Kelly the Dog Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 No it wasn't. The violated a federal statute, I'm sorry its not frivolous or against common sense. If it was, the bill's lawyers wouldn't have settled. I'm fully aware parties settle to avoid litigation costs, but they don't settle frivolous lawsuits for millions of dollars. There was nothing wrong with the lawsuit or complaint. You can hate our legal system, but this suit was fair game. Because the $3,000,000.00 punishment fits the 3 extra text crime, right?
Kirby Jackson Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) No it wasn't. The violated a federal statute, I'm sorry its not frivolous or against common sense. If it was, the bill's lawyers wouldn't have settled. I'm fully aware parties settle to avoid litigation costs, but they don't settle frivolous lawsuits for millions of dollars. There was nothing wrong with the lawsuit or complaint. You can hate our legal system, but this suit was fair game. Is that you Gerry Wojcik? We found the only person in the world that agrees with the suit. It was the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit and exploited the spirit of the law. We live in a litigious society where nonsense like this occurs all too often. If you chose to accept the $75 gift card that is your choice. I just don't believe that those couple of extra texts did $75 worth of damage to me. Edited November 1, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) No it wasn't. The violated a federal statute, I'm sorry its not frivolous or against common sense. If it was, the bill's lawyers wouldn't have settled. I'm fully aware parties settle to avoid litigation costs, but they don't settle frivolous lawsuits for millions of dollars. There was nothing wrong with the lawsuit or complaint. You can hate our legal system, but this suit was fair game. And the problem for some is what constitutes fair game. The legal point is valid...and you're right, they had the right to litigate, the bills had the right to fight or settle. The fact that they chose to settle could mean anything from "holy shxt we're going to lose big" to "this is bs and we think the plaintiff is a d:bag but we gotta cut and run". I'd bet it's the latter. To assume settlements aren't made on cases where the defendant feels they might well prevail is naive. Settlement, like the desire to obtain class status, is a tactical consideration. I often think of the little old lady and the hot coffee spillage. In hindsight, McDonalds likely still felt the suit bogus, but from a strategic perspective obviously should have settled. Edited November 1, 2014 by leh-nerd skin-erd
Numark3 Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) Because the $3,000,000.00 punishment fits the 3 extra text crime, right? It is a class action suit...? No one is getting 3mil for their harm Is that you Gerry Wojik? We found the only person in the world that agrees with the suit. It was the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit and exploited the spirit of the law. We live in a litigious society where nonsense like this occurs all too often. I'v already explained why this isn't a frivolous lawsuit, sorry you don't like the answer. I'm not arguing over anything, just stating facts. And the irony of your post is not lost. If this is what happens in our society, then it isn't against the spirit of the law now is it. And the problem for some is what constitutes fair game. The legal point is valid...and you're right, they had the right to litigate, the bills had the right to fight or settle. The fact that they chose to settle could mean anything from "holy shxt we're going to lose big" to "this is bs and we think the plaintiff is a d:bag but we gotta cut and run". I'd bet it's the latter. To assume settlements aren't made on cases where the defendant feels they might well prevail is naive. Settlement, like the desire to obtain class status, is a tactical consideration. I often think of the little old lady and the hot coffee spillage. In hindsight, McDonalds likely still felt the suit bogus, but from a strategic perspective obviously should have settled. Yea you get it. The bills would've had to litigate or settle, because under our legal system, this was not frivolous. I will say this though, the coffee case was a case that McDonalds should have lost and that lady had every right to seek damages. Edited November 1, 2014 by Crayola64
Kelly the Dog Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 And the problem for some is what constitutes fair game. The legal point is valid...and you're right, they had the right to litigate, the bills had the right to fight or settle. The fact that they chose to settle could mean anything from "holy shxt we're going to lose big" to "this is bs and we think the plaintiff is a d:bag but we gotta cut and run". I'd bet it's the latter. To assume settlements aren't made on cases where the defendant feels they might well prevail is naive. Settlement, like the desire to obtain class status, is a tactical consideration. I often think of the little old lady and the hot coffee spillage. In hindsight, McDonalds likely still felt the suit bogus, but from a strategic perspective obviously should have settled. And yet with overly hot coffee, someone could actually get hurt. You cannot get hurt from three extra texts in a week. It is a class action suit...? No one is getting 3mil for their harm The Bills are paying out 3m. The lawyers got $562,000 which does nothing but encourage bad behavior. Even the $5000 the scumbag Wojcik got was a gross abuse of the law. He should have got $5 for his "harm" and publicly humiliated. And I understand that the 2.5m or so the Bills pay out can only be spent at the Bills store, and if anything helps their promotion of the team. But it's still heinous.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 And yet with overly hot coffee, someone could actually get hurt. You cannot get hurt from three extra texts in a week. The point wasn't if the coffee was too hot and mcd's was responsible, or the lady a dumb ass responsible for balancing hot coffee in her lap, or anywhere in between. The point was simply that settling for "millions" of dollars doesn't mean the bills thought it a justifiable lawsuit. The money is all relative to the players involved. My biggest issue--besides some bottom feeders looking for some cash--is folks who look at this as a push for the bills. It's not just $75 per...it's defense costs, lost time in house, etc. The ripple effect can be significant. Then again, it's a dog eat dog world. Lots of folks want a piece of someone else's tasty pie.
Numark3 Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) The point wasn't if the coffee was too hot and mcd's was responsible, or the lady a dumb ass responsible for balancing hot coffee in her lap, or anywhere in between. That case was a 79 year old lady who spilled a drink (none of us have ever done that) and tried to get 20K dollars out of McDonalds after she suffered serious burns from coffee that was 190 degrees. And McDonalds knew their coffee caused burns if spilled. The point was simply that settling for "millions" of dollars doesn't mean the bills thought it a justifiable lawsuit. If they thought it was frivolous or could have been dismissed the would have. Sure they may have won the case and settled to avoid litigation, but the lawsuit was fine. Edited November 1, 2014 by Crayola64
Kelly the Dog Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 The point wasn't if the coffee was too hot and mcd's was responsible, or the lady a dumb ass responsible for balancing hot coffee in her lap, or anywhere in between. The point was simply that settling for "millions" of dollars doesn't mean the bills thought it a justifiable lawsuit. The money is all relative to the players involved. My biggest issue--besides some bottom feeders looking for some cash--is folks who look at this as a push for the bills. It's not just $75 per...it's defense costs, lost time in house, etc. The ripple effect can be significant. Then again, it's a dog eat dog world. Lots of folks want a piece of someone else's tasty pie. Oh I totally understand that, and agree with every word you said. But there are frivolous lawsuits and frivolous lawsuits. Both the Bills one and the Mickey D's one were obscene, and unnecessary, and gross abuse of the system, but at least there was some actual chance of someone getting hurt in the coffee one. There was no one hurt but anything in the Bills one, and no chance of it.
Numark3 Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 Oh I totally understand that, and agree with every word you said. But there are frivolous lawsuits and frivolous lawsuits. Both the Bills one and the Mickey D's one were obscene, and unnecessary, and gross abuse of the system, but at least there was some actual chance of someone getting hurt in the coffee one. There was no one hurt but anything in the Bills one, and no chance of it. Mcdonalds sold scolding hot coffee and was aware it cause serious burns. Infants, children, etc. were the victims of their coffee policy. And McDonalds continued to sell their coffee at that temperature. What is the matter with some of you? There are such things as good lawsuits. Its not so black and white where all lawsuits are bad...
Kirby Jackson Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) The point wasn't if the coffee was too hot and mcd's was responsible, or the lady a dumb ass responsible for balancing hot coffee in her lap, or anywhere in between. The point was simply that settling for "millions" of dollars doesn't mean the bills thought it a justifiable lawsuit. The money is all relative to the players involved. My biggest issue--besides some bottom feeders looking for some cash--is folks who look at this as a push for the bills. It's not just $75 per...it's defense costs, lost time in house, etc. The ripple effect can be significant. Then again, it's a dog eat dog world. Lots of folks want a piece of someone else's tasty pie. Great post, this pretty much is dead on. On a side note people usually side with "the little guy" when he battles "the big bad corporation." In this case (as with the McDonald's case) some idiot went after the corporation knowing that they would walk away with WAY more than the "damages" warranted. At least with the McDonald's case the woman was injured. In order to avoid gigantic legal fees and bad press the corporations elect to settle and move on. There is some irony to the Bills lawsuit. The judge ruled that people could be compensated with Bills gift cards because by opting in to the text program. They were self selecting themselves as Bills fans. 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? Edited November 1, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 It is a class action suit...? No one is getting 3mil for their harm I'v already explained why this isn't a frivolous lawsuit, sorry you don't like the answer. I'm not arguing over anything, just stating facts. And the irony of your post is not lost. If this is what happens in our society, then it isn't against the spirit of the law now is it. Yea you get it. The bills would've had to litigate or settle, because under our legal system, this was not frivolous. I will say this though, the coffee case was a case that McDonalds should have lost and that lady had every right to seek damages. Or not. But, we would agree she had a right to bring the action, that mcdonalds had a right to defend themselves--- and that when all was said and done, they should have settled. I think from what I know, I would have been inclined to find the lady substantially responsible for her own injury, mcdonalds to a lesser extent. I can understand why mcdonalds chose to roll the bones, but sometimes you take it on the chin when you do. Bills may have been concerned about that.
Captain Hindsight Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm Facts of the McD case. Not as frivolous as you might think
Kelly the Dog Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 Mcdonalds sold scolding hot coffee and was aware it cause serious burns. Infants, children, etc. were the victims of their coffee policy. And McDonalds continued to sell their coffee at that temperature. What is the matter with some of you? There are such things as good lawsuits. Its not so black and white where all lawsuits are bad... I take it back. My bad. I only remembered certain elements of that particular lawsuits (the multi-million original settlement, the judge knocking it down, and the burns) Now, just reading more about it, with all of the chances McD's had to settle for reasonable numbers, I don't think what the woman or even lawyers did was bad. You are absolutely right about that. But the fact remains the text one is obscene.
Numark3 Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) Look, I get where everyone is coming from. A lot of lawsuits are goofy (but very legal and not frivolous). This bills one is a goofy lawsuit, but a good one from a legal stand point. The bills violated a federal statute. However, just because some lawsuits are goofy, don't just assume all of them are. See how quick everyone is ready to side with the multi billion dollar mcdonalds and blame a 79-year old lady? That is scary. Over a span of many years, people were burned by their coffee. McDonalds was aware of this. They continued to sell their coffee at that temperature knowing how much harm it caused if spilled. A 79 year old lady spilled the coffee, and she suffered serious real injuries. She sought 20K from McDonalds who said no. Through the trial, people became aware of how many people were burned by their coffee. The trial actually helped discover the truth and award justice for real injuries. But the fact remains the text one is obscene. Oh I agree, its a goofy lawsuit! I was jsut saying it was a fair one. Most people wouldn't sue over something like this for moral reasons lol Edited November 1, 2014 by Crayola64
Tenhigh Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) Still totally frivolous.Coffee is a hot beverage. Hot things burn. Its not as if a McD employee poured coffee in her lap. Edited November 1, 2014 by Tenhigh
Numark3 Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) Still totally frivolous.Coffee is a hot beverage. Hot things burn. Its not as if a McD employee poured coffee in her lap. actually some of the plaintiffs were split coffee on by their employees I'd suggest reading about it, its pretty interesting. For whatever reason what the media reported wasn't the full story/truth, it was a case where a lawsuit was needed Edited November 1, 2014 by Crayola64
Tenhigh Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 actually some of the plaintiffs were split coffee on by their employees I'd suggest reading about it, its pretty interesting. For whatever reason what the media reported wasn't the full story/truth, it was a case where a lawsuit was needed I did read about it. She was in her car with the coffee in her lap adding cream and sugar, and spilled the coffee on herself. My original point still stands.
Numark3 Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 I did read about it. She was in her car with the coffee in her lap adding cream and sugar, and spilled the coffee on herself. My original point still stands. 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
NDBUFFCUSEFAN Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 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.
Recommended Posts