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!!

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!!

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
can we get back to the topic:
pimp
stomping shit out of people while wearing nikes
NO WARNING LABEL ON SHOES

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

can we get back to the topic:

pimp
stomping shit out of people while wearing nikes

NO WARNING LABEL ON SHOES

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

can we get back to the topic:

pimp
stomping shit out of people while wearing nikes

NO WARNING LABEL ON SHOES

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.

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]

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:::

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.