavorable impression while ensuring that their customer was taken care of medically could only be seen as a positive action.

PrintSmith wrote: Other McFacts:
The plaintiff chose to wear clothing that absorbs, rather than repels, liquids.

Ha ha ha ha..."Hey grandma, if your planning on buying coffee at Mcdonalds be sure to wear those Latex pants grandpaw bought you"

You gotta be kidding PrintSmith