Lawsuits are crazy!

[Lewkowski]

Agh, when will this country get serious about tort reform. People sueing because coffe hot? Or insane amounts awarded by juries, that are driving doctors out of business in some sates. Hell, personal experince here - My mom works at a Pizza Hut, they are not allowed to have toothpicks, because someone sued! Appearntly they hurt themselves with the toothpick.

And you know who's at fault here? Democracts! Damn bastards don't want tort reform since the lawyers are feeding them so many campain contributions.

[RandBlade]

Silly Americans :rolleyes:

I blame American culture for this and I hope it doesn't come over here. We had a couple of ambulance chasing firms set up here, two were always advertising on TV, I was worried we were going to get this culture from America, within the last year these two main claims firms went bust. Thousands of people lost their jobs, I've never been so glad. Good riddance.

PS Lewk both houses of congress and the white house are controlled by republicans aren't they? What sort of tort reform is necessary? I thought it was the fault of stupid US juries deciding that McDonalds etc are guilty when people are f*cking incompetent and hurt themselves.

[Tepic]

Most of these stories are urban legend, and blown completely out of proportion with minimal facts attached.

For instance, it's not uncommon for a judge to reduce a multi-million dollar settlement to a few hundred thousand as the final verdict.

And that coffee thing? I'd be pissed as well if somebody served me coffee hot enough to cause 3rd Degree burns in a few seconds.

Knowing the whole story is valuable, but against everything that sensationalism stands for.

[Darkphyre]

A lot of the time the companies getting sued (IE McDonald's) settle out of court. This happens for two reasons:

1. Bad publicity to be sued.
2. It's cheaper than going to court.

So it's not like many of these cases are decided by the courts in the end.

[ductonius]

Originally posted by Tepic
And that coffee thing? I'd be pissed as well if somebody served me coffee hot enough to cause 3rd Degree burns in a few seconds.

So you would prefer that coffee shops and restaraunts kept simmering pots of bacteria culture in thier coffee-makers, as opposed to simply hot coffee?

[GADefence]

Originally posted by Tepic
And that coffee thing? I'd be pissed as well if somebody served me coffee hot enough to cause 3rd Degree burns in a few seconds.

If you don't like hot coffee, ask them to serve you a cup of coffee beans or iced cappuchino, don't like the taste, fine, ask them to heat it up.

And as far as it goes, what kind of a person would down a cup of coffee like a soda and NOT expect to be burned anywhere?

[Lewkowski]

Most of these stories are urban legend, and blown completely out of proportion with minimal facts attached.

FACT - The Pizza hut that my mom works at is not allowed to carry toothpicks, thiers obviously a reason for this, some idiot sued.

FACT - Coffe now has that stupid hot label on it. WTF OF COURSE ITS HOT YOU DONT NEED A LABEL!

FACT - While many cases the judge lowers the amount or its apealed, the fact still remains that even 10,000 dollars is way too much to give to some retard. AND lets not forget the amount of tax payers money WASTED having these cases in court.

PS Lewk both houses of congress and the white house are controlled by republicans aren't they? What sort of tort reform is necessary? I thought it was the fault of stupid US juries deciding that McDonalds etc are guilty when people are f*cking incompetent and hurt themselves.

Well we've started some Tort reform, in particular with caps on law suits on damages for medical malpractice cases. But I'm not sure what happened to it, weather it got voted down or still in committe I'm not sure.

And yeah Juries are dumb asses. But I make the claim most of them are dumb poor people. Rich people have better things to do with their time, and its quite easy to get out of jury duty if you wish to. And a lot of poor mentality is screw over the "big business" and help out the "little guy" regardless of the merits of the case.

[Adrock]

Regardless of the verdict. It's the fact that these cases are allowed to enter the legal system in the first place that I'm pissed about.

You want some seriously stupid cases? Check these out.

Parents are suing their doctor because they were not warned that their child was going to be physically impared (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/19/60minutes/main559472.shtml).

Man is suing an amusement park because he was struck by lightning in their parking lot (http://www.cincypost.com/2003/06/17/suit061703.html).

I weep for our future.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Lewkowski
Agh, when will this country get serious about tort reform. People sueing because coffe hot? Or insane amounts awarded by juries, that are driving doctors out of business in some sates. Hell, personal experince here - My mom works at a Pizza Hut, they are not allowed to have toothpicks, because someone sued! Appearntly they hurt themselves with the toothpick.

And you know who's at fault here? Democracts! Damn bastards don't want tort reform since the lawyers are feeding them so many campain contributions.

LOL blame the democrats! Care to show us a source that high campaign contributions are strictly to democrats? After all, it is customary to provide sources for claims that are improbable and not commonly accepted.

I'm guessing that it's the opposite of corporate contribution, where republicans get more than demos, but both parties are essentially pro-business, and the republicans are only slightly more so. Likewise I bet the demos get more money from lawyers than Repubs do, and are slightly more pro-lawyer than Republicans.


Or let me put it another way: the Republicans have control of the Senate, the House, and the presidency. If they are innately pro-tort reform, how come we haven't seen any dramatic changes? Certainly they have had the opportunity

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by ductonius
So you would prefer that coffee shops and restaraunts kept simmering pots of bacteria culture in thier coffee-makers, as opposed to simply hot coffee?

Coffee that is 120-140 degrees F won't burn anybody, but won't grow anything but deep sea vent bacteria (which aren't exactly a big risk). Not taking sides on the issue here, just pointing out scientific reality.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Lewkowski
And yeah Juries are dumb asses. But I make the claim most of them are dumb poor people. Rich people have better things to do with their time, and its quite easy to get out of jury duty if you wish to. And a lot of poor mentality is screw over the "big business" and help out the "little guy" regardless of the merits of the case.

Surely you will back up your claim with a source? After all, it's a little outrageous (and NOT commonly accepted) to claim that most juries are peopled by the poor. Last I heard the heaviest bias in juries was towards the elderly.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Adrock
Regardless of the verdict. It's the fact that these cases are allowed to enter the legal system in the first place that I'm pissed about.

You want some seriously stupid cases? Check these out.

Parents are suing their doctor because they were not warned that their child was going to be physically impared (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/19/60minutes/main559472.shtml).

Man is suing an amusement park because he was struck by lightning in their parking lot (http://www.cincypost.com/2003/06/17/suit061703.html).

I weep for our future.

Mind you, I totally agree. I think people are not willing to accept personal responsibility for their actions. Everybody looks around for somebody to blame when something goes wrong for them. Hey, perhaps this is actually a result of the decline in religion--people no longer say "god's will." More likely, I suspect it's just greed, and it has gradually become embedded in our culture, so that people's first response is: "I'll sue!"

The worst case, IMO, is obstetrics. OBs pay far more in malpractice insurance than any other medical field. My MD friends tell me a lot of people don't go into OB simply because of that--they know they will be sued regularly for their whole career (even though the same friends claim OB is the most popular rotation, because it's so cool to witness the miracle of birth and the start of life).

I'm sorry, but DEVELOPMENT IS AN ERROR-PRONE PROCESS! My god! How hard is it to get? 30-50% of all conceptions are miscarried, which illustrates how often the plan goes wrong. How surprising is it that a certain frequency of pregnancies result in birth defects?

Don't get me wrong--rarely there is an incompetant doc (say, an alcoholic), and they should be punished and suspended from practice to protect people. But how many of the malpractice cases actually involve a negligent error on the part of the doc? I don't know the numbers, but I'd guess it's pretty low.

[Adrock]

I guess I'm bitter because I've been on the receiving end of a frivolous lawsuit. My ex-employer sued me after I started my own company. First, I made an offer to buy him out. He refused the offer and promptly fired me on the spot. So, I started my own company. The first thing he did was bring a lawsuit against me. He cited "stolen trade secrets" as the reason. :rolleyes:

Long story short, he did not expect to win anything. In fact, I later heard from sources close to him that he only did it to make us spend most of our start up capitol, thus driving us out of business. Unfortunately for him, he didn't realize how deep the pockets of our financial backer were. $20,000 later he finally dropped the suit. The case never even made it to a hearing and we had already spent that much cash in lawyer fees.

Now, go ahead and tell me to be more tolerant toward this crap. :mad:

[Lewkowski]

Its called logic wormboy... I'm even sure there are even statistics kept on juries.

Unless your really big on civic duty(most people aren't) then why would you consent to be part of a jury? Answer - You don't have a job.

And to clarify what I said, I ment the juries that awarded those claims. I think we can all agree that those are stupid people who give someone millions of dollars for spilling coffe on themselves. And due to the fact poor people are more likley to be stupid then rich or middle class, we can then safely make an assumption using PLAIN LOGIC that they were dumb poor people.

LOL blame the democrats! Care to show us a source that high campaign contributions are strictly to democrats? After all, it is customary to provide sources for claims that are improbable and not commonly accepted.

I never claimed that only democracts recived campain contributions, mearly that the laywers fed them contributions. And anyone who isn't an idiot knows democracts do recieve more campain contributions from lawyers then the republicans do. If you really want me to find a source on this, I will but I think its a well known fact. Respond, but if I DO provide a source, you provide a source(and not loki's) on the other thread. Deal?

[Loki]

Last I heard, the American Bar Association (or whatever the main organization of lawyers is called) gave considerably more money to the Democrats than to the Republicans (about twice as much). These trial lawyers have a lot to lose if there is a cap on malpractice and other suit awards.

Having said that, the juries have more elderly than any other group. That doesn't mean that they are all poor; many of the elderly aren't. Yet there is a clear anti-business, pro-poor idiot bias. The judge has the right to lower and to even eliminate damages, but this isn't done as often as some might think. Generally, jury decisions stick. I'm sure Fuzzy will have something to add to that.:)

And America is the frivolous lawsuit capital of the world. Similar cases in Britain and other English-speaking countries get thrown out of court.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Adrock
I guess I'm bitter because I've been on the receiving end of a frivolous lawsuit. My ex-employer sued me after I started my own company. First, I made an offer to buy him out. He refused the offer and promptly fired me on the spot. So, I started my own company. The first thing he did was bring a lawsuit against me. He cited "stolen trade secrets" as the reason. :rolleyes:

Long story short, he did not expect to win anything. In fact, I later heard from sources close to him that he only did it to make us spend most of our start up capitol, thus driving us out of business. Unfortunately for him, he didn't realize how deep the pockets of our financial backer were. $20,000 later he finally dropped the suit. The case never even made it to a hearing and we had already spent that much cash in lawyer fees.

Now, go ahead and tell me to be more tolerant toward this crap. :mad:

I won't tell you that, because I think you were screwed. I also think a judge should have looked at preliminary evidence adn thrown it out. But there's no accounting for downright unethical business practices, which it sounds like your experience clearly was.

Though I think that's different than the classical massive damages suit (which I also think are 90% bogus).


Somehow we need to decrease the outrageous damages awarded for marginal suits, while at the same time protecting the right sof citizens to sue when they really get screwed.

For example: a friend of mine was hit by a drunk driver (the driver could hardly walk afterwards he was so loaded). My friend had his skull shattered and half of his face crushed (plus many "minor other breaks crushings and dislocations in lessnecessary areas). My friend SHOULD have died, but instead is horribly disfigured, and 4 years later has had over 100 reconstructive sugeries (each of which is excruciatingly painful).

The driver was from a wealthy family. He got several years of jail time. My friend sued and got a couple of million dollars.

Is this wrong?

I only bring this up to illustrate that there is a real reason for having laws like this, even though there are an astounding number of frivolous cases (espcially when you compare them to my friend's case)

So my question is this: how do you dispense with the frivolous cases and massive awards, while still leaving the right to sue for people with an honest dispute? I don't understand the law well enough, so I don't have a solution.

[Wormboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lewkowski
Its called logic wormboy... I'm even sure there are even statistics kept on juries.

And to clarify what I said, I ment the juries that awarded those claims. I think we can all agree that those are stupid people who give someone millions of dollars for spilling coffe on themselves. And due to the fact poor people are more likley to be stupid then rich or middle class, we can then safely make an assumption using PLAIN LOGIC that they were dumb poor people.

So I see you aren't subject to the same rules you demand of others--that is, that you provide a source about a dubious claim when asked.

Lemme follow your logic:
1) Large awards are stupid (ignoring that usually the lion's share is what is called "punative damages" which is assigned IN ADDITION to "suffering" damages (not value judgement here, just a breakdown))

2) Poor people are stupid

3) Juries must therefore be made of poor people.

Brilliant logic! It's so brilliantly wrong on so many levels that could I HAVE A SOURCE PLEASE to suppport your strange assertion? With logic like this you could actually "prove" ANYTHING to be true :rolleyes:

Unless your really big on civic duty(most people aren't) then why would you consent to be part of a jury? Answer - You don't have a job.

Except that it is considered a civic duty, is applied to ALL registered voters (and please note, fewer poor proportionately are registered to vote than wealthier types) and is also THE LAW. It's difficult to get out of jury summons (I know many who have tried, me included, and less than half succeeded, but maybe that's just Washington and California. You often need letters from someone (like your job supervisor or a doctor) testifying that jury duty will provide undue hardship. For example, my wife got out of one with an excellent excuse, but only got out of the second by moving out of the state :D). They almost always prosecute those who fail to respond. Hence, a fair number of people have to do jury duty regardless of economic standing.

So where is your "logic" now? Only the unemployed serve on juries? Pfft

I never claimed that only democracts recived campain contributions, mearly that the laywers fed them contributions. And anyone who isn't an idiot knows democracts do recieve more campain contributions from lawyers then the republicans do. If you really want me to find a source on this, I will but I think its a well known fact.

Here is your original statement:

"And you know who's at fault here? Democracts! Damn bastards don't want tort reform since the lawyers are feeding them so many campain contributions."

I accept your assertion (that Demos get more lawyer money than Repubs), but reject your logic. My counter-example was that Repubs get more funding from corporations in general than do Demos, and consequently are slightly more pro-business than the Demos. BUT BOTH ARE PRO-BUSINESS! Based on this example, we would predict Demos to be slightly more protective of trial lawyers than Repubs.

Also, as both RB and I logically point out, the US government is completely controlled by Republicans (in all three branches, actually). So how is it that there has been no reform?

So I have two examples that refute your "logic":
1) In similar circumstances, both parties are protecting their monied interests, and the one better funded is slightly more supportive of that interest group than the less-funded party.
2) The Republicans have passed no reform bills.

So your claim about the Demos appears to be pure, unadulterated, unsweetened, Grade A hot air straight from special production facilities in the vicinity of your anus.


Respond, but if I DO provide a source, you provide a source(and not loki's) on the other thread. Deal?

No Deal. :down: You can stick your quid pro quo between your tail feathers.

You have made an unlikely claim here (that juries are predominantly poor people), and I have asked for a source. Nobody else has bailed you out with a source. Loki was kind enough to do so for me in the other thread, so I had no need to back up my claim. Your claim here still stands unsubstantiated. Perhaps you would like to appeal to the audience and see what they think?

HEY AUDIENCE! A question for you.

1) Is Lewk's claim, that juries are predominantly poor people, commonly accepted knowledge?

2) Should I have to provide a source for a claim that was already substantiated in that thread? Two relevant factoids: a) nobody else in the orignal thread, or the subsequent thread that Lewk started to harrass me, agreed that ME posting a source to substantiate my claim was needed, since Loki had already done so, and b) in the post immediately after his, Loki said I was dead on target (they had just covered the info in his college course). Then later Loki actually provides the link to two books, one and maybe both of which are academic works, both not popular press stuff (New York University Press, if memory serves me--a prestigious publisher specializing in adademic texts)

Quoting Loki (from that thread):
"I read two books about the Chinese immigrants to America (and New York City in particular) and my professor is an expert in the field of Chinese immigration, and he says the same thing as Wormboy. I could give you the name of his book, and the two books I read, but I doubt you'll want to read them."


Look Lewk, everybody makes mistakes, and generally I'm fairly forgiving. Everybody makes claims they can't back up all the time. No big deal. Normally I would have ignored your highly improbable and unsupportable comments as typical hot air. I probably wouldn't have even asked for a source or even responded to your post.

BUT you had to go develop cranial rectosis and try to make some insupportable point about me (which, BTW, nobody has backed you on AT ALL, cause they know you don't have a leg to stand on). So here I am showing the world that, in fact, it is YOU have have a steady stream of geothermal energy (or is it biomass?) emitting like a geyser from your backside. Lord knows what you were thinking.

The bottom line: I'm sure I make factual mistakes, though I am one of the more responsible regulars on the forum in terms of stating qualifications of statements and confidence level. Did I make a mistake in the AA thread? No. Loki backed me up, both from quoting material from a college classroom (arguably a higher authority than anybody on the forum, unless its some crazy agenda-twisted university), AND, he posted two books that that he read for this class that describe the exact phenomenon I described. When I make a mistake (and I have before on this forum), I admit it right up front ("Gee, I must've had my head up my nethers" or something like that)

Loki occasionally exaggerates, and I will tease him about it, but I've never caught him lying. That's true for most of the people on the forum, though some (FFG?) spout misinformation like Iraq's ironically named "Ministry of Information"


So look, get a grip. I asked for a source from you because you had been such a jerk-off to me for reasons that you can't possibly defend. You have three simple options here. 1) Provide your source that juries are predominantly poor people, 2) admit you were out of line, harrassing, and rude towards me, or 3) accept the fact that you have been shown to be a hack.

If you manage #1, you will have only shown that you were right about juries (and frankly, I don't know the answer, but your statement strikes me as highly implausible), BUT not that your weren't harrassing me unjustly. Such is the corner you have painted yourself into.

Normally IMO one wouldn't achieve hack status based on one wrong post. But you had to go try to make a war out of it. Listen Sherlock: use current history as a lesson--if you want to start a war, make sure you are doing so for good reasons that can be PROVEN. Shakey reason that don't stand up to the light of day make you look like a lying ho.

Out of the kindness of my heart, I'll just leave your other brilliant "logic" to lie there in its shambled ruin. Other lesson of the day: don't reach beyond yourself. What is the famous Mark Twain quote? "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Loki
Last I heard, the American Bar Association (or whatever the main organization of lawyers is called) gave considerably more money to the Democrats than to the Republicans (about twice as much). These trial lawyers have a lot to lose if there is a cap on malpractice and other suit awards.

Having said that, the juries have more elderly than any other group. That doesn't mean that they are all poor; many of the elderly aren't. Yet there is a clear anti-business, pro-poor idiot bias. The judge has the right to lower and to even eliminate damages, but this isn't done as often as some might think. Generally, jury decisions stick. I'm sure Fuzzy will have something to add to that.:)

And America is the frivolous lawsuit capital of the world. Similar cases in Britain and other English-speaking countries get thrown out of court.

I agree in general, though the republicans (I think) get more than twice what Demos get from big-business, yet the demos still generally support business. It actually says quite a bit that (if your stats are accurate) Repubs get a third of all lawyers money.

I also agree with the bias bit, but that doesn't mean the jury is poor. Bleeding heart might be more accurate. Stupid is almost certainly true (or maybe "gullible" would be a better word :D).

IMO the juries are off their rockers, but then I would never get through jury selection in a case like this (they almost always eliminate scientists anyway, or so I hear.)

None of this bears on my dispute with Lewk. He wrongly hounded me, and now has the nerve to post BS claims the next day.

[Loki]

Originally posted by Wormboy
[Loki backed me up, both from quoting material from a college classroom (arguably a higher authority than anybody on the forum, unless its some crazy agenda-twisted university),

You mean there are any universities which aren't crazy agenda-twisting?:D

[Wormboy]

LOL, I was referring to the kind that have difficulty getting accreditation....

[Loki]

Is that supposed to be a low blow against the fundies?:)

[Lewkowski]

3) Juries must therefore be made of poor people

Juries who give those settlements are stupid.


So where is your "logic" now? Only the unemployed serve on juries? Pfft

I never said ONLY unemployed serve on juries. Just that an unemployed person would be less likly to try to get out of jury duty, since they have no real obligations.

I accept your assertion (that Demos get more lawyer money than Repubs), but reject your logic. My counter-example was that Repubs get more funding from corporations in general than do Demos, and consequently are slightly more pro-business than the Demos. BUT BOTH ARE PRO-BUSINESS! Based on this example, we would predict Demos to be slightly more protective of trial lawyers than Repubs.

Then why are there monoply laws if all poloticions are pro business? :rolleyes:

Also, as both RB and I logically point out, the US government is completely controlled by Republicans (in all three branches, actually). So how is it that there has been no reform?

Even if there is a majority in the seante, fillibusters can happen, and from what I understand, the Republicans push for the states to enact torn reform. Atleast thats the general idea when I heard a Bush speach a few monthes ago on the issue. (Urging the state to push for tort reform).


The Republicans have passed no reform bills

You are a 100% wrong. States have passed types of tort reform.

So your claim about the Demos appears to be pure, unadulterated, unsweetened, Grade A hot air straight from special production facilities in the vicinity of your anus.

Tort reform bills have been passed in the past, and one was vetoed by Clinton if I remember correctly. Democrats oppose tort reform, the trial lawyer lobby is a very powerful one.


Everybody makes claims they can't back up all the time. No big deal. Normally I would have ignored your highly improbable and unsupportable comments as typical hot air. I probably wouldn't have even asked for a source or even responded to your post.

That idea is absurd. If I'm wrong, fine, if someone else is wrong, fine. But you should always challenge questionable statements. If only to keep everyone honest.

which, BTW, nobody has backed you on AT ALL, cause they know you don't have a leg to stand on

This is relevant how? Many cases people argue on the forum and people ignore whats being said between the two.


I'm sure I make factual mistakes,

We agree on something! :D

If you manage #1, you will have only shown that you were right about juries (and frankly, I don't know the answer, but your statement strikes me as highly implausible), BUT not that your weren't harrassing me unjustly. Such is the corner you have painted yourself into

lol ok, in what way can I prove that I was correct in "harassing you", or is there no way regardless of what facts I look up on either issue?

But you had to go try to make a war out of it.

Gee wormboy, you take the forum far too seriously. There is no war, its called discussion. :rolleyes:

[Mack22]

Originally posted by Lewkowski
Agh, when will this country get serious about tort reform. People sueing because coffe hot? Or insane amounts awarded by juries, that are driving doctors out of business in some sates. Hell, personal experince here - My mom works at a Pizza Hut, they are not allowed to have toothpicks, because someone sued! Appearntly they hurt themselves with the toothpick.

And you know who's at fault here? Democracts! Damn bastards don't want tort reform since the lawyers are feeding them so many campain contributions.

Alot of these cases are actually legit. Lets take the coffee one. I assume your talking about the old lady who sued Mcdonalds when she got 3rd degree burns from coffee she spilled on herself. The coffee was more than 20 degrees hotter than what the FDA allows. Mcdonalds clearly broke the law so deserved to be accountable for their illegal actions.

[Adrock]

Originally posted by Mack22
A lot of these cases are actually legit. Lets take the coffee one. I assume your talking about the old lady who sued Mcdonalds when she got 3rd degree burns from coffee she spilled on herself. The coffee was more than 20 degrees hotter than what the FDA allows. Mcdonalds clearly broke the law so deserved to be accountable for their illegal actions.

See, that's just a load of crap. I don't care if the coffee was boiling when she got it. Have some damn accountability for hell's sake. Is she so stupid that she doesn't know how to handle hot liquid? "Oh gee, I spilled this hot coffee in my lap. Those bad people failed to warn me that this hot stuff would burn me. Furthermore, they failed to stop me from spilling it on myself. I'll sue those negligent bastards for this". Give me a break. I don't go pointing fingers everytime I do something stupid. Even if it results in an injury to myself. I suck it up and realize that it's my own damned fault.

[Wormboy]

Nice tapdance Lewk. You gonna come up with that source? I remember you claiming (in the thread started purely to harrass me) you said you post sources. DO SO. Otherwise, you show the forum that you are really just a hack.

[bruinb77]

The problem is that you can sue at nearly no risk with a chance to make millions (which the lawyers get no matter what). If frivolous lawsuits were tossed out and the court/lawyer costs passed on to the plaintiff, the problem would be greatly reduced. Of course, there are problems with this approach, but the sheer number of ridiculous lawsuits has got to stop.

But that'll never happen since a law would have to be passed to change that and guess what. Most of the people in congress are lawyers.

[ThorsHammer2]

See now this is something the pro US people should state as to why America is a great place to live. Forget freedom amd power, im going to get me a green card get my as.s into a Mcdonalds and make myself a few bucks. :up:

[TheToadWarrior]

Originally posted by Tepic
And that coffee thing? I'd be pissed as well if somebody served me coffee hot enough to cause 3rd Degree burns in a few seconds.


Coffee is suppose to be hot. The coffee has been served like that for ages. It's her fault more than anything, imo.

All coffee will burn you if it's served right. It'lll affect some people more than others, just because of their skin. Not really anything you can do about that.

AS far as lawsuits in general. Not all people will their rediculous suits. However, they're tying the system up with their stuff. That alone should be enough to try and stop those people.

[bartwart]

Originally posted by RandBlade
Silly Americans :rolleyes:

I blame American culture for this....

I hate to agree with RandBlade but I think he's right. Our culture used to value hardwork and ingenuity to get ahead in life, but now people are using the courts to steal other peoples' hard-earned money. Everyone wants to be a victum!

I'm going to start driving my car through the rich neighborhoods after the bars close and hope some rich guy crashes into my car. Ka-Ching Ka-Ching!;)

[Wormboy]

Honestly, I don't think it's worth it. I did describe what happened to my friend, right? He would give that couple of million away IN A SECOND to be like we was before his face was crushed. He has gone through more pain than you or I could possibly imagine, and he still is somebody that everybody stares at when they see him

So, like I said, how does one distinguish between frivolous lawsuits (which I agree many are--the McDonald's being a good example), and real lawsuits where somebody's criminal negligence has screwed up somebody else's life beyond repair?

Best bet in life: work hard to make a good living for yourself.

[Adrock]

Common sense is a good judge of a frivolous lawsuit. Also, unless you were hurt reasonably bad, I don't see the need to sue. For example, if a man gets hit by a drunk driver and it causes him very serious injuries. Sue his ass. However, if you are mouthing off to someone and he pops you in the face giving you a bloody nose, suing him would be asinine. Common sense applies here, not mindless finger pointing.

Wormboy, your friend was well within reason to sue for what happened to him. The Mcdonald's lady, on the other hand, should hang her head in shame.

[RandBlade]

In the UK whoever loses a lawsuit sometimes has to pay costs. I think that helps a lot to cut out silly cases.

Although if it is indeed true as Mack claims that the coffee was 20 degrees above the legal limit then yes it would be right to sue. Coffee is meant to be hot, but not that hot. However I find it incredibly hard to believe that was the case.

[RandBlade]

Found this about the McDonalds coffee case. Seems to me like McDonalds was guilty afterall: http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

Coffee is meant to be hot, but that was sold at a temperature so hot that McDonalds own quality assurance manager said in the trial it was not fit for human consumption, but they gave no warning of that. Furtermore since the case the temperature of coffee sold has been reduced by 30 degrees. This is not just a case of someone burning themselves with a normal cup of coffee it seems.

[Adrock]

Like I said, I don't care if the coffee was boiling in the cup. The case was still crap. :down:


Think about it for a second. We're talking about somebody suing because they burned themselves with hot water. It was not poured on them. It was not thrown on them. They spilled it on themselves. It was a freaking cup of hot water that they spilled on their own damned selves. That is a bunch of sh|t.

[bruinb77]

Yes, the hot coffee case with McDonalds did involve too hot coffee (still a stupid lawsuit). But the new one against McDonalds (which has been thrown out of court) involves a man suing them because food made him fat!!!

Unfortunately, the lawyers are still on the case and working toward trying to prove that restaurants (in general because this will be a BIG lawsuit) are targeting kids to buy their food which in turn makes them fat! It's CRAZY!

[RandBlade]

Adrock, I've spilt drink on myself before. Everyone does sometimes, and its your own idiocy then. I have not suffered third degree burns from it in a matter of seconds. When a company sells something which is outside a legal limit and the company recognises it is not fit for human consumption then they're guilty of breaking the law and someone who suffers due to it is eligible for compensation.

Bruinb, that certainly was a stupid case - unless like the Tobacco companies it can be proven they knew about dangers and lied about them, misleading the public, but thats not true. Targetting children is not illegal.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Adrock
Wormboy, your friend was well within reason to sue for what happened to him. The Mcdonald's lady, on the other hand, should hang her head in shame.

I agree with that :)

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by RandBlade
Bruinb, that certainly was a stupid case - unless like the Tobacco companies it can be proven they knew about dangers and lied about them, misleading the public, but thats not true. Targetting children is not illegal.

Agreed. You will notice that the "Fat" case was thrown out by the judge.

Yes, lawyers are still pursuing it, but IMO they don't stand a chance. There are far too many precedents against them.

The tobacco suits succeeded, as RB states, because of decades of false studies and lying about the effects of Tobacco. I've read people claiming that the Tobacco companies set back public policy 40 years (don't know the truth of these claims, but they are plausible). My father says the local doctor tried to keep him from smoking in the 1940s, because he said it caused cancer. And it was all in the face of ROCK SOLID EVIDENCE that tobacco was extremely carcinogenic as well as addictive. The companies just lied their booties off, and did everything in their power to bury the harmful evidence and influence politics. They were quire successful, too.

[Adrock]

Originally posted by RandBlade
Adrock, I've spilt drink on myself before. Everyone does sometimes, and its your own idiocy then. I have not suffered third degree burns from it in a matter of seconds. When a company sells something which is outside a legal limit and the company recognises it is not fit for human consumption then they're guilty of breaking the law and someone who suffers due to it is eligible for compensation.


Since when was there a legal limit on the temperature of coffee? It's not like this lady was handed a molten cup of lead. It was hot water. Who hasn't handled boiling water before? 3rd degree burns are relative. What would give one person burns may not even hurt another. I've spilled boiling water on myself before and suffered nothing more than red skin for an hour or so. It's all relative. I'm willing to bet I could have poured that very same cup of coffee down my pants and suffered no burns at all. The case was crap

[bruinb77]

And only the lawyers get rich.

Oh, and did you notice that the Barry Bonds ball went for $450k. That was the only case where I'm actually happy that the lawyers were the only to make money on that. Those two guys were just plain stupid to take it to court and got what they deseverd (which was nothing after lawyer fees).

[ThorsHammer2]

Originally posted by Adrock
Since when was there a legal limit on the temperature of coffee? It's not like this lady was handed a molten cup of lead. It was hot water. Who hasn't handled boiling water before? 3rd degree burns are relative. What would give one person burns may not even hurt another. I've spilled boiling water on myself before and suffered nothing more than red skin for an hour or so. It's all relative. I'm willing to bet I could have poured that very same cup of coffee down my pants and suffered no burns at all. The case was crap

There is a medical definition for degrees of burns. That much isnt relative.
I suffered a 3rd degree burn when I was a kid. Somebody at school knocked over a pan that had boiling oil in it and it landed on my inner forearm. I had a long sleeve shirt on and the oil went through the material and contacted my skin. I ripped my shirt of in seconds and it was already to late. It took months of treatments, and visits to the hospital( I passed on the skin graft) and I still have a scar from it. It literally takes seconds to burn your skin that deeply when the liquid is hot enough.

[Adrock]

I don't doubt the severity of your burns nor do I doubt that the Mcdonald's lady had 3rd degree burns. What I'm telling you is that her cup of coffee probably wouldn't have burned some people. It wasn't acid. It was hot water.

If we need others to tell us how to handle hot water, then God help us. If we need lawyers to sue for us after we spill our own hot water on ourselves, then we may as well pack it in now people, because we aren't going to get much further. We live in a world where people can sue an amusement park for being struck by lightning. What do you think of that? Personally, if makes me physically ill to think about all these weak kneed sissys running around calling their lawyers instead of sucking it up and being a responsible as well as decent human being. Enlightened species my ass.

/rant

edit - I just found this (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2304227/detail.html). Are you guys going to tell me this guy deserves compensation too?

[Mack22]

Originally posted by Adrock
See, that's just a load of crap. I don't care if the coffee was boiling when she got it. Have some damn accountability for hell's sake. Is she so stupid that she doesn't know how to handle hot liquid? "Oh gee, I spilled this hot coffee in my lap. Those bad people failed to warn me that this hot stuff would burn me. Furthermore, they failed to stop me from spilling it on myself. I'll sue those negligent bastards for this". Give me a break. I don't go pointing fingers everytime I do something stupid. Even if it results in an injury to myself. I suck it up and realize that it's my own damned fault.

Okay...so we should ignore every law made by the FDA? If the coffee was within a legal temperature her case would never have held up. Cofee doesn't need to be so hot that it causes 3rd degree burns and thats why theres a law for it.

[Tontoe]

Originally posted by Adrock
I don't doubt the severity of your burns nor do I doubt that the Mcdonald's lady had 3rd degree burns. What I'm telling you is that her cup of coffee probably wouldn't have burned some people. It wasn't acid. It was hot water.

If we need others to tell us how to handle hot water, then God help us. If we need lawyers to sue for us after we spill our own hot water on ourselves, then we may as well pack it in now people, because we aren't going to get much further. We live in a world where people can sue an amusement park for being struck by lightning. What do you think of that? Personally, if makes me physically ill to think about all these weak kneed sissys running around calling their lawyers instead of sucking it up and being a responsible as well as decent human being. Enlightened species my ass.

/rant

edit - I just found this (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2304227/detail.html). Are you guys going to tell me this guy deserves compensation too?

It doesn't matter if the offending object was water, acid, or orange juice. If McDonalds was selling substances that caused third degree burns, they screwed up. How would you like it if IHOP served you an arsenic pancake? Or Baskin Robbins ice cream was so cold it gave you frostbite?

[Adrock]

How many times do I have to say this? It was water and she spilled it on herself!!

It was freaking hot water. So what if it caused her 3rd degree burns. She spilled it on herself! How much simpler can you get.

Can you sue a company that produces staple guns if you accidentally staple your nuts to your leg? Why not? They produced a product that had the potential to staple nuts to legs. You see how asinine this argument is. If you let it happen once, it opens a huge can of worms.

[ThorsHammer2]

Originally posted by Adrock
How many times do I have to say this? It was water and she spilled it on herself!!

It was freaking hot water. So what if it caused her 3rd degree burns. She spilled it on herself! How much simpler can you get.

Can you sue a company that produces staple guns if you accidentally staple your nuts to your leg? Why not? They produced a product that had the potential to staple nuts to legs. You see how asinine this argument is. If you let it happen once, it opens a huge can of worms.

OUCH!:haha: I dont even want to think of your example.
Lets just stick to the actual case. I agree with you that this women was irresponsible. I also think McDonalds was irresponsible as well. Im just going by what was posted in his thread, but it does mention that McDonalds had prior knowledge of the potential risks involved. They had already had cases where people had 3rd degree burns, and their own inspectors mentioned that the coffees temp was well above that which was considered safe. McDonalds could easily have avioded the problem by lowering the temp to a more reasonable level, and/or adding the sugar and cream for the customers. Yet they didnt.
So they are both responsible. And both parties paid.
She paid by being burned. McDonalds paid with cash. If McDonalds hadnt been forced to pay there would be a good chance they would continue to serve coffee at this temp.
As far as the amount I would have just given her enough to cover her medical bills. There no reason why anyone should get rich for being that irresposible.

[GADefence]

If we're talking about things not fit for human consumption, we should go after kellogs for every dammed product.

[Wormboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Adrock
I don't doubt the severity of your burns nor do I doubt that the Mcdonald's lady had 3rd degree burns. What I'm telling you is that her cup of coffee probably wouldn't have burned some people. It wasn't acid. It was hot water.

Sorry bro, but burns are heat-induced trauma. There's not a lot of variability in the population to that kind of thing. It's not like it's sunburn, where there is a TON of variability. Nor is it pain threshhold for hot (but not scalding) substances, where there is also a lot of variability.

In other words, if something is hot enough to cause third degree burns on one person, it's enough to cause it on ANYBODY.

I don't really see how you can claim it would burn somebody that badly and NOT burn somebody else at all. That makes no sense.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Adrock
How many times do I have to say this? It was water and she spilled it on herself!!

It was freaking hot water. So what if it caused her 3rd degree burns. She spilled it on herself! How much simpler can you get.

Can you sue a company that produces staple guns if you accidentally staple your nuts to your leg? Why not? They produced a product that had the potential to staple nuts to legs. You see how asinine this argument is. If you let it happen once, it opens a huge can of worms.

Actually, staple guns are carefully labelled. It might not say "MAY STAPLE NUT TO LEG", but it has clear danger warnings. They don't do that on a cup of coffee because there are FDA guidelines on how hot it should be. A customer reasonably expects that McDOnald's will obey the law.

You go to a restaurant (OK a generous definition of McDonald's :D) and order what you think is is something edible. Instead, in the natural course of using the product, it harms you.

Half of the role of lawsuits like this is to make corporations behave responsibly, ie make their products reasonably safe. If the FDA has hot liquid guidelines for drinks, and it was exceeded (by a lot, it sounds like), then McDonald's deserves some sort of punishment.

Note, I make no judgement whatsoever of how much punishment, or how much iun damages the victim deserved.



So Adrock. Do you think your namesake would have this same position?

[RandBlade]

Adrock, I started off this thread opposing that case, and I fully oppose Americas litigous climate. However companies are not allowed, rightly, to sell food and drink not fit for human consumption. Not only was it sold 40 degrees higher than normal, 30 degrees higher than the same store sells it now, but McDonalds own person said she'd have suffered burns if she'd drank the coffee, not just spilling it on herself.

If it had caused third degree burns and been within allowed guidelines then she should not have got compensation, her fault. But when it is outside the allowed temperatures and they know that full well, then no its not just hot water, its illegal. That's why we have regulations.

The stapler argument doesn't work unless somehow the stapler was made faulty thus causing it, when it wouldn't have been caused if the stapler wasn't made faulty.

[Uber_olafsun]

Originally posted by Adrock
How many times do I have to say this? It was water and she spilled it on herself!!

It was freaking hot water. So what if it caused her 3rd degree burns. She spilled it on herself! How much simpler can you get.

Can you sue a company that produces staple guns if you accidentally staple your nuts to your leg? Why not? They produced a product that had the potential to staple nuts to legs. You see how asinine this argument is. If you let it happen once, it opens a huge can of worms.

I agree that she was an idiot. First since when do you hold a hot drink in between your legs. Second even if it is boiling water for tea it is right at the threshhold of steam so you know it is extremely hot. Because of stupid people like her we have to have warnings on everything. I am suprised we don't have warnings on steak knives. Warning may cut meat!!!

[Wormboy]

Actually, I do think they have warnings on knives...

[Adrock]

Bah! I still think the case was crap whatever the law states. I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever have respect for someone who sues over hot water. In fact, I don't think I'd piss on them to put out a fire.

As far as my namesake having the same stance, I have no idea. I like the music and I like the name. I don't know the first thing about them in normal life. :)

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by Adrock
Bah! I still think the case was crap whatever the law states. I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever have respect for someone who sues over hot water.What if you tried to wash your hands or have a shower and suffered third degree burns?

[GADefence]

Originally posted by RandBlade
What if you tried to wash your hands or have a shower and suffered third degree burns?

Then it's you own fault for putting the hot water on only.

[Adrock]

The only way I'd sue anybody is if they did something purposely malicious to myself or my family. Even then, it would have to be pretty substantial. Handing me a hot cup of water would not cut it. ;)

As far as washing my hands and receiving 3rd degree burns, the only way that would happen is with a malfunction in my water heater. In that case, I'd probably swear loudly and bandage my hands.

To the person who thinks that all people burn at the same temperature: Do you get out much? I guarantee I can take a lot hotter temperature on my skin than most people. I've had boiling water spilled on my skin with little after effect. In fact, I spill 275 deg liquid on my hands almost every week. That cup of water would not have hurt me. It's not unlike the affect of a callus. Some people have tougher skin that others.

[Wormboy]

Originally posted by Adrock

To the person who thinks that all people burn at the same temperature: Do you get out much? I guarantee I can take a lot hotter temperature on my skin than most people. I've had boiling water spilled on my skin with little after effect. In fact, I spill 275 deg liquid on my hands almost every week. That cup of water would not have hurt me. It's not unlike the affect of a callus. Some people have tougher skin that others.

1) Don't be insulting/condescending. It makes you like like a jerk.

2) Prove it.

I will agree that callus wil protect the body somewhat from many physical insults. You don't get callus anywhere except from wear and tear. Some people may have marginally thicker skin, but that will only provide a quantitative difference, not qualitative

As for burns, it depends on how you do it. You can rapidly strike your finger into boiling water and withdraw it without any burn at all (though it will sting). Specks of very hot water will sting but not burn.

Spill the same water on your shirt and you will have a severe burn. This is because a burn requires that the skin's temperature be raised enough. Transient exposure or small drops can't raise the skin's temperature adequately.

Heat works by a combination of heat difference and vulume involved (ie thermal mass). Exposure to a substantial volume (ie held against your skin by wet clothing) will cause the worse burns.

As for you spilling 275 degree water on your skin routinely, I claim you are TOTALLY FULL OF CRAP. Why? Water boils at 212F. You can't get 275F water except as superheated steam (which will burn the crap out of anybody). The only exception is if you are working in a hyperbaric chamber, which I seriously doubt (and why in the world would somebody frequently be exposed to 275F water in one?)

Mind you, I would have been more polite in showing how your statement is highly unlikely, except that you have been kind of obnoxious and arrogant to people in this thread.


Edit: in case you doubt my word about boiling point: http://pump.net/liquiddata/boilingpoin****er.htm

[Adrock]

Water boils at 212 but you should note that I did not state it was water. It is a water based mixture heated up to 275 deg. Once you start adding things to water it takes more heat to boil it. That's just basic physics. Granted, I've never dumped a cupful down my shirt. I suppose that would scald me nicely. However, I have dumped boiling water onto my pants and shirt numerous times (regular water, at around 200-212). Like I said, It did not do anything except sting and turn my skin red for a few hours. I would not want to stick my hand in a pot of boiling water. That would probably blister my entire hand in a matter of seconds. There is no way for me to prove my point short filming myself dumping hot water down my shirt and e-mailing you the avi, so I'll just leave it at that. Suffice it to say that not everyone's skin reacts the same to boiling water.

In response to your accusation of being condescending, that is subjective to the person reading the post. That's what makes arguing on discussion forums such an exercise in futility. Everybody gets their hackles up if they perceive a harsh tone or if someone comes off as condescending. I can assure you that I did not mean to convey that tone, but I can't control how you react to it.

You may be right or you may not be. There's little we can do other than serve and volley semantics. I'd rather not if that's ok. :)

[Ziggy Stardust]

Originally posted by DeRR
Wave your flag Lewk. You reanimated a smelly corpse of a thread just to make that contribution :weird:

[(CotL-Q)Asmodian]

We actualy took apart the cofee case in my law class back dutring my BBA degree. And it is far from the rediculous attempt at geting money out of MD that stories make it out to be.
First of all the reward was later reduced to a much more reasonable sum of 200k if I remember right, 2nd coffee that is kept at around 90 degrees celcius in order to keep that coffee drinkable longer rather then brewing a new pot is in my view a legitimate cause for a law suit. When i order a coffee I expect it at roughly the same tempreture as any sane person would serve it in his/her house. Btw 3rd degree burns when they affect sufficiantly large areas are fatal, and while this was not nearly the case here they still require medical treatment and result in permanent damage to the skin.

[2HD]

Originally posted by bruinb77
Yes, the hot coffee case with McDonalds did involve too hot coffee (still a stupid lawsuit). But the new one against McDonalds (which has been thrown out of court) involves a man suing them because food made him fat!!!

Unfortunately, the lawyers are still on the case and working toward trying to prove that restaurants (in general because this will be a BIG lawsuit) are targeting kids to buy their food which in turn makes them fat! It's CRAZY!

If the woman was done bodily harm by a product that was made incorrectly, then the maker of that product should be liable. You know if you spill coffee on yourself it's going to be hot, but you don't expect 3rd degree burns.

Now, the thing about the guy suing for being fat....well....if they can do the exact same thing to Phillip Morris, I guess they can do it to McDonalds.

[eyl]

In this vien, you might be intersted in checking out the true Stella wards (http://www.stellaawards.com/).

[CARNOSAUR_]

Well, I must say that I'm stunned....Stunned that I agree with Lewkowski on an issue!

As far as I'm concerned the only good lawyer is a dead lawyer. They do look best hanging on meat hooks, however. I don't beleive in suing, lawsuits and the like....If someone really pisses my off, I'll just bust his bloody head and by done with it!

As for Mc Donalds "food" it's not even fit as fertilizer and anyone who's stupid enough to by anything there deserves what they get!

[Illusions]

Originally posted by Lewkowski
Agh, when will this country get serious about tort reform. People sueing because coffe hot? Or insane amounts awarded by juries, that are driving doctors out of business in some sates. Hell, personal experince here - My mom works at a Pizza Hut, they are not allowed to have toothpicks, because someone sued! Appearntly they hurt themselves with the toothpick.

And you know who's at fault here? Democracts! Damn bastards don't want tort reform since the lawyers are feeding them so many campain contributions.

Uhh huh, yeah its the Democrats...wait, didn't Kerry have a form of tort reform that made it so that each malpractice case would have to be verified as something feasible and sensible by a specialist before it could enter into a court of law...oh yeah he did. Doesn't this protect doctors who don't make mistakes? Yeah it does...Does it allow doctors who have made mistakes to deservedly have their asses sued off...yeah it does.

Wait, what does Bush propose...oh yeah damage caps...hmm damages caps...wait doesn't that benefit both good and bad doctors...yeah...it does. Wait...doesn't that mean that if a doctor say, I don't know, removes the wrong organ from my body during an operation that I can only sue him for up to ~ $125,000 for emotional damages....yeah it does...

Does the moron keep practicing medicine then? Yeah...he does...

Wait...doesn't this also harm innocent doctors by allowing trivial cases to get through anyway? Yeah it does...

Try and think harder on some of these next time Lewkowski... :rolleyes: