[Innova] Where are the Groove Experts

[Streets]

Would anyone want to admit to being a "Groove Expert?"

 

[Hampstead]

This was the beginning of the end of personal responsibility in America.

Even as a kid holding my dad's McDonald's coffee cups, I could feel how hot it was through the cup. She had plenty of places to put the cup in the car besides between her legs where it wouldn't have a chance to spill on her, and she didn't. Apparently I was smarter at 10 than she was as an adult.

Do you even know the facts of the case? Not the media distortions, but the facts?

She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.

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.

Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald's never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury's punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald's unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days' worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn't, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald's later reached a confidential settlement.

McDonald's admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits

McDonald's admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.

In a story about the case (pdf) published shortly after the verdict was delivered in 1994, one of the jurors said over the course of the trial he came to realize the case was about "callous disregard for the safety of the people." Another juror said "the facts were so overwhelmingly against the company."

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

 

[Streets]

^you say all of that, but hot coffee is hot coffee. It will burn.

 

[Puckstopper]

^you say all of that, but hot coffee is hot coffee. It will burn.

And common sense should tell you so. That woman deserves every bit of ridicule she's held up to, and so does anyone else who files a nonsense lawsuit after injuring themselves in some common sense way.

The only thing worse than the failure to accept responsibility for our own foolishness is the liberals who encourage this mindset.

 

[DikkaD]

Hey, that's how a woman won almost $3 million after spilling coffee on herself. They got to cover their bosses.

FTFY

 

[tbird888]

Do you even know the facts of the case? Not the media distortions, but the facts?

Fully aware of the facts, and as a ten year old, I had enough sense to ensure my dad's McDonald's coffee NEVER spilled on me. I WAS TEN! She was a grown woman who should've known better than to rest scalding hot coffee (it's all scalding, not just McDonald's..and they advertised their coffee as being the hottest in town) in between her legs in a car. Apparently the thought of being scalded wasn't a concern until it was too late.

The judge that actually heard the case should've never been allowed to preside over another case. Again, the concept of personal responsibility in America died with this case.

 

[tbird888]

Hampstead, here's a more thorough argument I made the last time this was mentioned that addressed the facts of the case.

It's a terrible event that happened, Whitey, but it's not like she didn't have other options. Was the floor of the parked car not flat? What about the shifter console? Could she have waited until she got home since the coffee obviously would've still been hot enough? She took a shortcut, and it burnt her. (ba-dum-tiss)

700 scalds reported compared to how many hundreds of thousands of cups of coffee served? Sounds like business as usual to me. This is no different than Toyota ignoring flat out denying sticking throttles in their vehicles that KILLED people because restitution was cheaper than a recall (this is far from the first time a decision like that has been made in the automotive industry). They would've stuck to their guns too if it weren't for the bad press that was hurting their profits. At least with McDonald's everyone knew their coffee was the hottest around (and a lot of people sought it out because of that fact - I know my entire childhood neighborhood did). Was this Stella's first cup of McDonald's coffee? I would say probably not. One sip ever is enough to understand how hot it was. I've never taken a drink, but I remember holding cups for my dad that felt really hot through the cup, and I made sure to take extra precautions not to spill on my child self.

It would be different if the lid was improperly fastened and caused the burns, but at what point does McDonald's liability disappear? Should they shoulder the added costs to put their coffee in a sippy cup to ensure it doesn't cause a burn on a small percentage of their customers? What about those companies that keep their coffee at a lower temperature that's still capable of causing third degree burns? Do we, as a country, serve all beverages iced because we're too stupid to take precautions to prevent being burned? Is personal responsibility really that terrible of a concept?

 

[youdidwell]

tbird888 --- Just to be clear, if a business knows about a problem but it isn't cost effective to fix or the percentage of occurrences is low enough. You feel it is fine for them to ignore it? That is taking personal responsibility?

 

[Hampstead]

Oh my goodness. The jury found that the woman was partially to blame and adjusted her compensation accordingly. McDonald's was aware of the problem (over 700 people burned, some settled out of court) yet they did nothing to fix the problem. While the media focused on the woman and claimed it was a frivolous lawsuit, the bigger story was McDonald's lack of concern for the safety of their customers.

 

[Hampstead]

....

 

[tbird888]

That's an accepted business practice in our society and has been longer than I (and everyone on this forum) has been alive. I'm not saying it's right (or that I like it), but it's well-established. I'm not in board rooms when the decisions to fix or ignore are made. This is where my personal responsibility comes into play. I guess I'm a weirdo because I don't trust that companies out to make as much money as possible have my best interests at heart...personal responsibility.

Did you miss where I mentioned that McDonald's actually advertised their coffee as being the hottest around? I guess that screams "sit this scorching cup of coffee that's hotter than any other restaurant in your lap and take off the lid" to you, but to me it is as much, if not more, of a warning as putting a "Careful! Hot!" label on every cup. While it is a butt-clinching amount for us individuals, the money McDonald's was ordered to pay was nothing to them. They wrote a check and moved on. The only lesson they learned was to slap a warning label on their containers so they wouldn't have to write another one.

Onto Stella...suing a restaurant with deep pockets because you were downright stupid for daring to open scalding hot coffee in your lap and not getting it right is opportunism at its finest. Are you going to sue GE for your kid putting their hand on the burner after you told them not to because they produced the stove and didn't put a safety wall in the front to keep kids hands away from the burners? No, you're going to inform them that is why you told them not to touch the burner, and they'll learn (obviously not everyone did) that they need to be very careful around a hot stove.

 

[chevis]

not for disc golf only

I wouldn't call them groove experts, but after 10 pages of ddr crap this is the best I could come up with

 

[Jukeshoe]

Only a thread about Groove tooling could bring conversation around to a decades-old tortfeasor.

 

[Hampstead]

Onto Stella...suing a restaurant with deep pockets because you were downright stupid for daring to open scalding hot coffee in your lap and not getting it right is opportunism at its finest.

This is where I think you are missing the point as you continue to be stuck in your perception of the case.

Liebeck had rung up around $11,000 in medical bills as a result of the accident, and she initially approached McDonald's asking for $20,000 to cover her medical bills, future medical expenses, and lost income.

She wasn't going after a company with deep pockets just to make some easy money. It was hardly a case of "opportunism at its finest" as you call it. She only wanted compensation for the severe burns* that she received from the coffee. McDonald's countered with a lowball offer of $800. That's why they went to trial.

*(full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting)

 

[youdidwell]

A stove is made for burning, therefore you can't sue when you burn yourself. Coffee isn't made for burning so you shouldn't end up in the hospital if you accidentally spill it. Pretty basic.

 

[joecoin]

A stove is made for burning, therefore you can't sue when you burn yourself. Coffee isn't made for burning so you shouldn't end up in the hospital if you accidentally spill it. Pretty basic.

There are many logical arguments in the universe; this is not one of them.

How about this?:

Coffee isn't made to be applied to your inner thighs, so you shouldn't be surprised when it burns you if you do apply it to your inner thighs.

 

[Streets]

This is where I think you are missing the point as you continue to be stuck in your perception of the case.




She wasn't going after a company with deep pockets just to make some easy money. It was hardly a case of "opportunism at its finest" as you call it. She only wanted compensation for the severe burns* that she received from the coffee. McDonald's countered with a lowball offer of $800. That's why they went to trial.

*(full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting)

I still don't see how Mickey Dees is at fault.

 

[tbird888]

This is where I think you are missing the point as you continue to be stuck in your perception of the case.

She wasn't going after a company with deep pockets just to make some easy money. It was hardly a case of "opportunism at its finest" as you call it. She only wanted compensation for the severe burns* that she received from the coffee. McDonald's countered with a lowball offer of $800. That's why they went to trial.

*(full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting)

And you're stuck in the sympathy mode. The burns aren't the point. Almost all coffee is meant to be served hot (back then, I don't know anyone that wouldn't have laughed at you if you mentioned Iced Coffee). Unfortunately, with those temps, burns are a possibility. It starts tasting nastier and nastier as it cools. Are you telling me that Stella, as a grown woman, had never sipped hot coffee and felt it on her lips? Why would she think that (even potentially) spilling it in her lap would result in anything but burns? Again, at TEN YEARS OF AGE, I was smart enough to ensure I didn't spill that same (as advertised) ultra-hot coffee in my lap. Why does McDonalds have to pay because she wasn't that smart? Because hot coffee burned her? Do you really think McDonalds "extra hot" coffee is the only coffee that can cause those types of burns? IT'S COFFEE!

A stove is made for burning, therefore you can't sue when you burn yourself. Coffee isn't made for burning so you shouldn't end up in the hospital if you accidentally spill it. Pretty basic.

I made the point to Hampstead, but IT'S COFFEE. It's not some weird new fad. Coffee's been brewed and served hot for centuries. It's supposed to be served that hot. Would you dip your hand into a cup of freshly poured Joe? I'm guessing your answer's going to be no because it would burn you. Why would it at all be a good idea to open a full cup of it in your lap where it could spill and burn you?

 

[Jukeshoe]

I still don't see how Mickey Dees is at fault.

....

4chr

 

[tbird888]

Mama June IS Mickey Dees!!! Mickey Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssss!!!!!!