Read 12866 times

  • madison79
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1382

    • October 19, 2010, 01:26:04 pm
    • Interweb
Have we become this...
« on: April 04, 2012, 10:50:44 pm »
While eating my lunch, I noticed that the Soy Bean juice box had a warning on it!

It had a picture of a microwave and a don't put it in there sign.  I was like Really? 


Is this how far we need to protect people over the age of 4 from hurting themselves. 
It's -ev to deal with some people.


  • 0mnslnd
  • Expert Waygook

    • 677

    • June 03, 2011, 08:10:01 am
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2012, 11:05:06 pm »
Or... they can put some speed bumps around schools. Korean drivers are crazeee
Out. Never been happier


  • chasmmi
  • Veteran

    • 162

    • January 21, 2012, 02:30:06 am
    • Seoul
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2012, 12:08:36 am »
Nothing can top how back home packets of roasted peanuts have to have a nut allergy warning.



  • Sprite06
  • Featured Contributor

    • 608

    • September 22, 2010, 11:21:29 am
    • USA
    more
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2012, 06:18:46 am »
WARNING : These peanuts may contain peanuts.



  • joseph921
  • Super Waygook

    • 433

    • September 15, 2010, 09:00:43 am
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2012, 07:34:32 am »
The best one in Seoul are the signs in the subways when you are walking down the stairs and midway there is a sign that says, "Watch out for steps ahead."


  • gtrain83
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1756

    • August 27, 2011, 10:26:20 am
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2012, 07:56:47 am »
I just knew someone would post the Mcdonalds thing. Maybe, go and read the actual findings from said case.  So funny how this case is the poster child for frivolous law suits.

here is what REALLY happened:
The trial took place from August 817, 1994, before Judge Robert H. Scott.[16] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180190 F (8288 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 F (60 C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 F (82 C) coffee like that McDonalds served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 F (71 C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false, finding that 149 F (65 C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[6] However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 F (54 C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[19]

ALSO:
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.


Thus, McDonald's was wrong and rightfully lost the case. There were already hundreds of previous incidents, they served coffee to hot on purpose (and at extremely unsafe temps) and rejected her settlement amount. Sorry, but there is nothing wrong with that law suit.

brbkoni2012
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 08:01:20 am by gtrain83 »


  • Cereal
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1239

    • March 16, 2011, 12:51:55 pm
    • Earth
    more
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2012, 08:27:29 am »
I like how they print "Do Not Eat" on the little packs of silica gel you find in boxes of electronics when you buy them. I mean, when was the last time someone bought a new stereo and opened the box looking for a Mars bar?
"The urge to destroy is also a creative urge."
Bakunin


Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2012, 08:27:46 am »
I just knew someone would post the Mcdonalds thing. Maybe, go and read the actual findings from said case.  So funny how this case is the poster child for frivolous law suits.

here is what REALLY happened:
The trial took place from August 817, 1994, before Judge Robert H. Scott.[16] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180190 F (8288 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 F (60 C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 F (82 C) coffee like that McDonalds served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 F (71 C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false, finding that 149 F (65 C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[6] However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 F (54 C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[19]

ALSO:
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.


Thus, McDonald's was wrong and rightfully lost the case. There were already hundreds of previous incidents, they served coffee to hot on purpose (and at extremely unsafe temps) and rejected her settlement amount. Sorry, but there is nothing wrong with that law suit.

brbkoni2012

Right. Nothing wrong with taking the lid off of a coffee cup while you are driving, putting it between your legs, and then spilling it on yourself and then suing...... This is exactly what is wrong with our world.


  • gtrain83
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1756

    • August 27, 2011, 10:26:20 am
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2012, 08:37:02 am »
I just knew someone would post the Mcdonalds thing. Maybe, go and read the actual findings from said case.  So funny how this case is the poster child for frivolous law suits.

here is what REALLY happened:
The trial took place from August 817, 1994, before Judge Robert H. Scott.[16] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180190 F (8288 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 F (60 C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 F (82 C) coffee like that McDonalds served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 F (71 C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false, finding that 149 F (65 C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[6] However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 F (54 C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[19]

ALSO:
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.


Thus, McDonald's was wrong and rightfully lost the case. There were already hundreds of previous incidents, they served coffee to hot on purpose (and at extremely unsafe temps) and rejected her settlement amount. Sorry, but there is nothing wrong with that law suit.

brbkoni2012

Right. Nothing wrong with taking the lid off of a coffee cup while you are driving, putting it between your legs, and then spilling it on yourself and then suing...... This is exactly what is wrong with our world.

Haha again, read the whole case. As far as I can remember:In fact, she was sitting in the passenger seat of the car, which was parked at the time.  She balanced the coffee between her knees to add cream and sugar.  When she attempted to pull back the lid, it spilled on her, scalding her severely.

And right, nothing wrong with serving coffee that hot. No problems to be had there.  And again, this law suit was won by her justly.



  • flasyb
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1901

    • November 30, 2010, 12:10:03 pm
    • South Korea
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2012, 09:04:52 am »
I just knew someone would post the Mcdonalds thing. Maybe, go and read the actual findings from said case.  So funny how this case is the poster child for frivolous law suits.

here is what REALLY happened:
The trial took place from August 817, 1994, before Judge Robert H. Scott.[16] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180190 F (8288 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 F (60 C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 F (82 C) coffee like that McDonalds served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 F (71 C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false, finding that 149 F (65 C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[6] However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 F (54 C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[19]

ALSO:
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.


Thus, McDonald's was wrong and rightfully lost the case. There were already hundreds of previous incidents, they served coffee to hot on purpose (and at extremely unsafe temps) and rejected her settlement amount. Sorry, but there is nothing wrong with that law suit.

brbkoni2012

Right. Nothing wrong with taking the lid off of a coffee cup while you are driving, putting it between your legs, and then spilling it on yourself and then suing...... This is exactly what is wrong with our world.

Right, nothing wrong with McDonalds selling overheated coffee so hot that it left a woman with burns so severe that she required serious medical attention. McDonalds knew the coffee was too hot (hotter than your regular, freshly made coffee at home) and sold it anyway. The payment she received was what the judge thought fair as it amounted to one

Quote
http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Coffee-Joan-Claybrook/dp/B00595W3MO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333586862&sr=8-1

"Everyone knows the case of the woman who sued McDonald's over spilled coffee. Or do they? More than 15 years after making international news, the case continues to be cited as an example of citizens who use frivolous lawsuits to take unfair advantage of the American legal system. But is that an accurate portrayal of the facts?

An eye-opening documentary with jaw-dropping revelations, HOT COFFEE exposes how corporations spend millions on propaganda campaigns to distort Americans' view of lawsuits forever changing the civil justice system. By examining the impact of tort reform on the lives of ordinary citizens, the film shows how Americans give up their Constitutional rights in all sorts of ways without knowing it for example, by voting for caps on damages or signing away your rights in contracts. Through interviews with politicians, judges, lawyers and ordinary citizens, first-time filmmaker and former public-interest lawyer Susan Saladoff delves into the facts of four cases to tear apart the conventional wisdom about jackpot justice."

Get educated mate and stop believing the corporate BS. It's a simple fact that once a person has been paid off by a corporation, they have to keep a certain amount of silence while the corporation can say whatever it likes. The story that you've heard is usually the corporate one. They tend not to present both sides of a dispute equally. Seriously, I can't believe that there are people who still believe the MDonald's version of events.

Wikipedia offers a more balanced view.

Quote
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard S.E. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[11] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[12] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[13] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[14] Two years of medical treatment followed.

And finally...
Quote
A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[16] 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.[6] 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.[20]

So in the end, the parties settled out of court with Liebeck signing an agreement to say that she wouldn't talk while McDonald's representatives were free to go on various news stations and talk about how outrageous it all was. And you know what? All she wanted was $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. Lawsuits like this force corporations to regulate the safety of their products.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

We are not "guests" in Korea. Korea didn't invite us over for Pimms in the garden. We are paid employees.


  • iseya
  • Expert Waygook

    • 704

    • February 15, 2012, 06:14:49 pm
    • USA
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2012, 09:26:53 am »
You guys know that water can only get so hot, right?
McDonalds wasnt handing out liquid magma.

Most thinking people would say that "hey, this hot coffee is probably hot...anddd if i spill it on me, it would jack up my day" 

I wouldnt put a cup filled with ice cold water or soda between my thighs--you have to be 10 kinds of stupid to put a hot cup of whatever there.
 And they fill your cup to the rim, so spilling is not some slight possibility--there's a very real chance of it happening whether youre in a moving car or not.


  • flasyb
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1901

    • November 30, 2010, 12:10:03 pm
    • South Korea
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2012, 09:31:43 am »
You guys know that water can only get so hot, right?
McDonalds wasnt handing out liquid magma.

Most thinking people would say that "hey, this hot coffee is probably hot...anddd if i spill it on me, it would jack up my day" 

I wouldnt put a cup filled with ice cold water or soda between my thighs--you have to be 10 kinds of stupid to put a hot cup of whatever there.
 And they fill your cup to the rim, so spilling is not some slight possibility--there's a very real chance of it happening whether youre in a moving car or not.

Keep believing the corporate BS, my friend. They convince you of what is "common-sense" and then you ridicule old ladies with severe burns. The Jury ruled that McDonalds was 80% at fault and Leibeck 20%. She made an error but should this happen (see below)?

"Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[13] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[14] Two years of medical treatment followed."
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

We are not "guests" in Korea. Korea didn't invite us over for Pimms in the garden. We are paid employees.


  • Jrong
  • The Legend

    • 2381

    • April 28, 2011, 12:52:32 pm
    more
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2012, 09:37:34 am »
Not sure why people are defending big corporations -- that's gotta be the biggest joke in corporate circles -- lower middle class people defending corporations, lmao!

So what if there's some lack of common sense? Big corporation "takes a hit" that's really not a hit at all -- it won't even hurt their feelings, much less their pocket book.

I can understand someone getting bent out of shape when your "avg Joe" (or 'your neighbor') gets sued, but a big corporation/insurance firm? Comeon people, please...to them you are just a stupid peasant and that's all you'll be for the rest of your life. These corporations are making millions unjustly, focus on that, the bigger picture.
"When in doubt...ask Troglodyte" ~0mnslnd


  • iseya
  • Expert Waygook

    • 704

    • February 15, 2012, 06:14:49 pm
    • USA
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2012, 10:50:48 am »
Quote
The Jury ruled that McDonalds was 80% at fault and Leibeck 20%. She made an error but should this happen (see below)?

"Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[13] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[14] Two years of medical treatment followed."       

Of course it shouldn't happen. But it did.  Sh*t happens--that's life
People/corporations shouldnt be made to cough up cash everytime somebody does something dumb.
There shouldnt always be somebody you can blame and make to pay.

And this lady was also like 80 years old. It's not surprising that her injuries and recovery period were as severe as they were.

Quote
Not sure why people are defending big corporations -- that's gotta be the biggest joke in corporate circles -- lower middle class people defending corporations, lmao!

So what if there's some lack of common sense? Big corporation "takes a hit" that's really not a hit at all -- it won't even hurt their feelings, much less their pocket book.

I can understand someone getting bent out of shape when your "avg Joe" (or 'your neighbor') gets sued, but a big corporation/insurance firm? Comeon people, please...to them you are just a stupid peasant and that's all you'll be for the rest of your life. These corporations are making millions unjustly, focus on that, the bigger picture.

Defending corporations?
If anything, I am defending common sense. MY definition of what common sense is.

Call me crazy, but I'm a fan of fairness.  I don't want to see corporations screwing the populace, (subprime mortgages, etc) but I don't want to see them get scammed by lowlifes and idiots either.  Both are wrong and they hurt the system.

There is a problem with the way business is conducted...no argument there...but that is a separate issue.
Frivolous lawsuits will only make things worse.


  • Jrong
  • The Legend

    • 2381

    • April 28, 2011, 12:52:32 pm
    more
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2012, 11:07:14 am »
They're wrong on very different levels. Save your energy for the big battles of oppression. Somebody gets away with $70,000 from a company that makes millions unjustly then well...address the millions first. After that's fixed, then feel free to address the comparatively paltry sum of 70k. Not all crime is equal, some is worse than other types of crime.

There's a lot of talk among the majority ethnic group in the US about "people cheating the system". Usually it's done by lower-middle class or middle class folks talking about "lowlifes" and "idiots" instead of talking about the bipedal primates at the top of the tree who are screwing us all over. To those "higher-ups" you are just a simple peasant -- it may be "honourable" or "principled" of you (in your mind) to stick up for them but really, they're just laughing at you.

It bothers me that ya do this, but I doubt I could change your mind through a post on an internet forum.
"When in doubt...ask Troglodyte" ~0mnslnd


  • flasyb
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1901

    • November 30, 2010, 12:10:03 pm
    • South Korea
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2012, 11:42:25 am »
Quote
The Jury ruled that McDonalds was 80% at fault and Leibeck 20%. She made an error but should this happen (see below)?

"Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[13] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[14] Two years of medical treatment followed."       

Of course it shouldn't happen. But it did.  Sh*t happens--that's life
People/corporations shouldnt be made to cough up cash everytime somebody does something dumb.
There shouldnt always be somebody you can blame and make to pay.

And this lady was also like 80 years old. It's not surprising that her injuries and recovery period were as severe as they were.

Quote
Not sure why people are defending big corporations -- that's gotta be the biggest joke in corporate circles -- lower middle class people defending corporations, lmao!

So what if there's some lack of common sense? Big corporation "takes a hit" that's really not a hit at all -- it won't even hurt their feelings, much less their pocket book.

I can understand someone getting bent out of shape when your "avg Joe" (or 'your neighbor') gets sued, but a big corporation/insurance firm? Comeon people, please...to them you are just a stupid peasant and that's all you'll be for the rest of your life. These corporations are making millions unjustly, focus on that, the bigger picture.

Defending corporations?
If anything, I am defending common sense. MY definition of what common sense is.

Call me crazy, but I'm a fan of fairness.  I don't want to see corporations screwing the populace, (subprime mortgages, etc) but I don't want to see them get scammed by lowlifes and idiots either.  Both are wrong and they hurt the system.

There is a problem with the way business is conducted...no argument there...but that is a separate issue.
Frivolous lawsuits will only make things worse.

Common sense tells me that MacDonald's shouldn't be handing out coffee that hot at a drive through. Where did they think she was going to drink it? Common sense tells me that MacDonald's showed a disregard for the safety of its customers by selling coffee that was too hot, especially for a drive through. Using common sense, I'm able to say that coffee which leaves you with 3rd degree burns when spilled, is too hot to be handing out at a drive through. Common sense tells me that there was nothing frivolous about this lawsuit. Liebeck just asked for enough to cover her medical expenses ($20,000 - MacDonald's offered her $800 which is a slap in the face), she never sued for millions, it was a judge who determined that she should be awarded 2 days worth of MacDonald's coffee sales as "justice."

The problem with these cases is that people never see the whole story as they are frequently silenced by out of court settlements. The story gets into a tabloid or two and then everyone is talking about how common sense has gone out of the window. "wah wah wah  :'( poor MacDonald's, sued for millions by an old witch just out for the cash." When it comes down to it, the facts are usually very different. But stick to your "common sense" and your single side of the story. If you have an accident and somebody else is at fault, leaving you unable to work and hospitalised, we'll see how frivolous your lawsuit is.

It's clear that you haven't read the full facts on the hot coffee case. Either do so or continue to sound foolish.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

We are not "guests" in Korea. Korea didn't invite us over for Pimms in the garden. We are paid employees.


Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2012, 11:52:13 am »
Quote
The Jury ruled that McDonalds was 80% at fault and Leibeck 20%. She made an error but should this happen (see below)?

"Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[13] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[14] Two years of medical treatment followed."       

Of course it shouldn't happen. But it did.  Sh*t happens--that's life
People/corporations shouldnt be made to cough up cash everytime somebody does something dumb.
There shouldnt always be somebody you can blame and make to pay.

And this lady was also like 80 years old. It's not surprising that her injuries and recovery period were as severe as they were.

Quote
Not sure why people are defending big corporations -- that's gotta be the biggest joke in corporate circles -- lower middle class people defending corporations, lmao!

So what if there's some lack of common sense? Big corporation "takes a hit" that's really not a hit at all -- it won't even hurt their feelings, much less their pocket book.

I can understand someone getting bent out of shape when your "avg Joe" (or 'your neighbor') gets sued, but a big corporation/insurance firm? Comeon people, please...to them you are just a stupid peasant and that's all you'll be for the rest of your life. These corporations are making millions unjustly, focus on that, the bigger picture.

Defending corporations?
If anything, I am defending common sense. MY definition of what common sense is.

Call me crazy, but I'm a fan of fairness.  I don't want to see corporations screwing the populace, (subprime mortgages, etc) but I don't want to see them get scammed by lowlifes and idiots either.  Both are wrong and they hurt the system.

There is a problem with the way business is conducted...no argument there...but that is a separate issue.
Frivolous lawsuits will only make things worse.

Common sense tells me that MacDonald's shouldn't be handing out coffee that hot at a drive through. Where did they think she was going to drink it? Common sense tells me that MacDonald's showed a disregard for the safety of its customers by selling coffee that was too hot, especially for a drive through. Using common sense, I'm able to say that coffee which leaves you with 3rd degree burns when spilled, is too hot to be handing out at a drive through. Common sense tells me that there was nothing frivolous about this lawsuit. Liebeck just asked for enough to cover her medical expenses ($20,000 - MacDonald's offered her $800 which is a slap in the face), she never sued for millions, it was a judge who determined that she should be awarded 2 days worth of MacDonald's coffee sales as "justice."

The problem with these cases is that people never see the whole story as they are frequently silenced by out of court settlements. The story gets into a tabloid or two and then everyone is talking about how common sense has gone out of the window. "wah wah wah  :'( poor MacDonald's, sued for millions by an old witch just out for the cash." When it comes down to it, the facts are usually very different. But stick to your "common sense" and your single side of the story. If you have an accident and somebody else is at fault, leaving you unable to work and hospitalised, we'll see how frivolous your lawsuit is.

It's clear that you haven't read the full facts on the hot coffee case. Either do so or continue to sound foolish.

I believe the common sense here, and let me make this as simple as possible for you, is the following:
Coffee is hot. Hot things hurt you. I should be careful around hot things.
Furthermore:
I know coffee is hot. I will not put it in a position to hurt me.

I hope this clears things up for those of you who like to bend words.


  • Sara
  • Featured Contributor

    • 702

    • September 01, 2010, 08:58:35 am
    • Chungcheongbukdo
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2012, 12:06:17 pm »
I agree that the McDonalds coffee case sounds frivolous at first, but when you read the details it's easy to understand why she got so much money.

P.S. Coffee is hot. McDonalds coffee was scalding, capable of destruction of this woman's skin instantly. No other chain restaurant served coffee this hot at the time. It's common sense to think that coffee is hot, but it's unreasonable for a customer to foresee their skin being melted off because the coffee is 180 degrees Fahrenheit. Why would a restaurant serve any food or beverage capable of melting someone's skin to go? 


Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2012, 12:15:30 pm »
I agree that the McDonalds coffee case sounds frivolous at first, but when you read the details it's easy to understand why she got so much money.

P.S. Coffee is hot. McDonalds coffee was scalding, capable of destruction of this woman's skin instantly. No other chain restaurant served coffee this hot at the time. It's common sense to think that coffee is hot, but it's unreasonable for a customer to foresee their skin being melted off because the coffee is 180 degrees Fahrenheit. Why would a restaurant serve any food or beverage capable of melting someone's skin to go?

It didn't melt her skin.  It melted her pants.

Coffee is normally served at 82-88C (180-190F).  Liquid water (and I'm pretty sure coffee) can not be hotter than about 100C (212F).  I've never seen someone's skin melt with boiling water.
C is for cookie, that's good enough for me.


  • Sara
  • Featured Contributor

    • 702

    • September 01, 2010, 08:58:35 am
    • Chungcheongbukdo
Re: Have we become this...
« Reply #19 on: April 05, 2012, 12:17:41 pm »
Quote
It didn't melt her skin.  It melted her pants.

Coffee is normally served at 82-88C (180-190F).  Liquid water (and I'm pretty sure coffee) can not be hotter than about 100C (212F).  I've never seen someone's skin melt with boiling water.

It melted her skin. Why would she need skin grafts if it melted her pants?

That's what the whole case was over...she needed to cover her medical costs. She was in the hospital for a week because of her 3rd degree burns.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 12:19:25 pm by Sara »