(title deleted by Moderator for use of profanity)

---locke--- · #1 (**permalink**) 07-03-2006, 08:22 PM

first of all why do we let things as stupid as someone spilling coffe on themselvs and then sueingmcdonalds because they didn't tell her it was hot?

second why do we let them win?

Third why do we let this continue and become a regular thing?

For instance my grandfather owns a farm. their is a cave on this farm. If someone goes tresspassing on property that is posted "no resspassing, private property" and then goes into this cave and dies or hurts themselvs badly they can sue my grandfather for everything he has and more, because it is his land. i don't understand this. why doesnt somebody step in and do something about this, make a stupidity clause or something that says if the case is stupid then you dont get to waste everybodies time and get to steel someones money. I know that this cant really happen because then any case could potetially be judged stupid but you know what i mean.

rota · #2 (**permalink**) 07-03-2006, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---locke---";p=&quot

first of all why do we let things as stupid as someone spilling coffe on themselvs and then sueingmcdonalds because they didn't tell her it was hot?

second why do we let them win?

Third why do we let this continue and become a regular thing?

For instance my grandfather owns a farm. their is a cave on this farm. If someone goes tresspassing on property that is posted "no resspassing, private property" and then goes into this cave and dies or hurts themselvs badly they can sue my grandfather for everything he has and more, because it is his land. i don't understand this. why doesnt somebody step in and do something about this, make a stupidity clause or something that says if the case is stupid then you dont get to waste everybodies time and get to steel someones money. I know that this cant really happen because then any case could potetially be judged stupid but you know what i mean.

I agree with you but it's almost like they can tell how people will vote on a jury. If they figure you have an ounce of brains then they don't pick you. If you are as dumb as a ox then you are good jury meat. Of course they have ways to figure out if you have worked hard for what you have and those that think it's cool for money to fall in their laps. They must be too stupid to figure out they pay for their dumb decisions in the long run.

It's why I have always been in favor of letting only people who have shown responsibility in their lives to vote and decide these matters.

apotropoxy · #3 (**permalink**) 07-04-2006, 05:02 AM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---locke---";p=&quot

first of all why do we let things as stupid as someone spilling coffe on themselvs and then sueingmcdonalds because they didn't tell her it was hot?

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

You, and virtually everyone else who is subjected to the slovenly reportage of the MSM have been victimized by politically correct sensationalism.

Quote:

second why do we let them win?

See above.

Quote:

Third why do we let this continue and become a regular thing?
For instance my grandfather owns a farm. their is a cave on this farm. If someone goes tresspassing on property that is posted "no resspassing, private property" and then goes into this cave and dies or hurts themselvs badly they can sue my grandfather for everything he has and more, because it is his land. i don't understand this. why doesnt somebody step in and do something about this, make a stupidity clause or something that says if the case is stupid then you dont get to waste everybodies time and get to steel someones money. I know that this cant really happen because then any case could potetially be judged stupid but you know what i mean.

The circumstances you describe would not result in success for the plaintiff. Your have been duped.

---locke--- · #4 (**permalink**) 07-04-2006, 08:37 AM

I have herd tons of stories inwhich the claim has been outrageious. The cases like somebody that slam dunks a basket ball, gets his teeth cought on the net and ripps them out. Ten he sues the company that made the net for a s**t load of money.

And back to the McDonalds case it is still absurd the lady had an accident and no she is pissed and is looking for someone to blame so she finds them and gets what she wants. I burned myself with some fireworks yesterday. I didn't say on the fire work that it could burn my hand, and yes i bought them individually, but no i realise that i was no being smart with the fire work and so it is my fault. therfore " I took responsibility for something i did." SOmething that many ppeople in america are having a hard time doing now a days.

The poin i am trying to make is that there are tons of rediculus accusations and court cases. They are a waste of time and many time end up a crime themselvs because they are sueing (steeling)millions o dollars because hey did smething dumb or had some bad luck and are now looking for someone to blame.

JavaBlack · #5 (**permalink**) 07-04-2006, 10:00 AM

The trouble is that what determines whether a case has merit is the court system. As much as it would be nice to filter out dumb cases, any law to do so would compromise the use of our courts as a tool to determine who's in the right. If not the courts, who should decide?
The problem isn't that the cases make it into court. It's that the courts make dumb rulings. But that is a lesser evil than having some political force decide before trial or hearing what is worthy of being heard.

The12thMan · #6 (**permalink**) 07-04-2006, 11:25 PM

Many of the stories you hear are simply not true - sadly many are true. Here is a site where you can find out if the story is true or not.

http://www.stellaawards.com/

stekim · #7 (**permalink**) 07-05-2006, 04:36 AM

Quote:

If someone goes tresspassing on property that is posted "no resspassing, private property" and then goes into this cave and dies or hurts themselvs badly they can sue my grandfather for everything he has and more, because it is his land.

Actually, no they can't. In order to win damages you need to prove negligence, i.e. that something your grandfather did or something he failed to do but should have done resulted in injury to a third party.

rota · #8 (**permalink**) 07-05-2006, 07:17 AM

Actually the biggest problem in the courts is the instructions to jusry. They are never told that the jury has the right to "jury nullification" which means they have the right to decide a law is stupid and decide against it. "Jury Nullification" was ruled legal but yet it is never told to the jury. It's the best way the people have to stop unfair laws.