TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 What the hell... I go to use my card on the Bills store website and they don't even have Aaron Williams jerseys., Graham, Searcy, Cockrell, Robey, LAWSON and no A. Williams??
Tenhigh Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 I'm not going to argue with you. But the question is, should a company that knowingly sells coffee so hot it burns people (they know because there had been hundreds of previous complaints and incidents including burnt infants and children. Several individuals were even spilt coffee on them by employees) be liable when someone gets burned by their product. I think so, most people do as well, but that is your opinion. However, if you think that notion is so frivolous and crazy it shouldnt make it to trial, then you should think about it a little more What is there to think about? She bought hot coffee and got burned when she spilled it on herself, and then sued McDonalds for her error. Anyone who thinks the McDs case was frivolous either can't read, is an idiot, doesn't have any common sense or all three. McDougals knew the coffee was too hot to serve safely but continued to do so because they didn't think anyone would see them. The plaintiff only wanted her medical bills covered, Maccas laughed and went to court where they got their asses handed to them. Couldn't disagree more, Coffee is hot, bro! Are you going to Genesee because all of those cream ales gave you a hangover? But maybe this discussion belongs in another part of the board.
Captain Caveman Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) The extra 2 text messages that were sent (or whatever it was) didn't harm anybody. It's like driving 46 in a 45. Technically, you can get a ticket but the cop that writes it looks like the bigger idiot. There is letter of the law and spirit of the law. This lawsuit was clearly a violation of common sense. I understand what you're saying, but when it comes to Marketing and Privacy, I don't really want grey areas. I'm happy for the terms of service (which they wrote) to be the standard that they are held to. If they can't follow their own standard, screw 'em. PS - I did not sign up for the texts and am therefore not included in the lawsuit. Edited November 2, 2014 by Captain Caveman
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 The question with mcd's really shouldn't be whether or not it was frivolous or not. I'd not characterize it as frivolous at all. It's an oversimplification to say "coffee is hot, so you're on your own". Reasonable questions can be raised and adjudicated. The lady had serious injuries, wanted her day in court and prevailed. The question I have is whether the decision was just and fair. I'm not interested in reliving the case, reading a write up from the website of an attorney, or watching a self-serving documentary. There are enough facts to support any position you choose. For one, I think it should be fairly obvious that ordering coffee to drink in the car, stopping to add cream and sugar while balancing the styrofoam cup near your lap should be recognized as an inherently risky activity. I'd further think a lady 79 years old would know that, presumably having told her children and grandchildren a thousand times or to be careful that something was hot. The jury ultimately decided that she bore little responsibility for her actions, only 20% or so. That seems not quite right to me. From there--as Kirby said earlier--it sometimes all comes back to the overly simplistic mega corporation scalding poor old granny, so someone has to pay! In this case, granny took on Big Coffee and won. As for mcdonalds screwing the pooch by failing to pony up for her medical bills, again, it's an oversimplification to assume they could close things out in that fashion. In theory, it sounds simple. In reality, payment to a claimant at a minimum raises the question that you agree you are responsible for damages caused, and that's a slippery slope to travel. In the end, litigation often boils down less to who is right and who is wrong, but to who can tell the best story most effectively. A 79 year little old lady with burns is a pretty sympathetic individual, and that sure helped her. Bills/text/class action...I'm just not a fan, and the attorneys/plaintiff don't get my respect. Then again they probably don't care.
NDBUFFCUSEFAN Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 What is there to think about? She bought hot coffee and got burned when she spilled it on herself, and then sued McDonalds for her error. Couldn't disagree more, Coffee is hot, bro! Are you going to Genesee because all of those cream ales gave you a hangover? But maybe this discussion belongs in another part of the board. Have you actually read about the case? It sounds like you're talking out of your ass.
MarkAF43 Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 I have a hard time figuring out how 3 extra texts (or whatever it was) from someone that you asked to text you damaged you? Seeing as it takes me an hour to read a text message, according to my lawyer at 1 hour per message, and 3 texts sent, I lost 75 hours of labor and leisure time in my life. I have no choice but to file suit, this has damaged me emotionally, physically, my hand still shakes, my head hurts when I have to keep adding up all of the texts to make sure they aren't exceeding it, and when they do, I have to sit down for an entire day in a dark room curled up in the fetal position chanting the Shout song and crying at the end every time.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 Seeing as it takes me an hour to read a text message, according to my lawyer at 1 hour per message, and 3 texts sent, I lost 75 hours of labor and leisure time in my life. I have no choice but to file suit, this has damaged me emotionally, physically, my hand still shakes, my head hurts when I have to keep adding up all of the texts to make sure they aren't exceeding it, and when they do, I have to sit down for an entire day in a dark room curled up in the fetal position chanting the Shout song and crying at the end every time. Even if they shortened it to include LOL? I know that when they spell it out it's a lot more characters.
MarkAF43 Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 Even if they shortened it to include LOL? I know that when they spell it out it's a lot more characters. But I need to look up each acronym. so if they use LOL, or LMAO, SMH, FWIW I'm toast. that's it game over.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 In that case, thtf. *they have to fry. Damn, you're right, even when you try to go shorthand it gets complicated.
jimmy10 Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm Facts of the McD case. Not as frivolous as you might think Sssshh, they're on a roll.
Jamie Nails Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 If you've received a gift card, when did it come and in what form?
Orton's Arm Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 I understand what you're saying, but when it comes to Marketing and Privacy, I don't really want grey areas. I'm happy for the terms of service (which they wrote) to be the standard that they are held to. If they can't follow their own standard, screw 'em. PS - I did not sign up for the texts and am therefore not included in the lawsuit. I didn't sign up for texts either, and I'm not included in the lawsuit. The case itself was ticky tack. I don't think anyone was seriously harmed by receiving five text messages when they'd only agreed to three. But there are more issues involved than just that. The law was violated. Violated by a large corporation which should have known better. If the Bills had been found not guilty, the next company to violate the law would point to the case as precedent. My favorite football team was punished for something ticky tack. I'm not happy about that. On the other hand, you have to draw the line somewhere. There is the school of thought that says if you give companies an inch, they'll take a mile. (Especially when it comes to something like spamming.) By sternly punishing minor infractions, you make more serious infractions less likely. It's being argued that the Bills are being punished at the rate of $75 a person. That's one way of looking at it. However, I'd be surprised if the Bills' wholesale cost for merchandise was much more than 10% of retail. So the actual harm to them is about $7.50 a person. That's less than you'd pay for a medium popcorn at the Ralph.
Best Player Available Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 What the hell... I go to use my card on the Bills store website and they don't even have Aaron Williams jerseys., Graham, Searcy, Cockrell, Robey, LAWSON and no A. Williams?? Well as we found out on another thread. This is a secret code that they will either cut him, or trade in the offseason. OBD is just trying too save you $$$$
Recommended Posts