RE: Seriously? Come on!

RE: Seriously? Come on! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

evesgrden -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/12/2014 9:05:46 AM)
In the US lawyers get a piece of the pie hence there's quite a motive for going after the deep pockets and squeezing hard. In many other countries the Bar Associations don't allow that. Attorneys may charge flat rates or hourly rates but you can't be a bookie. You're more likely to get justice and restitution but you won't hit the powerball jackpot. Ii remember reading (no link but I'm sure I could find it) that it's virtually impossible to get an obstetrician or neurologist in Nevada... they can't afford the malpractice insurance. Things go wrong, to err is human and litigation attorneys go for the jugular.

MsMJAY -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/12/2014 10:33:22 AM)
The amount actually does not sound so unreasonable when you hear all of the facts and how the outcome was reached. A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[14] Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[2] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[16] quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB I'm very glad I don't live in a suing society. The more you successfully sue, the more of a nanny state you become. In this particular instance though, I think McDonald had a lot to answer for, 3rd degree burns are pretty serious stuff. When my son was 7 years old he went to a birthday party at McDonald. I got a phone call about an hour in asking if I could come and take my son home as their had been an incident. My son didn't want a fizzy drink with his meal but had asked instead for a hot chocolate. The waitress had brought it over along with a straw. It was red hot and as my child sucked on the straw he burnt his mouth. I had to take him to A&E where he was treated for minor burns to the tongue and throat. I approached McDonald about the incident and they told me the waitress had been reprimanded and this sort of thing would never happen again. They compensated my son with half a dozen kids meals to eat at his convenience. That was enough for me. Perhaps if I had been an American I would of filed a law suit against them and we would be rich now!!

eulero83 -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/12/2014 1:19:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY The amount actually does not sound so unreasonable when you hear all of the facts and how the outcome was reached. A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[14] Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[2] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[16] quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB I'm very glad I don't live in a suing society. The more you successfully sue, the more of a nanny state you become. In this particular instance though, I think McDonald had a lot to answer for, 3rd degree burns are pretty serious stuff. When my son was 7 years old he went to a birthday party at McDonald. I got a phone call about an hour in asking if I could come and take my son home as their had been an incident. My son didn't want a fizzy drink with his meal but had asked instead for a hot chocolate. The waitress had brought it over along with a straw. It was red hot and as my child sucked on the straw he burnt his mouth. I had to take him to A&E where he was treated for minor burns to the tongue and throat. I approached McDonald about the incident and they told me the waitress had been reprimanded and this sort of thing would never happen again. They compensated my son with half a dozen kids meals to eat at his convenience. That was enough for me. Perhaps if I had been an American I would of filed a law suit against them and we would be rich now!! to me this just sounds insane if the reason was McDonalds not using cups rigid enought for their purpose, (I mean that notwitstanding handling them with caution they collapsed) I'd understand, but because there is no warning is just stupid, why did she had to put the fucking cup between her legs in first place? was there someone from McDonalds forcing her to do this?

igor2003 -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/12/2014 1:23:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY The amount actually does not sound so unreasonable when you hear all of the facts and how the outcome was reached. A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[14] Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[2] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[16] quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB I'm very glad I don't live in a suing society. The more you successfully sue, the more of a nanny state you become. In this particular instance though, I think McDonald had a lot to answer for, 3rd degree burns are pretty serious stuff. When my son was 7 years old he went to a birthday party at McDonald. I got a phone call about an hour in asking if I could come and take my son home as their had been an incident. My son didn't want a fizzy drink with his meal but had asked instead for a hot chocolate. The waitress had brought it over along with a straw. It was red hot and as my child sucked on the straw he burnt his mouth. I had to take him to A&E where he was treated for minor burns to the tongue and throat. I approached McDonald about the incident and they told me the waitress had been reprimanded and this sort of thing would never happen again. They compensated my son with half a dozen kids meals to eat at his convenience. That was enough for me. Perhaps if I had been an American I would of filed a law suit against them and we would be rich now!! to me this just sounds insane if the reason was McDonalds not using cups rigid enought for their purpose, (I mean that notwitstanding handling them with caution they collapsed) I'd understand, but because there is no warning is just stupid, why did she had to put the fucking cup between her legs in first place? was there someone from McDonalds forcing her to do this? Knees need to come with warning labels stating that they are not intended to be used for grasping and holding soft sided coffee containers.

jlf1961 -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/12/2014 2:24:56 PM)
can we get back to the topic: pimp stomping shit out of people while wearing nikes NO WARNING LABEL ON SHOES

DesideriScuri -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/12/2014 2:28:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 can we get back to the topic: pimp stomping shit out of people while wearing nikes NO WARNING LABEL ON SHOES I wonder if Nike could show that the shoes actually had a mitigating effect on the damage from the stomps, and counter-sue for defamation, etc.

eulero83 -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/12/2014 2:39:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 can we get back to the topic: pimp stomping shit out of people while wearing nikes NO WARNING LABEL ON SHOES There is nothing to say... stomping on the face is not what shoes are ment for so the owner is fully responsible for the improper use... any different outcome is just stupid.

MsMJAY -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/12/2014 2:46:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 can we get back to the topic: pimp stomping shit out of people while wearing nikes NO WARNING LABEL ON SHOES Warning: These shoes are not meant to be worn by psychopaths. Could be extremely dangerous on the feet of a jackass. Keep these and all hard objects away from slap dang fools!

Moonhead -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/12/2014 3:56:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 can we get back to the topic: pimp stomping shit out of people while wearing nikes NO WARNING LABEL ON SHOES I wonder if Nike could show that the shoes actually had a mitigating effect on the damage from the stomps, and counter-sue for defamation, etc. It'd be worth a shot. If you want to stomp on somebody's face you wear workboots. This wanker was a shit pimp if he was too stupid to know that.

EdBowie -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/12/2014 6:45:44 PM)
You should have known this would happen when you mentioned hot coffee. Now for an example of warning labels, consider that the reason car batteries carry warning labels about open flames is that a famous Memphis singer tried to check his battery fluid levels by putting his face next to the vent holes and lighting a match for illumination... which he received a little too late. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 can we get back to the topic: pimp stomping shit out of people while wearing nikes NO WARNING LABEL ON SHOES[/size]

shiftyw -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/12/2014 7:51:19 PM)
FR: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d97_1319679363 That's a video of the lady who split the coffee- her wounds are included. The 18 or older is because of the graphic burns on her thighs. I no longer think HER lawsuit is stupid. I do think THIS lawsuit is stupid.

LorraineCA -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/12/2014 8:38:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub https://www.caoc.org/index.cfm?pg=facts It was more than a spilled cup of coffee. Please know the facts on that one, she was seriously injured. As for the Nike suit, ::::eyeroll::: "Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases." Everyone should read that article!

DesFIP -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/12/2014 8:42:17 PM)
The Board of Health had written them up several times for this and they refused to fix it. They knew it was dangerous and didn't care.

eulero83 -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/12/2014 11:33:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw FR: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d97_1319679363 That's a video of the lady who split the coffee- her wounds are included. The 18 or older is because of the graphic burns on her thighs. I no longer think HER lawsuit is stupid. I do think THIS lawsuit is stupid. You are just simpatizing with her because of the pain, but she handled the cup in a careless way, placing it on her laps she put herself in a dangerous situation. I never saw a knife with a warning label that says to keep my fingers out of the blade's trajectory and having the fingers close to it is part of the proper use, placing the cup on the laps is not.

MsMJAY -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/13/2014 3:11:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw FR: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d97_1319679363 That's a video of the lady who split the coffee- her wounds are included. The 18 or older is because of the graphic burns on her thighs. I no longer think HER lawsuit is stupid. I do think THIS lawsuit is stupid. You are just simpatizing with her because of the pain, but she handled the cup in a careless way, placing it on her laps she put herself in a dangerous situation. I never saw a knife with a warning label that says to keep my fingers out of the blade's trajectory and having the fingers close to it is part of the proper use, placing the cup on the laps is not. Perhaps we are sympathizing with her...or with ourselves, I for one remember those cheap ass cups McDonalds use to have and I remember getting burned a few times just trying to get that stupid lid off. It pissed me the fuck off that the damn cup would collapse in my hand. Of course I did not get third degree burns nor did I sue (I didn't think of it.) I just quit buying coffee from McDonalds for that reason. Had I been on that jury I most likely would have sided with the plaintiff and held the company mostly at fault. Since McDonalds serves over 60 million a day, its not hard to believe that at least some of those jurors had experiences similar to mine. If she had taken the lid off of the cup in her hand instead of on her lap and it collapsed and burned her would McDonalds then be at fault in your opinion?

eulero83 -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/13/2014 5:26:12 AM)
ok but has McDonalds broke any law that specificate the standards of coffee cups to be served to the public or the temperature of the beverage? otherwise there is no negligence so no responsibility, if there was a law than no label is necesssary.

crazyml -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/13/2014 5:50:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 ok but has McDonalds broke any law that specificate the standards of coffee cups to be served to the public or the temperature of the beverage? otherwise there is no negligence so no responsibility, if there was a law than no label is necesssary. Errm... there may not be a law that specifies minimal coffee cup construction standards (although there could be ....) and there may not be a law that specifies the temperature at which hot beverages must be served. But there is a general, and actionable, duty of care to its customers. Even the really, really, fucking stupid ones.

eulero83 -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/13/2014 6:16:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 ok but has McDonalds broke any law that specificate the standards of coffee cups to be served to the public or the temperature of the beverage? otherwise there is no negligence so no responsibility, if there was a law than no label is necesssary. Errm... there may not be a law that specifies minimal coffee cup construction standards (although there could be ....) and there may not be a law that specifies the temperature at which hot beverages must be served. But there is a general, and actionable, duty of care to its customers. Even the really, really, fucking stupid ones. I understand that and I agree with MsMJAY not buying coffee at McD anymore for that reason, but the conditin to be considered negligent is that I broke some kind of law imposing me a different behaviour, otherwise I can't be considered negligent, if there is a law than a label is futile and food inspectors should check the temperature of the coffee when checking hygene. What I also don't understand for what kind of legal principle you get more money than the dameges yo had.

MsMJAY -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/13/2014 6:17:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 ok but has McDonalds broke any law that specificate the standards of coffee cups to be served to the public or the temperature of the beverage? otherwise there is no negligence so no responsibility, if there was a law than no label is necesssary. Personal injury lawsuits (or torts) do not require there be a law. It only requires there be proof of negligence on the part of the defendant that caused harm to the plaintiff. In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged. Negligence Courts have long held that businesses have a duty to their customers. The first time McDonald's was made aware that someone was scalded by their defective cups they would not have been negligent because they did not know and had no way of mitigating that incident. By the 700th burn victim they could no longer claim that they were unaware that their customers were being injured and that their cups were at least partly to blame. Knowing this they chose to keep the cups- that is negligence. To what extent they were negligent was up to the jury to decide.

MsMJAY -> RE: Seriously? Come on! (1/13/2014 6:34:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I understand that and I agree with MsMJAY not buying coffee at McD anymore for that reason, but the conditin to be considered negligent is that I broke some kind of law imposing me a different behaviour, otherwise I can't be considered negligent, if there is a law than a label is futile and food inspectors should check the temperature of the coffee when checking hygene. What I also don't understand for what kind of legal principle you get more money than the dameges yo had. I often forget we are conversing with people from different countries with different laws. Here if you are found guilty of negligence the plaintiff can get compensatory damages that cover things like medical expenses, time lost from work, pain and suffering, future medical expenses and sometimes loss of consortium (meaning you were unable to take care of your family the way a healthy spouse and parent would). Along with compensatory damages there can be punitive damages. Those damages are done as a type of punishment to deter the defendant and others from engaging in the same negligent behavior again in the future. McDonalds had paid out small settlement amounts in the past for burn injuries but they thought it was still more profitable to keep the cups and just pay the settlements. The jury could not force them to change cups but the fear of million dollar lawsuits every time this happened in the future caused McDonalds to change their cups and the temperature of their coffee so they would no longer be found negligent if a customer was burned.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125