Jared Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 The McDonald's coffee case involved ridiculously hot coffee, like damn near boiling, massively hotter than any other restaurant or coffee maker would ever make/serve. You make coffee at home and you spill it on yourself, it just hurts a little. In that case, the woman's coffee spilled and did MASSIVE amounts of damage to her. The McDonald's SOP called for serving WILDLY hotter coffee that was bound to cause a serious injury to SOMEONE eventually. Luckily, the juries in these cases do have access to the facts, and we have an adversarial system that sorts it all out pretty well most of the time.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Dude, when you have burns that are so serious that they require skin graffs it is very serious and excruciatingly painful. You are just making assumptions about this without any knowledge of the case whatsoever. Sort of like the woman who spilled the McDonalds coffee on her lap years back, everyone rushed to judge her, but until you see the photos of the burns she suffered (I'm sure you can google them, but they are grotesque), you really have no idea how serious it actually was. I've sat on plenty of benches in 100 degree heat and never once contemplated that they could cause 3rd degree burns through my clothes by doing so. I think this case may have some merit. No more questions your honor.
Marv Levy Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 A) this is an example as to why America has fallen so much since the end of the cold war. B) she sat on a hot bench on a 100 degree day. That bench was maybe 180-190. Hot for a first degree burn. She developed 3rd degree burns a few days later? Come on now folks! I hate the cowboys and Jerry but I've gotta side with them on this one. After this ladys suit is dismissed, they should countersue her to oblivion just cause. 100% agree on both your points. Point A scares me the most.
Wagon Circler Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 It has been my 30 years of experience as a personal injury lawyer that the people who B word and moan the loudest over frivilous lawsuits are the first to run to a lawyer when misfortune strikes them.
billsrcursed Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) The McDonald's coffee case involved ridiculously hot coffee, like damn near boiling, massively hotter than any other restaurant or coffee maker would ever make/serve. You make coffee at home and you spill it on yourself, it just hurts a little. In that case, the woman's coffee spilled and did MASSIVE amounts of damage to her. The McDonald's SOP called for serving WILDLY hotter coffee that was bound to cause a serious injury to SOMEONE eventually. Luckily, the juries in these cases do have access to the facts, and we have an adversarial system that sorts it all out pretty well most of the time. It has been my 30 years of experience as a personal injury lawyer that the people who B word and moan the loudest over frivilous lawsuits are the first to run to a lawyer when misfortune strikes them. Sanity in an otherwise insane thread. People are quick to judge without reading/hearing/seeing actual facts as to what took place. I was just as guilty regarding the McDonalds woman. Won't allow myself to ever do that again after educating myself on that case. EDIT - That rhymed, tee hee... Edited August 16, 2012 by billsrcursed
Mark80 Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) To be considered negligent you need to have a 1.) Duty Owed, 2.) Duty breached, 3.) Proximate cause, and 4.) Damages. The Cowboys have a duty to inform people that sitting on a black bench in 100+ heat could be hot? REALLY?!?!? Even if you were a complete Alien idiot from another planet, you should have felt the discomfort as soon as you sit down. If it was that hot, wouldn't the proper response would have been to quickly exit said chair? IF she sat there longer than 2 seconds she bears responsibility for not mitigating her "damages". Thanks for the tort lesson, buddy, but I'm pretty sure I learned it in the first year of law school. As a property owner, the Cowboys do have a duty to keep guests on their property safe. They must take reasonable steps to make sure their property is safe for the guests (including checking for dangers that guests may run into while on the property). As a person would not expect to get scolded to the point of 3rd degree burns on any color bench, that duty was breached by not providing ample warning of the risks of burns in hot temperatures. Proximate cause and damages are pretty obvious here. Now, I don't know all the details of the case by any means, but, as I said originally, I believe the case has some merit and certainly should not be just whimsically thrown out without exploration. Edited August 16, 2012 by Mark80
aristocrat Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 It comes down to if the Cowboys knew that these seats got dangerously hot. As to the Mcdonalds lawsuit...Mcd's knew the coffee was too hot to serve but did a study that if they brewed it hotter it stayed fresher longer meaning they didn't have to waste unused coffee. They did an internal study based on how many people they thought would get burned and decided that the amount saved on wasted coffee was more than payouts to burn victims. The woman originally did not want a lot of money and only wanted compensation for the skin graphs on her inner thighs but mcd's lowballed her and she got a good lawyer.
Mr. WEO Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 It has been my 30 years of experience as a personal injury lawyer that the people who B word and moan the loudest over frivilous lawsuits are the first to run to a lawyer when misfortune strikes them. When you meet a new client in a personal injury suit, you ask them if they have bitched and moaned loudly over frivilous (sic) lawsuits in the past? Is that part of a sceening questionnaire they fill out in the office before they see you or do you ask them yourself?
RealityCheck Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 An ex-girlfriend of mine went through the same thing when she sat on my face too long during the local 4th of July fireworks. She didn't sue me, but I did have to buy her dinner.
Mark80 Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 It comes down to if the Cowboys knew that these seats got dangerously hot. As to the Mcdonalds lawsuit...Mcd's knew the coffee was too hot to serve but did a study that if they brewed it hotter it stayed fresher longer meaning they didn't have to waste unused coffee. They did an internal study based on how many people they thought would get burned and decided that the amount saved on wasted coffee was more than payouts to burn victims. The woman originally did not want a lot of money and only wanted compensation for the skin graphs on her inner thighs but mcd's lowballed her and she got a good lawyer. To add to this, they also have over 700, yes 700, previous complaints regarding the hot coffee and settled many of them with payouts in the thousands and still refused to change their policy. That's why the jury decided on such heavy punitive damages in the case.
Mr. WEO Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 To add to this, they also have over 700, yes 700, previous complaints regarding the hot coffee and settled many of them with payouts in the thousands and still refused to change their policy. That's why the jury decided on such heavy punitive damages in the case. Burger King was much more proactive. They clearly printed "do not douse your vagina with the contents of this cup" on their container. Worked like a charm.
FleaMoulds80 Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) Dude, when you have burns that are so serious that they require skin graffs it is very serious and excruciatingly painful. You are just making assumptions about this without any knowledge of the case whatsoever. Sort of like the woman who spilled the McDonalds coffee on her lap years back, everyone rushed to judge her, but until you see the photos of the burns she suffered (I'm sure you can google them, but they are grotesque), you really have no idea how serious it actually was. I've sat on plenty of benches in 100 degree heat and never once contemplated that they could cause 3rd degree burns through my clothes by doing so. I think this case may have some merit. This is the DUMBEST comment ever and I don't know what else to say. Maybe you're not as dumb as this comment? Regardless of how bad her burns are, that's her own fault. I'm sure they're bad burns and she's hurt bad but she can't blame the Cowboys for having a bench outside. She has no case. So next time i go to the beach, and walk barefoot on the concrete and burn myself badly on the hot sidewalk, I'd be able to sue the beach for the hot sidewalk? OK, Edited August 16, 2012 by FleaMoulds80
NoSaint Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) This is the DUMBEST comment ever and I don't know what else to say. Maybe you're not as dumb as this comment? Regardless of how bad her burns are, that's her own fault. I'm sure they're bad burns and she's hurt bad but she can't blame the Cowboys for having a bench outside. She has no case. So next time i go to the beach, and walk barefoot on the concrete and burn myself badly on the hot sidewalk, I'd be able to sue the beach for the hot sidewalk? OK, if it were a case where the company used a material for the sidewalk that is known to get exceptionally hot in comparison to the norm - potentially. is that the case here? i really dont have any idea. Edited August 16, 2012 by NoSaint
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 I predict the story will develop this way: After speaking with an obama administration official a new bench regulatory agency will be formed to regulate the construction and environmental response of event venue benches. In response to the cost of compliance, and the surcharge on venues with seats to pay for the new federal organization, stadium have removed all seats. I look forward to standing at the next bills game I attend. Come to think of it, my unergonomic chair makes my back hurt. Should I just keep sitting here until I really throw it out do I can sue someone? Seems logical. Yes I am sure this is HW the weld is supposed to work. This is the DUMBEST comment ever and I don't know what else to say. Maybe you're not as dumb as this comment? Regardless of how bad her burns are, that's her own fault. I'm sure they're bad burns and she's hurt bad but she can't blame the Cowboys for having a bench outside. She has no case. So next time i go to the beach, and walk barefoot on the concrete and burn myself badly on the hot sidewalk, I'd be able to sue the beach for the hot sidewalk? OK, Oh I know this riddle. The answer is you sue the ocean, it has deeper pockets.
K-9 Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 A who ultimately pays for frivolous lawsuits? You may want to rephrase your question but the short answer is it's the people who bring those frivolous lawsuits who pay for them because the vast, vast, vast majority of frivolous suits are identified and thrown out as frivolous.
HOUSE Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 You may want to rephrase your question but the short answer is it's the people who bring those frivolous lawsuits who pay for them because the vast, vast, vast majority of frivolous suits are identified and thrown out as frivolous. But there's always the lady at McDonald s that spills hot coffee on her lap.
stevestojan Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 No, stupidity should hurt. Seems like it did.
K-9 Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 But there's always the lady at McDonald s that spills hot coffee on her lap. I don't think the infamous McDonald's coffee case is the best one to point to when trying to further the myth of frivolous lawsuits run amok. That case was deemed not frivolous and the facts of the case speak to why it wasn't. The simple truth is that there isn't "always the lady at McDonald's that spills coffee on her lap." As I noted earlier, the vast majority of frivolous lawsuits never make it to trial because they are deemed frivolous and thrown out. And those that sought to bring those suits end up footing the bill for any legal expenses incurred.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 17, 2012 Posted August 17, 2012 I don't think the infamous McDonald's coffee case is the best one to point to when trying to further the myth of frivolous lawsuits run amok. That case was deemed not frivolous and the facts of the case speak to why it wasn't. The simple truth is that there isn't "always the lady at McDonald's that spills coffee on her lap." As I noted earlier, the vast majority of frivolous lawsuits never make it to trial because they are deemed frivolous and thrown out. And those that sought to bring those suits end up footing the bill for any legal expenses incurred. Unfortunately, not everyone bothers to read an entire thread (even a short one) before posting. Then you get people who ignore very valid points which run counter to their position… as if ignoring someone who is standing right in front of you because they're refuting something you said. Those are the two reasons so many of our discussions go around in circles. And it often boils down to the same thing: some people would rather hear themselves talk than listen to what others have to offer.
Recommended Posts