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.
I'm one who read the case in detail and also saw the documentary about it. The women had placed the coffee on her lap or something in a car and when car moved forward it fell over and spilled on her.....SHE MISHANDLED IT OR FAILED TO USE A MODICUM OF COMMON SENSE!!!!....Problem is the individual's PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY is never admitted or taken as THE primary cause in these cases.
Coffee "dangerously hot"???...as opposed to what?..."safely hot"?? Even as children we're instructed not to touch something if it's hot and to keep our children/younger siblings away from the stove, iron, frying pan, etc. Coffee, tea, burning coals, glowing stove burners, the sun, etc. should be assumed to be hot and care always taken.
You can use any potentially dangerous item/action and if an error is made or care not taken by a person then an injury can occur...for example...If I buy a top of the line chef's knife and then drop it or misuse it causing a serious disfiguring injury then I can sue claiming it was "dangerously sharp"???.....same goes for burning myself using a bbq, cutting my foot off with a lawnmower, misusing a gun, snowblower, power tool, etc., etc.....what it comes down to is people being unable to accept that THEY were the cause of what happened & primarily responsible for it in these cases (or..more likely...the ambulance chasers convincing them they were in no way wrong but everyone else was).
This case (the McDonald's hot coffee case) actually was one that for the longest time, I shared the same belief on, that the woman won the suit but shouldn't have. I agree with that besides of one big fact that was mentioned in your post. You questioned "dangerously hot" as opposed to what. The lawyer seeked out and found the temperature of the coffee from other places and found that that McDonald's actually had their temperature higher than all the other places so it actually was found to be "dangerously hot."
I don't agree with sueing the theater because they "failed to provide adequate security". There is no amount of security that can be provided at a cost they and every business can afford, that can protect against the infinitesimally small odds of something like this happening. However, they SHOULD be sued because they banned patrons that were willing to accept responsibility for their own safety via concealed carry, from being able to do so. When they strip individuals from their means of defending themselves, they DO take on that responsibility. Which they failed to do. Thankfully, at least one state has passed laws such that people stripped of their right to self defense by a private business can sue them if they are attacked.
Nonsense - no one is 'stripped of their right to self defense'. If a person chooses to see a movie at a theater that posts a NO FIREARMS ALLOWED ON THE PREMISES sign out front, then that person is willfully choosing to enter that theater unarmed. They have the option of not seeing the movie, or going to another theater.
What part of 'personal responsibility' do you not comprehend?
This case (the McDonald's hot coffee case) actually was one that for the longest time, I shared the same belief on, that the woman won the suit but shouldn't have. I agree with that besides of one big fact that was mentioned in your post. You questioned "dangerously hot" as opposed to what. The lawyer seeked out and found the temperature of the coffee from other places and found that that McDonald's actually had their temperature higher than all the other places so it actually was found to be "dangerously hot."
Exactly. People spill coffee on themselves all the time, but even freshly brewed coffee won't leave permanent burns on your body. In this case, the coffee was so hot that this woman suffered 3rd degree burns. She was in the hospital for 8 days which required skin grafting due to the severity of the burns. She sought McDonalds out to pay for her medical bills of 20,000. McDonalds refused, so she sued. From what I read, McDonalds kept their coffee between 180-190 degrees versus the normal 130-140 that other establishments use. A 50 degree swing is HUGE.
Coffee "dangerously hot"???...as opposed to what?..."safely hot"?? Even as children we're instructed not to touch something if it's hot and to keep our children/younger siblings away from the stove, iron, frying pan, etc. Coffee, tea, burning coals, glowing stove burners, the sun, etc. should be assumed to be hot and care always taken.
One of these things is not like the others...
Do you often put burning coals or glowing stove burners in your mouth?
Nonsense - no one is 'stripped of their right to self defense'. If a person chooses to see a movie at a theater that posts a NO FIREARMS ALLOWED ON THE PREMISES sign out front, then that person is willfully choosing to enter that theater unarmed. They have the option of not seeing the movie, or going to another theater.
What part of 'personal responsibility' do you not comprehend?
While I will typically not patronize an establishment with such signage if there is an alternative, sometimes there is not a readily available alternative. In those cases, I ignore the sign. If nothing happens that makes it necessary to produce my weapon (which is most of the time), I conduct my business and leave and I am the only one who knows.
If an event were to occur that required me to produce said weapon and defend myself, I am quite sure that I would prefer to deal with the negativity of people telling me that I shouldn't have had my weapon than to deal with the result of *not* having it.
The bad thing about this, is that such signage might cause me to refrain from producing my weapon if I did not feel that my own safety was in *immediate* and unavoidable danger- in other words, other people may come to harm when they otherwise might not have, because I would not be willing to expose myself to the liability that could arise, just to save someone else's butt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by headingtoDenver
Exactly. People spill coffee on themselves all the time, but even freshly brewed coffee won't leave permanent burns on your body. In this case, the coffee was so hot that this woman suffered 3rd degree burns. She was in the hospital for 8 days which required skin grafting due to the severity of the burns. She sought McDonalds out to pay for her medical bills of 20,000. McDonalds refused, so she sued. From what I read, McDonalds kept their coffee between 180-190 degrees versus the normal 130-140 that other establishments use. A 50 degree swing is HUGE.
I have adjusted my Keurig to produce coffee at 195*, I want my coffee HOT. I maintain that a 180-195 degree range for coffee is not only reasonable, but expected. The woman purchased the coffee *knowing* and *expecting* that it would be HOT (and likely might have complained had it not been as hot as she was expecting). It was her own stupidity that led to her injury, and no one else should have been deemed 'responsible'.
This case (the McDonald's hot coffee case) actually was one that for the longest time, I shared the same belief on, that the woman won the suit but shouldn't have. I agree with that besides of one big fact that was mentioned in your post. You questioned "dangerously hot" as opposed to what. The lawyer seeked out and found the temperature of the coffee from other places and found that that McDonald's actually had their temperature higher than all the other places so it actually was found to be "dangerously hot."
Yes. I made fun of the lady for the longest time. But it really wasn't funny. She was an elderly lady with third degree burns on her legs and pelvic area and spent a lot of time in the hospital.
Add to that - this wasn't the first case - and McDonalds knew that their coffee was dangerously hot. Servers had been burned.
I changed my mind a bit once I read the whole thing.
I wonder if that was $150,000 total or each. Total would feel like a slap in the face, but I think $150,000 each would have been reasonable. I'm also curious if that one person who refused was the only one, and how much of the fees she will be responsible for (although sadly, its probably no more than anyone else).
Don't blame the theater, blame the plaintiffs. They were sufficiently tipped off and encouraged to settle BY THE JUDGE 24 hours before the judge handed down his ruling. 37 plaintiffs removed themselves, 4 resisted.
The survivors, some of whom had two or three attorneys with them, were told that the state case had decided the issue — Cinemark was not liable for the shooting, and U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson, who oversaw the federal case, was about to issue an order saying as much.
The federal lawsuit was effectively over.
On a conference call, the federal judge overseeing the case [Jackson] told the plaintiffs’ attorneys that he was prepared to rule in the theater chain’s favor. He urged the plaintiffs to settle with Cinemark, owner of the Century Aurora 16 multiplex where the July 20, 2012, shooting occurred. They had 24 hours.
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.
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.
