U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-05-2014, 11:44 PM
 
8,352 posts, read 8,630,950 times
Reputation: 26097

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by vmaxnc View Post
Does every poster here provide links and proof for every thing they post? No. Why are you holding me to a different standard? Should I list 10,000 examples of frivolous lawsuits to support my point? Will that be enough, relative to 300 million people?

Anyone who thinks the system isn't broken in many ways is...how do I not come across as vehement...needs an introduction to reality.

Speaking of hyperbole, I don't think I have all the answers. But I do have an opinion, which is based on more than what was presented here (feel free to continue assuming whatever you need to) and just as in ~1983459856729857230984750983475982374098 posts by ~57458724392874092837902837098 posters all over the world, I presented it here.
You won't list 10,000 examples of frivolous lawsuits because there aren't 10,000 examples publicized.

The vast majority of lawsuits filed in this country are meritorious. American business utilizes our system of justice daily to collect on debts and to enforce contracts. Business is the major user and beneficiary of the legal system in this country.

We had quite a discussion on the McDonald's coffee cup case a while back and while you disagreed (with your usual vehemence) the majority of posters felt the lawsuit was appropriate. While the opinions were not unanimous this hardly qualifies as a frivolous case to many of us. On the contrary, the majority of us felt that the woman was entitled to the damages she was awarded.

Your reference to "twinkies made me do it" is from the old Dan White criminal case in 1978. White tried to claim diminished capacity in a murder trial based on his depression and eating a diet that included Hostess Twinkies. White was convicted of manslaughter instead of murder not because of this, but because of homophobic attitudes among the jurors who heard his case. Major point here: This was not a civil case brought by someone trying to collect money.

The other examples you cited were too vague to jog my memory. I suspect they are hotchpot of news paper accounts you've mixed together and confused many of the important facts of the cases. If you want to say I'm mistaken, give me a citation to one of them.

We are allowed to sue for anything in the United States of America. That's called freedom. I sort of like freedom. I don't think you do. The part you leave out is that a judge can throw the case out and--in some cases--award sanctions against a party for filing a truly frivolous case. That's how most non-meritorious cases are dealt with in our system.

Are there abuses? Sure. Have been and always will be. The true abuses deserve discussion and if some type of reasonable reform is necessary it should be implemented. What I pay no attention to is someone with no legal background asserting that everyone in the system is wrong and that he has all the solutions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-06-2014, 02:51 AM
 
Location: Manayunk
513 posts, read 560,285 times
Reputation: 1185
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
You won't list 10,000 examples of frivolous lawsuits because there aren't 10,000 examples publicized.

The vast majority of lawsuits filed in this country are meritorious. American business utilizes our system of justice daily to collect on debts and to enforce contracts. Business is the major user and beneficiary of the legal system in this country.

We had quite a discussion on the McDonald's coffee cup case a while back and while you disagreed (with your usual vehemence) the majority of posters felt the lawsuit was appropriate. While the opinions were not unanimous this hardly qualifies as a frivolous case to many of us. On the contrary, the majority of us felt that the woman was entitled to the damages she was awarded.

Your reference to "twinkies made me do it" is from the old Dan White criminal case in 1978. White tried to claim diminished capacity in a murder trial based on his depression and eating a diet that included Hostess Twinkies. White was convicted of manslaughter instead of murder not because of this, but because of homophobic attitudes among the jurors who heard his case. Major point here: This was not a civil case brought by someone trying to collect money.

The other examples you cited were too vague to jog my memory. I suspect they are hotchpot of news paper accounts you've mixed together and confused many of the important facts of the cases. If you want to say I'm mistaken, give me a citation to one of them.

We are allowed to sue for anything in the United States of America. That's called freedom. I sort of like freedom. I don't think you do. The part you leave out is that a judge can throw the case out and--in some cases--award sanctions against a party for filing a truly frivolous case. That's how most non-meritorious cases are dealt with in our system.

Are there abuses? Sure. Have been and always will be. The true abuses deserve discussion and if some type of reasonable reform is necessary it should be implemented. What I pay no attention to is someone with no legal background asserting that everyone in the system is wrong and that he has all the solutions.

The McDonald's case was pushed onto the public as "this is the reason we need to limit people's ability to sue!" Lets cap judgements, etc. when in fact if you actually looked at the case you would see it was a legitament case. She had serious 2nd and 3rd degree burns that needed surgery and grafting and they had been warned repeatedly their coffee was way too hot. She ended up staying in the hospital for eight days, and needed two years of follow up care. If I recall they were serving their coffee at 190 degrees F. At that temperature, it takes only 2-5 seconds to cause a 3rd degree burn that would require grafting.. Lowering it to 160 F would increase it to 20 seconds.

Her lawyers found over 700 incidents of varying degrees of burns over a five year period but internal memos decided it wasn't worth it to deal with it, just cheaper to settle. The guy who wrote the memo conceded on the stand that if someone were to drink their coffee at that temperature, it would cause serious mouth and throat burns.

It should be also noted that she didn't want to sue. All she wanted was her medical bills covered but McDonald's refused time and time again. They offered $800 and that was it. She wanted $10,500 for her medical costs. They refused to budge so she sued, well within her right.

I'm all for lawsuits, and not passing a broad law to cap or ban anything. Let a judge and jury decide on a case by case basis.

If anyone wants to see WHY watch Hot Coffee, a documentary on the incident along with other aspects of civil litigation. It is extremely eye opening to say the least.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2014, 10:40 AM
 
8,402 posts, read 19,610,646 times
Reputation: 6766
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
You won't list 10,000 examples of frivolous lawsuits because there aren't 10,000 examples publicized.

The vast majority of lawsuits filed in this country are meritorious. American business utilizes our system of justice daily to collect on debts and to enforce contracts. Business is the major user and beneficiary of the legal system in this country.

We had quite a discussion on the McDonald's coffee cup case a while back and while you disagreed (with your usual vehemence) the majority of posters felt the lawsuit was appropriate. While the opinions were not unanimous this hardly qualifies as a frivolous case to many of us. On the contrary, the majority of us felt that the woman was entitled to the damages she was awarded.

Your reference to "twinkies made me do it" is from the old Dan White criminal case in 1978. White tried to claim diminished capacity in a murder trial based on his depression and eating a diet that included Hostess Twinkies. White was convicted of manslaughter instead of murder not because of this, but because of homophobic attitudes among the jurors who heard his case. Major point here: This was not a civil case brought by someone trying to collect money.

The other examples you cited were too vague to jog my memory. I suspect they are hotchpot of news paper accounts you've mixed together and confused many of the important facts of the cases. If you want to say I'm mistaken, give me a citation to one of them.

We are allowed to sue for anything in the United States of America. That's called freedom. I sort of like freedom. I don't think you do. The part you leave out is that a judge can throw the case out and--in some cases--award sanctions against a party for filing a truly frivolous case. That's how most non-meritorious cases are dealt with in our system.

Are there abuses? Sure. Have been and always will be. The true abuses deserve discussion and if some type of reasonable reform is necessary it should be implemented. What I pay no attention to is someone with no legal background asserting that everyone in the system is wrong and that he has all the solutions.
Again, speaking of (hypocritical) hyperbole...

"asserting that everyone in the system is wrong and that he has all the solutions"

I never said either of those things. Moving on...

I read weekly about some ridiculous lawsuit that should never have been filed let alone gone to judgement. I like freedom. I don't like what we've allowed freedom to become. It's not a license to tie up the courts and taxpayer money with junk.

We will have to agree to disagree.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Gcs15 View Post
The McDonald's case was pushed onto the public as "this is the reason we need to limit people's ability to sue!" Lets cap judgements, etc. when in fact if you actually looked at the case you would see it was a legitament case. She had serious 2nd and 3rd degree burns that needed surgery and grafting and they had been warned repeatedly their coffee was way too hot. She ended up staying in the hospital for eight days, and needed two years of follow up care. If I recall they were serving their coffee at 190 degrees F. At that temperature, it takes only 2-5 seconds to cause a 3rd degree burn that would require grafting.. Lowering it to 160 F would increase it to 20 seconds.

Her lawyers found over 700 incidents of varying degrees of burns over a five year period but internal memos decided it wasn't worth it to deal with it, just cheaper to settle. The guy who wrote the memo conceded on the stand that if someone were to drink their coffee at that temperature, it would cause serious mouth and throat burns.

It should be also noted that she didn't want to sue. All she wanted was her medical bills covered but McDonald's refused time and time again. They offered $800 and that was it. She wanted $10,500 for her medical costs. They refused to budge so she sued, well within her right.

I'm all for lawsuits, and not passing a broad law to cap or ban anything. Let a judge and jury decide on a case by case basis.

If anyone wants to see WHY watch Hot Coffee, a documentary on the incident along with other aspects of civil litigation. It is extremely eye opening to say the least.
Had the coffee not been dumped on her, we would not be having this discussion. If you eat a french fry the moment it is taken out of the fryer, you'd get burned, but that's not how they're normally eaten, is it?

If we extrapolate this, we could say that almost anything is dangerous or deadly if not used in the manner intended.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2014, 08:40 PM
 
8,352 posts, read 8,630,950 times
Reputation: 26097
Quote:
Had the coffee not been dumped on her, we would not be having this discussion. If you eat a french fry the moment it is taken out of the fryer, you'd get burned, but that's not how they're normally eaten, is it?

If we extrapolate this, we could say that almost anything is dangerous or deadly if not used in the manner intended.
There is no safe use for boiling hot coffee.

Last edited by markg91359; 05-06-2014 at 09:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2014, 08:54 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
16,529 posts, read 16,041,860 times
Reputation: 39009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gcs15 View Post
The McDonald's case was pushed onto the public as "this is the reason we need to limit people's ability to sue!" Lets cap judgements, etc. when in fact if you actually looked at the case you would see it was a legitament case. She had serious 2nd and 3rd degree burns that needed surgery and grafting and they had been warned repeatedly their coffee was way too hot. She ended up staying in the hospital for eight days, and needed two years of follow up care. If I recall they were serving their coffee at 190 degrees F. At that temperature, it takes only 2-5 seconds to cause a 3rd degree burn that would require grafting.. Lowering it to 160 F would increase it to 20 seconds.

Her lawyers found over 700 incidents of varying degrees of burns over a five year period but internal memos decided it wasn't worth it to deal with it, just cheaper to settle. The guy who wrote the memo conceded on the stand that if someone were to drink their coffee at that temperature, it would cause serious mouth and throat burns.

It should be also noted that she didn't want to sue. All she wanted was her medical bills covered but McDonald's refused time and time again. They offered $800 and that was it. She wanted $10,500 for her medical costs. They refused to budge so she sued, well within her right.

I'm all for lawsuits, and not passing a broad law to cap or ban anything. Let a judge and jury decide on a case by case basis.

If anyone wants to see WHY watch Hot Coffee, a documentary on the incident along with other aspects of civil litigation. It is extremely eye opening to say the least.
I was absolutely shocked when I saw the photographs of her horrendous burns. I know that they were bad but they were much, much worse than I ever imagined that they could be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2014, 09:08 PM
 
3,442 posts, read 4,492,291 times
Reputation: 5388
Quote:
Originally Posted by trlhiker View Post
I don't blame her because the parents of the kid killed is suing her even though it wasn't her fault. These kids were riding their bikes at 1:30 am without lights in drizzle. What were these kids doing out so late on bikes on a road with a speed limit of 50mph?
You ask a good question!

I am thinking the same and agree the boys definitely were at fault.

I sure hope the boys' parents didn't start all this by trying to sue her for their kid's mistake/negligence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 02:00 AM
 
Location: Manayunk
513 posts, read 560,285 times
Reputation: 1185
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmaxnc View Post
Again, speaking of (hypocritical) hyperbole...

"asserting that everyone in the system is wrong and that he has all the solutions"

I never said either of those things. Moving on...

I read weekly about some ridiculous lawsuit that should never have been filed let alone gone to judgement. I like freedom. I don't like what we've allowed freedom to become. It's not a license to tie up the courts and taxpayer money with junk.

We will have to agree to disagree.




Had the coffee not been dumped on her, we would not be having this discussion. If you eat a french fry the moment it is taken out of the fryer, you'd get burned, but that's not how they're normally eaten, is it?

If we extrapolate this, we could say that almost anything is dangerous or deadly if not used in the manner intended.
The fact was that not only was it way too hot, but the lids had a history of leaking also. It wasn't one thing. They knew the coffee was hotter than it had to be and could cause serious burns in seconds (before there was a chance to wipe it off) AND also that the lids on the coffee had a history of not securing properly (which happened in her case). Add that together and you got a serious problem. Even McDonalds conceded this point under deposition and admitted it was cheaper to settle than getting new lids or making the coffee slightly cooler.

http://blog.3nips.com/2011/08/10/re-.../#.U2ssTIy9KSN

Check out the link for the pictures, here is just one.
http://blog.3nips.com/wp-content/upl...ee-524x373.jpg

Last edited by Oldhag1; 05-08-2014 at 07:23 AM.. Reason: Copyright material
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 08:56 AM
 
8,402 posts, read 19,610,646 times
Reputation: 6766
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
There is no safe use for boiling hot coffee.
Then how do millions of people every day manage to drink McDonalds coffee without injuring themselves? Maybe because they don't dump it onto their groin, which in her case was covered in material that held that hot coffee against her very aged skin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 09:07 AM
 
8,352 posts, read 8,630,950 times
Reputation: 26097
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmaxnc View Post
Then how do millions of people every day manage to drink McDonalds coffee without injuring themselves? Maybe because they don't dump it onto their groin, which in her case was covered in material that held that hot coffee against her very aged skin.
Or maybe because the coffee is cooler now because of the lawsuit. As was pointed out, there were plenty of burn injuries reported to McDonald's before Stella LIebeck's lawsuit. Yet, McDonald's wouldn't turn the temperature down on the coffee until this multi-million dollar verdict.

Its how our system fixes problems whether some can see it or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2014, 09:49 AM
 
1,956 posts, read 3,638,715 times
Reputation: 2755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddy52 View Post
You ask a good question!

I am thinking the same and agree the boys definitely were at fault.

I sure hope the boys' parents didn't start all this by trying to sue her for their kid's mistake/negligence.
Well, that is exactly what happened. Parents sued her, and a year later she is now filing suit against them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vmaxnc View Post
Then how do millions of people every day manage to drink McDonalds coffee without injuring themselves? Maybe because they don't dump it onto their groin, which in her case was covered in material that held that hot coffee against her very aged skin.
Because prior to the case there were NUMEROUS incidents of burns from the coffee at McDs. Since then the temps have been lowered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top