McDonald's Coffee lawsuit.

[JON9000]

We've all heard about it. Mainly because when somebody wants to bash trial lawyers, anecdotal evidence is all they have. As if a system that processes a gazillion cases should be judged by a couple of far out verdicts.

But was the McDonald's case so far out? What really happened? What should the armchair critics be aware of before they start ion on it?

What do you think about the case after reading this?

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

[Deoxyribonucleic]

Well, first of all, I signed up.

Second, I really don't know what to think. Obviously, it's really strange that a company would serve coffee so hot that even they say it's not drinkable . . . Hmmmm, isn't that saying something??

Also, it is very realistic that people spill coffee on their laps SO. . .if anything, at least they don't serve coffee so hot anymore and there's a warning on cups all over America now.

[Exhaust Port]

Someone shouldn't be given money due to a personal accident. As the article states, millions of people drink McDonalds coffee every day and the most evidence they could come up with was 70 people each year got burned by spilling coffee on THEMSELVES. This person did this to THEMSELF.

No McDonalds employee was involved, it took place off of their property and she was holding the coffee between her legs in order to put creamer into it. Her lawyer had a point that McDonalds didn't verbally or show written warning that the coffee is hot, but so what? Coffee is hot by nature and whether it's served mildly hot or very hot it doesn't eliminate the responsibility of the buyer to not pour it on their own skin or at least take care.

In addition, being that those foam cups are pretty thin, how could it be that she had no indication that the contents were hot? Even a ceramic mug with hot contents will heat up. Would she have acted differently if the words "Contents maybe hot" were printed on the side? Hind sight would have her saying yes but we all know that things like that are ignored. They only get printed there in order to save their butt in lawsuits not warn people.

It comes down to common sense. You purchase a hot beverage you take care and not attempt to hold it between your legs for support. People who skip the common sense part shouldn't be compensated when they get injured.

[stillakid]

I had another thread going for awhile about the seeming lack of common sense among the general populace.

For instance, I was watching a commercial the other day for a new GM SUV (or Lincoln or something). It starts out in the clouds as an airplane flies by. As it exits offscreen, this new truck emerges from the clouds and drives around the sky as if it could fly. No big deal right? But at the bottom of the screen in tiny letters, I could read the word "DRAMATIZATION." Do I need to say anymore?

[Kidhuman]

First off people wanna sue someone for everything. I guess it is the best get rich scheme going. Suing Mickey D's for an immbocilic move that the person did to themselves opened the door for tons of people. I remember hearing on the radio about stupid lawsuits. Here are some I remember

1. A person sued the owner of a house when they were away for a weekend. He broke into their house and got locked in the garage for 2 days. He sued and won.

2. A person trespassed on another persons property and got bit by their dog. Since there was no Beware of Dog sign, the person sued and won.

3. A man sued Hooters and won because they wouldn't hire him to be a waiter.


There were many others, but thats all I can dig out of my mind.

People suing eachother has got to stop. It is ruining society and the way we look at other people. I will admit I sued someone once, but for hitting me with their car. Stop this senseless bull and realize it was your own stupidity that caused you to get hurt. I mean I know she didn't order Ice Coffee. She had to have an inkling that it was hot. If she couldn't figure that one out than how did she get a drivers license?



Sorry, I rambled on a bit too much.

[stillakid]

Originally posted by kidhuman

3. A man sued Hooters and won because they wouldn't hire him to be a waiter.

Government ends Hooters lawsuit

ASSOCIATED PRESS

http://www.kstatecollegian.com/issue...-probe-14.html


TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- The government has quietly ended its four-year sexual discrimination probe of Hooters, coming to the same conclusion as its sometimes snickering critics have -- we have better things to do.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had demanded a $22-million fine from the 170-restaurant chain after looking into complaints by four Chicago men who said they were denied the chance to serve suds alongside buxom young waitresses.

The EEOC also wanted Hooters to hire male waiters, compensate any men it had turned down for jobs and set up a scholarship fund to enhance employment opportunities for men.

Ridiculous, said Rep. Harris Fawell, R-Ill., who had questioned the investigation, given the agency's limited financial resources and heavy caseload.

The EEOC wouldn't say how much it cost to conduct the investigation.

Columnists had a field day as Hooters fought both the EEOC and a private lawsuit filed by the men, asserting a constitutional right to have only females squeeze into its skimpy orange shorts and tight white shirts.

The chain even put out a mocking ad campaign that featured a burly, mustachioed man -- Vince Gigliotti, who manages a Hooters in Tampa -- wearing a blonde wig, short shorts, stuffed shirt and bedroom eyes.

The caption: "Come on, Washington. Get a grip."

The issue was a serious one, according to a March 6 letter from EEOC Chairman Gilbert F. Casellas to Fawell, chairman of a House subcommittee on employment. But, Casellas acknowledged, the agency did have more important matters to concentrate on.

"Denying any American a job simply because of his or her sex is a serious issue which should be taken seriously," Casellas wrote. "The particular factual issues raised by Hooters do not transform this into a frivolous case or a subject for locker-room humor."

But, Casellas added, since a private class-action lawsuit is pending, "it is wiser for the EEOC to devote its scarce litigation resources to other cases."

The response at the Tampa Hooters was mixed on Wednesday.

Gigliotti said his restaurant just wouldn't have been the same with men wearing the trademark uniforms. "Women don't look at guys the same way men look at women," he said.

But don't tell that to Mary Pinion, a mortgage broker across the room, having lunch with five of her female mortgage processors.

"Well, exactly how does he look at women?" Pinion asked. "Does he mean we don't lust after men the same way men lust after women? We sure do, if they're lustable."

Dorothy Frook, having lunch with her husband and his friend, nodded toward her waitress' tight orange shorts and said, "I'd like to see a guy in those."

But Frook's lunch partner, Charles Combs, who works down the street and comes in three times a week, said he'd stop if men were hired.

"The girls know how to take your order just right, and they talk to you just right," he said. "No guy can be friendly to me and make me want to come back."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article was published on Thursday, May 2, 1996

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1996, Student Publications Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of Student Publications Inc., Kansas State University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOOTERS OF AUGUSTA, GEORGIA

https://www.classactionamerica.com/c...&categoryID=13

Amount At Issue: $12,000,000 Date Added to Site: 8/2/2001



$12 Million Award in Junk Fax Class Action
A Georgia jury has awarded nearly $12 million in a class action against the Hooters restaurant in Augusta, Georgia by 1,321 nearby residents who received unsolicited faxed advertisements for the eatery.

[bobafrett]

The next time I spill an ice cold beverage from some fast food chain onto my lap, I'll sue for "shrinkage".

Seriously though, I was involved in a head on collision. It was the other persons fault, and I thought about sueing, even though I wasn't seriously hurt, other than scrapes from the seat belt, and some very minor neck pain. I even contacted an attorney but instead decided just to take the small amount they offered to for totaling my old Monte Carlo, plus I think they threw in some money for pain and suffering. I had to ride my bike most places for the next month or so, while I waited for the check. I figure it would have taken longer had I decided to sue the person who hit me, and the Lawyer would have taken a chunk of that money. I doubt I would have made enough to put me on "easy" street, and the person who hit me would have had a lot higher insurance rates.

[Sentinel18725]

Our entire legal system is going down. These frivilous lawsuits affect us all. Pretty soon we will all be required to go out in big sumo wrestling suits and even scissors will have rounded edges and can't cut anything.

Health care is even worse now. Insurance rates are sky rocketing because of all the law suits.

[Deoxyribonucleic]

EXT: Meteor Crater

LOC: Arizona, USA

MESSAGE:
This used to be a great and adventurous place to visit, until one day a lady (or we could call her a lawyer's sweet, sweet hussie) was walking on a trail that went all over and down inside the crater (cool huh, down inside the crater? Yeah I think so too.) and OOPS, she sprained her ankle. Well, accidents happen, she tripped over her own feet. Everything's ok right? WRONG!

CONCLUSION:
This sweet, sweet lawyer's hussie SUED the state of Arizona parks dept and now, no longer, can one frolic around and down inside the meteor crater. Instead, one must stand, behind a cagelike fence and view from afar this amazing "take place-ance"

END

[JediTricks]

This was awarded not because of a particular employee's fault, but because of a McDonald's policy to keep the coffee at an unreasonably high temperature which isn't even safe for immediate consumption. "Caution, contents are hot" is put on some fast-food coffee cups now, but it doesn't really warn that the contents are scalding hot and well above human tolerances. It's not reasonable to expect a beverage sold for immediate consumption to be at near-boiling temperatures.

Foam cups transfer less heat than ceramic ones by quite a large margin due to insulating properties of the material, go fill a ceramic cup with boiling water and hold it in your hands - it will be ridiculously hot in a matter of seconds and will probably even burn you. However, take a cheapo disposable foam coffee cup and fill it with the boiling water and it'll take longer to heat up to the touch and the outside temperature won't get anywhere near boiling before the water cools to safe levels.

Originally posted by kidhuman
1. A person sued the owner of a house when they were away for a weekend. He broke into their house and got locked in the garage for 2 days. He sued and won.

2. A person trespassed on another persons property and got bit by their dog. Since there was no Beware of Dog sign, the person sued and won.

Except neither of these are true, read the third and fourth ones on this page: http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html

Originally posted by bobafrett
The next time I spill an ice cold beverage from some fast food chain onto my lap, I'll sue for "shrinkage".

Unless the ice in your drink is served at a dangerous, sub-zero temperature which causes burns to your skin upon contact, your comparison has no validity.

Originally posted by bobafrett
Seriously though, I was involved in a head on collision. It was the other persons fault, and I thought about sueing, even though I wasn't seriously hurt, other than scrapes from the seat belt, and some very minor neck pain. I even contacted an attorney but instead decided just to take the small amount they offered to for totaling my old Monte Carlo, plus I think they threw in some money for pain and suffering. I had to ride my bike most places for the next month or so, while I waited for the check. I figure it would have taken longer had I decided to sue the person who hit me, and the Lawyer would have taken a chunk of that money. I doubt I would have made enough to put me on "easy" street, and the person who hit me would have had a lot higher insurance rates.

If you hire a lawyer and win the case, your lawyer doesn't get a cut of your money, the money awarded to you is 1/3rd larger to accomodate your lawyer's fees.

The time you spent riding your bike is time that the insurance company should have paid for, or do you not feel your time is valuable?

Let's say you had been in a bumper-to-bumper accident that was totally someone else's fault: the Monte Carlo's bumper system, like almost every other car out there, is likely designed to only handle an impact of 3 to 6 miles per hour - anything over that uses the bumper up. Do you want to drive around with an unsafe bumper? Do you want to pay for a qualified mechanic to inspect your bumper to make sure it still works properly? If the mechanic finds a problem resulting from this accident, do you want to pay for the new bumper and its installation?


I'm not saying there are no frivolous lawsuits, but when we don't take into account all the facts and issues associated with a case, instead making snap judgements about the merits of a legal case we're not involved with and applying those suppositions and opinions towards the failings of the American legal system, we ourselves are contributing to the problems of the system.