Hold your wee for a wii

[Painted]

It kind of irritates me that they are sitting there telling her when she is fine when really they do not have a medical opinion. Yet another life at the expense of people's entertainment. Although she did know the risks, they kept telling her she was ok.

[Tom]

Resposibility? Ethics? Those two things will never exist as long as the world has Lawyers and Polititions LOL )
Anyone rember the lady suing McDonalds for the hot cup of coffee? Not the word HOT!
I have to agree drinking two gallons of water, sign a release form, just to win a Wii, tragic yes, sad yes, I feel for the kids and the family. Looks like criminal charges are in the works as well but I think that will not happen. But I bet the wrongful death suit will have a huge civil reward in the end.
I hear my insurance premiems creeping up yet again .....sigh!

[miftah]

And if we dredge up the same familiar arguments enough times, I bet we solve this argument, too.

Can't this just be a sad situation without all of us laying blame? All parties contributed to this happening, and all parties are responsible. The mother, the radio station -- hell even Nintendo in a tiny way. The only positive thing coming out of it is that a few more people have found out you can drown yourself with empty lungs.

That the radio personalities let this continue despite knowing the risks is reprehensible. That they did so without medical staff on hand is inexcusable. That the mother took part despite the risks she clearly knew about is ridiculous, but I think we understand why she would do it.

Negligence, if any exists here, should be punished. How, and to what extent, I am not in a position to say, nor is anyone asking me. Lawyers should be involved in determining if legal negligence occurred. I'm damn sure I wouldn't leave it up to random armchair jurymen basing their understanding on the situation on a couple of news stories. *THAT* would be negligence.

And Tom, I'm very sorry for your insurance premiums. You must be inconsolable in this time of such unfortunate loss.

[ironpants]

I'm afraid I'm with Tom on this one. It'll probably go to court and a bunch of "impartial" jurors will probably take a big ole lump of cash from the radio station and give it to someone who didn't earn it.

Really what I think it comes down to is personal responsibility and the public's screwy sense of collective altruism.

If I don't take care of my children, I go to jail. If I don't pay my taxes (30%+ of which is taking care of children whose parents can't/won't) I go to jail. If I don't carry insurance on my cars, I'm cited with a violation. I do all of these things even if I don't ultimately agree with some of them. It's called RESPONSIBILITY!

Now if you're on a morning radio show doing something silly like trying to drink a whole bunch of water without peeing and you start to feel ill, pull that damned cell phone out and call 911. I hate to break this to you, but we're guaranteed the right to life by the constitution, but we can't stop you if you willingly give up that right.

As for the weird sense of public altruism, does anyone remember the juror exit interviews for the Dow Corning silicone breast implant case that started one of the largest litigated payouts in American history? Every last juror that was interviewed said they couldn't find any proof that Dow had anything to do with the autoimmune issues the plaintiffs were obviously suffering. After analyzing the rate of autoimmune issues among women with implants it appeared to be almost identical to those that hadn't (read no proof of wrongdoing). When asked why they decided for the plaintiff, the jurors responded by saying that they were in a lot of pain and Dow had the money to help.

Once you remove the children from the picture, this woman is almost a Darwin award candidate and the humor kicks in.

While I feel for her family, I'm not sure how hitting the radio station with a huge lawsuit putting any number of people out of jobs without reason is going to help anyone.

Our civil courts are so damned screwed up I'm not sure there's much we can do to fix it. My PSA for the day: get legal insurance! If everyone's got a good lawyer in their pocket and knows everyone else does, there probably won't be many lawsuits left.

[bio]

Anyone rember the lady suing McDonalds for the hot cup of coffee?

I remember... and I know the facts in the case.

Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system.

The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries.

Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light.

According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

• McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
• McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
• McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
• McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
• McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
• McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
• McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
• McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.

[ironpants]

Plagerist! http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

I remember the case as well. Again I come back to personal responsibility. The woman was over seventy years old at the time of the incident which tells me she wasn't only used to but CONDITIONED to expect coffee to be extremely hot. You have to remember that up until relatively recently the primary method of making coffee was a friggin percolator on the stove. Anyone want to guess the temperature of boiling water? Did anyone sue Bunn who manufactured these percolaters for scalding? Of course not, coffee is damned hot! Besides, the final agreement on the case was settled out of court after the judgement was decided, aperrently even the plaintiff didn't think she deserved that amount of money.

[jc]

You can't condition yourself to tolerate 185 degree coffee, it burns you.

My wife makes coffee for a living. Your typical espresso drink is served at about 130 actually, even cooler than the article suggests. I specifically ASK for mine to be at between 110 and 120. Baristas have thermometers for this reason which they use to avoid burning the milk when they steam it.

McDonalds served regular drip coffee and kept it at temperatures which not only burn the coffee and make it taste like crap but make it unable to drink. Is it McDonalds fault that she spilled her coffee? No. Should they have to pay her almost half a million dollars? I don't think so. But should they serve their coffee a little less hot? Yes. Unfortunately it seems hitting a big company like MD in the pocket book is the only way to get things to change.

[ironpants]

You can't condition yourself to tolerate 185 degree coffee, it burns you.

I didn't say tolerate, I said expect. I was making the asertion that 185 degree coffee would not be abnormal to this woman's expectations due to the appliances available during the majority of her life. And no, lattes aren't and never were made in percolators due to the milk.

[jc]

And no, lattes aren't and never were made in percolators due to the milk.

True and that was slightly off topic since you can't ask McDonalds for slightly cooler coffee... my bad.

[bio]

Plagerist! http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Next time, I'll quote my sources, Professor Ironbutt. Please don't fail my mid-term paper!

[jc]

Okay I am not even going to mention what I am thinking, but let us just say an old Police song is playing in my head right now...

[Encap]

Synchronicity?

De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da?

King of Pain?

[miftah]

Don't Stand So Close to Me

I've been in a big Police phase lately.

[ZIPPER]

I only drink iced mocha's. I have never received frost bite from these. I am conditioned.


Considering the topic swing to coffee it could be "Message in a bottle". I am positive it is not "Be my girl - Sally"

I've been in a big Police phase lately.

ME TOO! You need to get the DVD: Every Breath You Take. It has all of the videos on it. True remixed 5.1 surround.
I heard rumor that they may get back together for a tour.

[mudflap]

I like pie.