0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 36879 times.
this woman was definitely not responsible; mickey-dee's was 100% at fault. it wasn't a question of whether or not the coffee was 200 or 185. the question was whether the coffee was over 140 degrees, which is the known max temp that can safely be served/consumed w/o risking burns. mickey-dee's policy at that time was to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees.http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htmregarding this toyota thing, it is clear that there is a problem; it is also clear that people are trying to cash in on it. it is also clear that other auto mfr's besides toyota have had similar issues that were not always dealt with in a forthright manner. examples that readily come to mind are exploding pintos, and under-inflated tires to keep explorors from rolling over...doug s.
So, you're an older woman who puts a cup of coffee between her legs and gets severely burned. Who would expect that a cup of coffee is sold that is hot enough to burn you? That's just wrong. And to call her "money grubbing" is truly disgusting. This is the type of post that should be banned. You have no idea whether she's "money grubbing" at all. If she was "money grubbing" why the heck would she put the coffee in a place where it's bound to cause severe damage? Why not spill it on an arm? I know if I was "money grubbing" and wanted to burn myself using their coffee, I certainly wouldn't put the extremely hot coffee.Also, the justice system worked well in this instance. Before this case, I had no idea that coffee was sold that was so ridiculously hot. Now, I order all cold coffees because of this. Without this case, there would be no such realization.
Expressing an opinion about a person who tries to cash in buy burning herself with HOT COFFEE (that's why they call it HOT) should be banned? She had an accident and burned herself and tried to cash in with a multi-million dollar suit. In my opinion, this is money grubbing. What else would you call it? I'm sure she's happy with all that cash but I don't think it was McDonalds fault. Should people be able to sue McD's for selling fries that make them fat? Because of people like this money grubbing lady, I'm forced to drink cold or lukewarm coffee? That's the real crime here!
i do not think you should be banned. but, do not try gulping a sip of 140 degree coffee, or you will certainly not be happy! doug s.
Quote from Jackman:Because of people like this money grubbing lady, I'm forced to drink cold or lukewarm coffee? That's the real crime here! Nonsense!!!!! You are not forced to buy coffee from McDonalds. If you don't like the temp at which they serve their coffee, buy yours somewhere else. The same goes for Toyota. If their cars scare you, buy another brand. Yourfear-mongering brand assassin rants against them have become redundant and tiresome. If others, like me, ignore your warnings and take our chances, we deserve what we get. Currently that's about 46 mpg.
Thanks Doug! There are lots of things you shouldn't do. I burned my mouth on hot pizza at a restaurant recently. Really bad! It was extremely hot and (not to gross anyone out) all of the skin from inside my mouth peeled off. I turned to my wife and she said, "you idiot, why didn't you wait for it to cool down?". It never occured to me that I should sue the restaurant for not protecting me from myself. Anyone who would think to sue for such a thing might be a money-grubber.
The risk assumed by strategically placing a non-rigid vessel of hot liquid between one's thighs can only be borne by that individual. Temperature, by degree, does not increase that risk, only the consequent ravages of such bad judgement. She spilled the stuff. The temperature of the fluid heightened her penalty but did not induce it.
You should sue your wife for slander...lol!
Why sue the wife? She obviously knows him better than we do.He dove into that pizza without sufficient investigation and with too much self-assurance. Apparently that's a behavior pattern we should keep in mind while reading his observations.
sorry, wrong - if the coffee is served at temps 40-50 degrees above what is recognized by industry standards as being safe, and known to be capable of scalding, inflicting 3rd degree burns, then no - it is not the fault of the person who placed the beverage between her legs, while in a car. who here on this list has not done so? (maybe, w/the adwent of cup-holders, this practice has been reduced somewhat.) i know, i have. and, yes, i have spilled, too. never got 3rd degree burns from it, tho. i do not think it is unreasonable to expect that, when i purchase a hot beverage in a drive-thru, it is hot, but not capable of inflicting 3rd degree burns. so, it seems was the entire rest of the fast-food industry, w/the exception of mickey-dee's. mickey dee's now follows the industry standard.and, macro, you are dead wrong when you say "The temperature of the fluid heightened her penalty but did not induce it." in fact, there would have been NO INJURY WHATSOEVER if mickey-dee's had followed the recommend industry standard for serving their hot beverages.doug s.
On the other hand, if I buy a "hot coffee", I wouldn't ever think about putting it between my legs while driving...because my expectation is that it would be hot.
To the people who think the woman was after a pay day, address 3 issues - 1) The coffee was so hot that it caused nerve damage, several surgeries, and months of physical therapy from it. Burning your mouth on hot pizza isn't exactly what happened here.2) She claimed partial responsibility - sued for 80% of her out of pocket medical bills. She knew spilled coffee would burn. Shouldn't have caused injury to that extent.3) The jury recommended the $2.2 million - 2 days worth of coffee sales. It wasn't aksed for by the plaintiff.If she didn't have any long lasting injuries and sued for millions, I'd be willing to bet it would have been thrown out immediately.I don't think the re-imbursement of medical bills and a few bucks extra for in punitive damages was excessive. $2.2 Million in punitive was way over the top IMO, and a appeals judge reduced it to $450k. A bit excessive still, if you ask me, but not absurdly excessive IMO.Remember - SHE DIDN'T ASK FOR OR GET $2.2 MILLION!!!
