Lady wants to sue mall for falling into fountain while texting

[Chad]

I can't believe it. I hope this doesn't go through. It's her fault, I understand the embarassment but she should NOT sue.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/fountain-lady-nobody-went-to-my-aid-23909987

[Feuer Frei!]

Yea, good luck with that.
Although, some people are successfull in claiming others are at fault for their own stupidity. And win!
Case in hand, years ago a woman sued McDonald's, when she ordered a takeaway coffee via drive-thru, placed the cup, with lid on between her legs, the lid came off whilst she was driving and scolded her leg(s).
Her arguement was that the coffee was too hot to be served.
She won!
Mind-boggling.

[Buddahaid]

I fell into a comma reading this! It's YOUR fault!

No, wait...

[FIREWALL]

On the coffee one she, lost on appeal.

[bookworm_020]

Why doesn't she sue the moblie company who gave her the phone, as she is to dumb to use it safely?:hmmm:

[Kaye T. Bai]

I wonder what Don King would have to say about this?

[FIREWALL]

After reading the link. She seems more pissed being shown all over the world as, being an idiot. :haha:

[papa_smurf]

Just sheer disbelief that she can sue, even though its HER own fault. And the scary thing is that the UK is turning into a blame culture society:nope:.

[Feuer Frei!]

On the coffee one she, lost on appeal.

Ah true? Didn't see the appeal happen, good to see there is still some sense of reality to these appeals/claims.

[Skybird]

She does not sue for having fallen into a fountain, she sues for people having made the video, which is somehwat disgraceful for her, publicly available.

It might not be as severe like a video you shot of your girlfriend, naked, and then spreading it in public without telling her, but in principle it is the same thing.

The difference is that by the video she could not be identified at all. So while she has a moral point, I think it is not strong enough to justify a walk to the court. The damage of her being linked to that incident she did herself when climbing on the stage with the cameras and revealing her identity and saying that she wants to sue "them". Before, it was all anonymous.

[mookiemookie]

I don't think she has a leg to stand on (I see what I did there) as she was in a public place with no reasonable expectation of privacy.

[Herr-Berbunch]

So nobody knew it was her, so just to get herself more publicity for those that missed it on youtube she goes on abc news! Deserves a good dunking like a witch from the middle-ages. :nope:

Sure the security guards who filmed it should get a mild telling-off but even she admits it was funny.

If she pursues any lawsuit I hope she loses, and it costs her a s-mall fortune. I have no sympathy with her, at least she wasn't driving past a school at the time.

[Jimbuna]

She's more chance of getting bit in the ar$e off a cabbage than winning this......I hope :DL

[UnderseaLcpl]

I think the most priceless thing about this was on msn yesterday. In her attempt to whine over yotube's perfect right to post the footage, she revealed more than just her identity. As it turns out, she's also a criminal wanted for credit-card fraud.

So now she's world-famous for being both clumsy and a cheat. That's gotta be rough.:nope:

[Herr-Berbunch]

I think the most priceless thing about this was on msn yesterday. In her attempt to whine over yotube's perfect right to post the footage, she revealed more than just her identity. As it turns out, she's also a criminal wanted for credit-card fraud.

So now she's world-famous for being both clumsy and a cheat. That's gotta be rough.:nope:


:har: Love it!

[tater]

What an idiot.

Regarding the McDonald's coffee case, that was here in Albuquerque (embarrassing). And I think on appeal the award was reduced, but it was not overturned. So instead of winning over a million, she got a couple hundred grand or something. It was still absurd she won anything at all.

[August]

On the coffee one she, lost on appeal.

Are you talking about the grandmother who got 2nd degree burns?

[tater]

Are you talking about the grandmother who got 2nd degree burns?

Yeah.

She was not the driver, but the passenger. She tried to open the lid with the cup between her legs to add cream and sugar (whatever she was gonna add) and it spilled (all of it) in her lap.

She won ~3 million, but it was later reduced to several hundred grand.

Still nonsense. MD held their coffee around brewing temp (over 180 degrees), which is certainly hot, but if you are bringing it someplace, pretty reasonable (my americanos I order are given to me at the temp they are pulled, after all).

[gimpy117]

you have to brew coffiee hot! :doh: By bro is a barista and if you don't brew it like that you don't get the best brew.

as to the fountain lady, shes is as dumb as a box of rocks. You don't file a lawsuit when you are wanted for fraud.

[August]

Yeah.

She was not the driver, but the passenger. She tried to open the lid with the cup between her legs to add cream and sugar (whatever she was gonna add) and it spilled (all of it) in her lap.

She won ~3 million, but it was later reduced to several hundred grand.

Still nonsense. MD held their coffee around brewing temp (over 180 degrees), which is certainly hot, but if you are bringing it someplace, pretty reasonable (my americanos I order are given to me at the temp they are pulled, after all).
Interesting article on that case

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/79371

Looks like MD kind of shot themselves in the foot (to borrow a Rex Ryan pun).

[Feuer Frei!]

Interesting article on that case

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/79371

Looks like MD kind of shot themselves in the foot (to borrow a Rex Ryan pun).

Thanks for the link, this is interesting:

McDonald’s now serves its coffee in a lower temperature rangeA win on 2 fronts for the Prosecution me thinks.

From wikepedia:
the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient.
Err, what?

[tater]

You mean in not maying her medical bills? IMHO, they should have paid her nothing, it was her fault. If a MD employee in the store had dumped it in her lap, then it would be MD's fault. If another customer in the store dumped in in her lap... then maybe that customer at fault. I still blame her.

People do way too much in their cars. I'm entirely guilty of this as well, but I'd take responsibility for my own actions should I spill.

BTW, say I buy a coffee at a lower temp. I get to the office, and it is not hot enough (thanks a lot, thermodynamics!). I stick it in the office microwave, and reheat it. I THEN spill the coffee in my lap. Can I sue them for brewing it such that I HAD to reheat it to drink my "hot coffee" I ordered?

[Feuer Frei!]

You mean in not maying her medical bills? IMHO, they should have paid her nothing, it was her fault.
Nope, i agree, they shouldn't have had to pay anything, that's why i thought it was strange that they said it was 20% her fault and 80% MD'S, i find that unbelievable to be honest!


People do way too much in their cars. I'm entirely guilty of this as well, but I'd take responsibility for my own actions should I spill.
I think most of us do, and i think in a lot of cases where these law suits occurr, it's often the lawfirm that has dollar signs in their eyes and publicity, and presses the proceedings.


BTW, say I buy a coffee at a lower temp. I get to the office, and it is not hot enough (thanks a lot, thermodynamics!). I stick it in the office microwave, and reheat it. I THEN spill the coffee in my lap. Can I sue them for brewing it such that I HAD to reheat it to drink my "hot coffee" I ordered?
Find yourself a good lawyer, maybe :haha:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I don't much care for Stella Liebeck's case or similar suits. Most people don't seem to realize the kind of damage these lawsuits do.

Although it isn't often looked at this way, the fact of the matter is that everyone in the entire frakking country now has to buy coffee that doesn't taste as good and doesn't stay warm on the trip to the office because Liebeck is incompetent. It might as well be a piece of legislation, because companies fear lawsuits almost as much as they fear breaking the law.

Thanks to our jacked-up legal system and Stella's groove, and old woman's lap made a decision for the entire nation and paved the path for other people who lack comprehension of the nature of things like: "containers of boiling liquid should not be emptied onto self" to be rewarded for their ineptitude. Things like that also raise insurance prices and ensure that a lot of good products don't get produced, or that some innovators don't even bother trying. Where the products do get produced, everyone has to pay more for them because it of the considerable investiture in liability and compliance with regulations that shouldn't even be necessary.

Thanks, Gram.

[August]

Well shoot, why not just serve the coffee in the form of high pressure steam? After all just think how hot it'd still be once you got it to work! :DL

Note to big company legal teams:

Being indifferent to the suffering of a grandmother with 3rd degree burns does not sit well with juries. :yep: They should have just given her the 11 grand to pay her medical bills. It would have saved them a lot of money.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Maybe so, August, but that's no basis for a system of justice.

Besides, after the thirtieth or fortieth idiot that manges to do things like get plowed over by a train because they tried to run the very expensive crossing gates we install (in the case of my employer), compassion tends to get stretched a bit thin. There's even a point at which no good PR comes out of settling.

Sadly, it is not possible to idiot-proof everything, and making it a legal mandate it is just a waste of time and resources - unless you're a civil attorney.

[ReFaN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeXQBHLIPcw

[Feuer Frei!]

I think it's a lot to do with the principle. Do you sue because of genuine health concerns or an obvious risk to you or others from a product or such?
Or do you sue because you think you could possibly make a quick buck and get your mug in the papers and on TV.
I think the latter wins over in a lot of cases, now i don't think that was the case with Liebeck, certainly not initially, if at all, more than likely a law firm's eye on publicity and $$$.
I just cannot fathom after reading the 'details' of the law suit and the verdict, that even after MD's seemed to cover it's bases, via warning label and numerous counter offers, that it was decided that they were 80% to blame!
Actually, after thinking it over a bit, i do know how this happened.
The justice system has always been 'inconsistent' if you will, loosely put.
And that gives hope to others out there, perhaps like our 'not so bright star' in the OP's article, that it is quiet possible to take on the laws of this society, being stupid, irresponsible and downright 'shifty' and quiet possibly come out of it with a victory, allbeit with a few scratches.
Where does one's total lack of common sense sit in all of this?

[tater]

Note to big company legal teams:

Being indifferent to the suffering of a grandmother with 3rd degree burns does not sit well with juries. :yep: They should have just given her the 11 grand to pay her medical bills. It would have saved them a lot of money.

No question it would have immediately saved money. OTOH, it would open the doors to anyone who had any remotely food-related mistakes to ask for the same.

The real question is should they have to pay? IMO, all such cases should have the loser responsible for 100% of all legal costs. The bar for ambulance chasers needs to be high.

The same sort of argument can go for "malpractice," too, you have to remember. Old lady (or worse, young one) gets a bad outcome. The treatment was in fact "standard of care," but she's one of the ones it doesn't help (bad luck). She asks for in effect her money back. Medical costs. Seems reasonable, perhaps, but why should the system try in good faith (with the chance of bad outcome explained), then have to pay when she is one of the X% for whole care does not help (people are all different, after all, we're not identical machines to fix)? So any given hospital/doc might LOSE some idiotic gajillion dollar case—say wrongly, like every single victim of Senator John Edwards the ambulance chaser (his cases against OBs were entirely without scientific merit, yet he won millions against them (claimed they caused epilepsy by not rushing to do a C-section fast enough*)—and it would have been cheaper for them to settle, but they were RIGHT.

The threat of losing more, wrongly, shouldn't drive things (and it already does, the bulk of "settlements" in medical cases are just that, loss-cutting, regardless of the veracity of claims).

*BTW, such an idiotic, wrong case then results in MORE moms being sent for an invasive, surgical procedure with all those risks in the name of CYA on the part of the OBs terrified of being sued by some POS like Edwards.

[Onkel Neal]

She does not sue for having fallen into a fountain, she sues for people having made the video, which is somehwat disgraceful for her, publicly available.

It might not be as severe like a video you shot of your girlfriend, naked, and then spreading it in public without telling her, but in principle it is the same thing.

The difference is that by the video she could not be identified at all. So while she has a moral point, I think it is not strong enough to justify a walk to the court. The damage of her being linked to that incident she did herself when climbing on the stage with the cameras and revealing her identity and saying that she wants to sue "them". Before, it was all anonymous.


Well put. The operator of the mall should not have allowed the security video to be distributed on Youtube. That's not what the security video system is for. But like you said, she really weakens any case she may have by actually going public and linking herself to the unflattering video.

I love how she wailed "no one came to help me". I bet she didn't go back and clean up the mess she made, I bet she didn't even give it a moment's thought. Water all over the floor, some poor min wage mall worker had to mop up after her. :x If I had been there, I would have walked behind her, slipped and fell, and I would be suing her! :arrgh!:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Haha. "Rigged for Dive", Neal?:DL

[Onkel Neal]

and "Brace for Impact, sound the collision alarm!" :shucks:

[August]

Maybe so, August, but that's no basis for a system of justice.

Yet that IS our system of justice.

Sadly, it is not possible to idiot-proof everything

I see your point but serving a beverage in a Styrofoam cup that is so hot it can cause 3rd degree burns over 6% of the human body is kind of the opposite of idiot proofing don't you think?

[mookiemookie]

but in principle it is the same thing.

It's not the same in principle at all. If you're shooting naked videos of your girlfriend, you're probably in the privacy of your own home. You have an expectation of privacy. Anything that infringes upon it is a violation of your right.

This event occurred in the public space of a shopping mall. She cannot have any expectation of privacy, and therefore cannot demand it from the mall, who I'm sure has signs posted that said that the premises were under CCTV surveillance. She has no rights to any sort of privacy that could have been infringed upon.

You can walk down the street taking pictures of whomever you wish. It's completely legal as it's a public space.

[Armistead]

The sad fact is most people that do this get a smaller offer before court. They almost always offer something, basically look at the cost of Lawyers vs lawsuit and throw them an offer. We had a small child here playing around a mall fountain, fell in, busted his head, ect...His parents won a nice lawsuit, stating like pools, the fountains should have some sort of gate around it, sure that's what she'll claim.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Yet that IS our system of justice.
I guess I don't see your point. You've argued convincingly against plenty of things the government has done, but you draw the line at the fact that the law is the law? What if we were talking about regulation of firearms? It's okay to ban hot coffee through judicial action but it isn't okay to keep responsible citizens from a constitutional right through the same methods? How would you write such a law?

I'm totally lost, but I must defer to the jugement of my betters. Can you explain more?




I see your point but serving a beverage in a Styrofoam cup that is so hot it can cause 3rd degree burns over 6% of the human body is kind of the opposite of idiot proofing don't you think?


The cup never caused burns. Also, it is assumed that people won't spill what they know is a boiling liquid onto themselves and would take proper precautions. If they didn't, why allow any liquid in any container whatsoever to be raised to a harmful temperature?

And McDonalds still serves coffee in styrofoam containers today. That wasn't the issue. The issue was that Liebeck's case implied that she didn't know that the coffee would burn her, causing her to handle it inappropriately. That is why larger warning labels were adopted, as well as a lower temperature.

Of course, the whole case is ridiculous. There has yet to be a suit over people spilling non-harmful liquids on themselves, because it is generally acknowledged that no matter what the type of container, it's a bad idea to spill things on oneself.

The only issue here was personal accountability, and that has been destroyed by the judgement. Liebeck was not the first to misuse a product in a way harmful to herself, despite clear instructions and common sense, but she reinforced the precedent that nobody is responsible for anything they do with a product.

[August]

I'm totally lost, but I must defer to the jugement of my betters. Can you explain more?

Judgment of your betters? C'mon man. All I was doing is commenting on your statement that jury awards for punitive damages aren't the basis for our system of justice. I feel they must be or such things would not be allowed. Is that a wrong assessment?

The cup never caused burns. Also, it is assumed that people won't spill what they know is a boiling liquid onto themselves and would take proper precautions. If they didn't, why allow any liquid in any container whatsoever to be raised to a harmful temperature?But it's NOT supposed to be boiling liquid. It's supposed to be a cup of drinkable coffee. If a person can't get the lid off without the cup failing then it is indeed an issue, or at least a jury of her peers thought so.

And McDonalds still serves coffee in styrofoam containers today. That wasn't the issue. The issue was that Liebeck's case implied that she didn't know that the coffee would burn her, causing her to handle it inappropriately. That is why larger warning labels were adopted, as well as a lower temperature. Right, the important part being they lowered the temperature to a level that won't cause 3rd degree burns. And actually MD now serves it's coffee in laminated cardboard cups which are a lot less likely to crumble and crack.

The only issue here was personal accountability, and that has been destroyed by the judgement. Liebeck was not the first to misuse a product in a way harmful to herself, despite clear instructions and common sense, but she reinforced the precedent that nobody is responsible for anything they do with a product.She took the lid off to put in condiments. You call that misuse?

The bottom line here is all she wanted was help with her medical bills, which if you've been following the news are ridiculously high. MD chose to offer her $800 instead. Now I think it's obvious that she wasn't out to score a payday. Had they just done right by their customer it would have saved them hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[RickC Sniper]

I love how she wailed "no one came to help me". :arrgh!:

It took her all of SIX SECONDS to get herself out of the fountain. Even your favorite Caped Crusader hero of choice couldn't have gotten there that fast.:D

If she is saying no one came to help her dry off, that is another story.

[Rockstar]

HAHA reminds me Ezel's slip and fall on Friday.

Oh my neck my back, Oh my neck and my back

I'll settle for $2.50 and a jaw breaker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DmEEUF0uKY&feature=related

[Skybird]

It's not the same in principle at all. If you're shooting naked videos of your girlfriend, you're probably in the privacy of your own home.

What has hindered you to read the part where I continued with

... and then spreading it in public without telling her
...?

[August]

What has hindered you to read the part where I continued with

...?

The point is though that there would be an expectation of privacy in the girlfriend video example that doesn't really apply to someone acting foolish in a public place like the middle of a mall.

[Skybird]

No. In both cases it is the exposure of somebody to a wide public that has nbot been present in the incident/the shoot, nor has the victim agreed to make these materials public.

If your trouser is blasting open in public and you get shot, or you agree to your friend to have/her photographing you - it makes no difference if the result - the footage - is being made public to amuse the cxrowd without your permssion, and at cost of your reputation.

If you beat a non-consensual women in public, the laws of your country may allow her to sue you. And if you beat her without consent in the privacy of your home instead - that makes no difference for the court then. ;)

[tater]

I'd have not offered her the $800.

I assume a cup of coffee is the temperature it is brewed at until proved otherwise. Coffee is not properly extracted at 150°. 185-205° is typical. If I were to add cream (I only drink it black, so that's hypothetical) I'd not do so in my lap, that would be stupid.

While I understand the argument that it would be sensible for MD to have made coffee lower temp just to CYA, it's a shame that people have to even think about CYA.

[Skybird]

P.S. It has become common amongst school-teens that porno snippets of their girls get handed around, too. These shots often are taken in the public space, in restaurant toilets, at school, during class travels, and in hotel rooms then. Some even do it without the girls being aware that they are filmed. Some girls get talked into it by saying it would be an "evidence" of their love.

That it is happening outside a private, protected area, does not matter. Morally, handing around such footage withoiut consent of the girl (or her being under 18), is an abuse, and it may even be legally relevant if the shooting itself took place without consent and knowledge of the girl, allowing the girl to sue the offender.

The women in the fountain may have been victim of her own silliness, but bviously she did not give consent to her embarassement being made known to the wide public. The responsible people acted wrong when publishing these videos. They also would if they hand around videos of women changing dresses in a shop's dressing cabin. That the shop is outside the privacy of their homes, is meaningless.

[August]

I'd have not offered her the $800.

I assume a cup of coffee is the temperature it is brewed at until proved otherwise. Coffee is not properly extracted at 150°. 185-205° is typical. If I were to add cream (I only drink it black, so that's hypothetical) I'd not do so in my lap, that would be stupid.

If not the lap where exactly is one supposed to add condiments to coffee that is served into an automobile?

While I understand the argument that it would be sensible for MD to have made coffee lower temp just to CYA, it's a shame that people have to even think about CYA.

Well get used to it. Public demand for a high standard of product safety is not going to change.

[tater]

Maybe places should serve "flambe" dishes that have never been lit on fire, too :) Just in case.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Judgment of your betters? C'mon man. All I was doing is commenting on your statement that jury awards for punitive damages aren't the basis for our system of justice. I feel they must be or such things would not be allowed. Is that a wrong assessment?

Yes, the judgement of my betters. I haven't been around that long but if there's one thing I've learned in my nearly three decades it's that my elders usually know what they are talking about. I don't always agree with their reasoning but it is usually pretty good. You, yourself, have caused me to call my own judgement into question on more than one occassion, and reversed it in at least two instances.

In this case, I assumed you had better reasoning than the above. Jury decisions are a pretty large part of the basis for our system of justice in both civil and criminal cases. They set legal precedents, even when the judge rules against them. Furthermore, such decisions are often flawed. As you said, juries aren't likely to be sympathetic to the big company when a poor old woman is suffering. That's just human nature.

My concern is that human nature is getting in the way of our better judgement. I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of people who are harmed by incorrect use of products or lack of common sense, but if we act upon such sympathies where will it end? Thus far such logic has led us to award ridiculous setltlements to people who don't deserve them, or are even publicly hated. This is doubly true when they are harmed by their own actions.



But it's NOT supposed to be boiling liquid. It's supposed to be a cup of drinkable coffee. If a person can't get the lid off without the cup failing then it is indeed an issue, or at least a jury of her peers thought so.

Actually, it isn't supposed to be a cup of drinkable coffee. It's supposed to be a cup of properly brewed coffee that will survive the trip to the office. McDonalds knows that their primary drive-through demographic consists of people who are on their way to somewhere else. Is it unreasonable for them to believe that their customers would want a hot product and that those same customers would know enough to not spill the contents of such a cup in their laps through sheer clumsiness? If so, they'd better re-enginneer their softdrink cups, which are made of flimsier paper. Or shall we sue them for that as well?


Right, the important part being they lowered the temperature to a level that won't cause 3rd degree burns. And actually MD now serves it's coffee in laminated cardboard cups which are a lot less likely to crumble and crack.


And now nobody's coffee is hot when they get to the office (I think someone mentioned that) and we also have to pay more for the containers because one idiot couldn't figure out how to use them.


She took the lid off to put in condiments. You call that misuse?

Yeah, if you spill the contents. I'd call that misuse in the same way that I'd call someone burning themselves while stoking a fireplace, or burning their hand whilst oiling a hot engine. There is no good legal reason why anyone should ever be excused from acting responsibly in a situation where they implicitly know that there is a risk.



The bottom line here is all she wanted was help with her medical bills, which if you've been following the news are ridiculously high. MD chose to offer her $800 instead. Now I think it's obvious that she wasn't out to score a payday. Had they just done right by their customer it would have saved them hundreds of thousands of dollars.


And? You're assuming that she deserved medical help simply because she needed it. Any hospital would have stabilized her for free, but that wasn't what she wanted. She sued McDonalds, inc. when they wouldn't settle, despit the fact that the incident wasn't their fault, for no less than the sum of....crap I can't rememeber it now but it was a lot. And she sued them for more than just the physical damage. What she was trying to accomplish should be obvious.

[August]

Maybe places should serve "flambe" dishes that have never been lit on fire, too :) Just in case.

It's not the flambe or the temperature of the coffee, it's the chance of a customer getting injured accidentally when using the product that is the issue here.

If a customer can easily manage to give themselves 3rd degree burns with a flambe, or any other retail food product, then I think it's reasonable to demand the industry either take reasonable steps to keep it from happening or share financial responsibility when it doesn't.

[antikristuseke]

I don't think she has a leg to stand on (I see what I did there) as she was in a public place with no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Im not sure how laws are over there, but it is illegal for me to make security camera footage public here.

[tater]

It's not the flambe or the temperature of the coffee, it's the chance of a customer getting injured accidentally when using the product that is the issue here.

If a customer can easily manage to give themselves 3rd degree burns with a flambe, or any other retail food product, then I think it's reasonable to demand the industry either take reasonable steps to keep it from happening or share financial responsibility when it doesn't.

I think taking it to court is fine. I lament that the public has become so ready to hand out loads of other people's money.

[August]

Actually, it isn't supposed to be a cup of drinkable coffee. It's supposed to be a cup of properly brewed coffee that will survive the trip to the office. McDonalds knows that their primary drive-through demographic consists of people who are on their way to somewhere else.

If that's so then why do they make the lids with that little sippy hole that enables drinking the coffee on the way to somewhere else? The fact is all their drink and food products are packaged for eating on the road. Just compare it to how take out food is packaged and it's obvious.

Is it unreasonable for them to believe that their customers would want a hot productNo.

and that those same customers would know enough to not spill the contents of such a cup in their laps through sheer clumsiness?Yes.

If so, they'd better re-enginneer their softdrink cups, which are made of flimsier paper. Or shall we sue them for that as well?If a case can be made that their flimsiness contributed to an accident then why shouldn't they be liable for damages?


And? You're assuming that she deserved medical help simply because she needed it..No I'm not assuming that. I see it as a product safety issue. I'm sorry that your coffee is packed so insufficiently that it makes it too cold to drink by the time you get to work. It is plenty hot when you get it so why can't you get MD to package your coffee in a way that it doesn't go cold during the trip, or better yet, take some responsibility for both your coffee temperature and the environment and have them put pour it into sturdy reusable thermos bottle?

[mookiemookie]

What has hindered you to read the part where I continued with

...?

What's hindered me is that it's not a valid comparison. The woman in this story can have pictures of her spread to every man, woman and child on Earth without telling her, because she doesn't need to be told, because she was in public.

No. In both cases it is the exposure of somebody to a wide public that has nbot been present in the incident/the shoot, nor has the victim agreed to make these materials public.

Her agreement is by virtue of her being in public.

http://www.gmcsvt.com/images/event/concert_crowd.jpg

Do you think the person who took this picture had to get the consent of everyone there in order to do so? No. They were in public. They cannot consent to waive a right to privacy that they don't have in the first place.

P.S. It has become common amongst school-teens that porno snippets of their girls get handed around, too. These shots often are taken in the public space, in restaurant toilets, at school, during class travels, and in hotel rooms then. Some even do it without the girls being aware that they are filmed. Some girls get talked into it by saying it would be an "evidence" of their love.

That it is happening outside a private, protected area, does not matter. Morally, handing around such footage withoiut consent of the girl (or her being under 18), is an abuse, and it may even be legally relevant if the shooting itself took place without consent and knowledge of the girl, allowing the girl to sue the offender. Absolutely irrelevant. Child pornography is another subject altogether.


They also would if they hand around videos of women changing dresses in a shop's dressing cabin. That the shop is outside the privacy of their homes, is meaningless. they would be wrong, but only because a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a changing room. They do not have that expectation in the middle of a crowded shopping mall.

[Platapus]

Are you talking about the grandmother who got 2nd degree burns?

Actually they were third degree burns, she spent 11 days in the hospital and needed skin grafts.

The reason McDonalds lost was that not only did they serve coffee at a temperature higher than the industry standard, they knew that their coffee was at a dangerous temperature. There have been, over 700 injury claims due to burns from McDonalds coffee, including several children.

If you read the actual suite records, it seems like it was a good and fair decision.

[Platapus]

As for this lady, it is important to remember that there are very few limitations on bringing a suit. Anyone can sue pretty much anyone for pretty much anything.

Now winning is a totally different matter. I don't think the mall owners will settle this out of court though. I still don't see where the mall employees acted negligently. One can't really sue employees for being jerks.

Since this lady is granting interviews on the news concerning this issue, her issue of her privacy being violated is diminished.

[Feuer Frei!]

I mean seriously, let's think about this for a while, how many of you would actually put a hot cup of coffee bewtween your legs and attempt to open it up to put sugar in it?
Without ever thinking that the lid may come off in other ways than you had expected, and that the coffee could spill out and actually burn you?
I know for one i wouldn't.
The arguement for me at least isn't the fact that the coffee is/was brewed at a particular temperature which could burn someone (albeit due to their inability to use reason and common sense in the first place), but that due to a lack of common sense this even went to court.
That surely is the stand out point, certainly for me.
The "the jury would be sympathetic to an old lady's injuries", or "if a coffee can burn you because it's served hot" arguements don't lend much weight to the fact that no common sense was used by the customer to treat the product with care and in a appropriate manner and location.

[UnderseaLcpl]

If that's so then why do they make the lids with that little sippy hole that enables drinking the coffee on the way to somewhere else? The fact is all their drink and food products are packaged for eating on the road. Just compare it to how take out food is packaged and it's obvious.

Oh, good heavens! I can't believe were debating the dynamics of sippy-cups.

Yes, the cup is made so you can drink from it whilst minimizing inadvertent spillage and heat loss. It's served that way whether you are eating in or going through the drive-trhough or carrying your order out because that's efficient and practicable.

And yes, the food is packaged so you can eat it on the road, if that is what you want, but that doesn't mean that it is their fault if you spill your drink or wedge your BigMac under the brake pedal or whatever. They can't be held responsible for that. Was there some point at which it was decided that they must be held responsible for every possible misuse of any product they sell?

Actually, I take that back. It was decided in several cases, but it's still stupid.




Yes.

Why?


If a case can be made that their flimsiness contributed to an accident then why shouldn't they be liable for damages?

Because it would be silly. If that were the benchmark we used for everything people would be able to sue cell-phone companies for selling them the phones they were talking or texting on when they got in an accident. We wouldn't be able to get a soda or coffee either because the expense of providing every customer with a sealed thermos would be prohibitive.

It would be the legal equivalent of treating everyone like children by taking away their responsibility and placing it in the hands of anyone who might have anything to do with them.


No I'm not assuming that. I see it as a product safety issue. I'm sorry that your coffee is packed so insufficiently that it makes it too cold to drink by the time you get to work. It is plenty hot when you get it so why can't you get MD to package your coffee in a way that it doesn't go cold during the trip, or better yet, take some responsibility for both your coffee temperature and the environment and have them put pour it into sturdy reusable thermos bottle?

Because that would be way too expensive and people wouldn't do it. Nobody would bring their reusable thermos back reliably (how many people do you see using reusable grocery bags?), and nobody is going to pay for an insulated disposable cup that isn't syrofoam. There would just be no drive-though coffee for anyone. McDonalds would just say "To hell with it" and focus their efforts elsewhere.

I can't believe we're arguing about this.

[August]

Oh, good heavens! I can't believe were debating the dynamics of sippy-cups.

Don't act like you actually have something better to do. :DL

You claimed that MD expects it's customers to wait until they get to their destination before consuming their products. As i pointed out, and you've subsequently admitted, that just isn't true.

Why?

Well I dunno, because their customers are human beings and human beings make mistakes? Look what banking on inhuman perfection got them. A big fat lawsuit.

Because it would be silly. If that were the benchmark we used for everything people would be able to sue cell-phone companies for selling them the phones they were talking or texting on when they got in an accident. We wouldn't be able to get a soda or coffee either because the expense of providing every customer with a sealed thermos would be prohibitive.

Why do we have to create a single benchmark for everything? What do cell phones have to do with selling scalding hot liquid to grandmothers in a flimsy styrofoam cup? Talk about silly.

It would be the legal equivalent of treating everyone like children by taking away their responsibility and placing it in the hands of anyone who might have anything to do with them.

No it wouldn't. What do you have against product safety?

Because that would be way too expensive and people wouldn't do it. Nobody would bring their reusable thermos back reliably (how many people do you see using reusable grocery bags?)

Well my wife for one. Our neighbors for another and none are doing it for the few cents they're beginning to charge for plastic bags at the supermarket, but rather because we're tired of you throw away people littering up the environment and don't want to contribute to it even indirectly.

and nobody is going to pay for an insulated disposable cup that isn't syrofoam. There would just be no drive-though coffee for anyone. McDonalds would just say "To hell with it" and focus their efforts elsewhere.

Dude. People are not going to give up their morning coffee just because it's served in a cup that costs a few pennies more than it did before.

I can't believe we're arguing about this.

Me either. You're actually trying to say that MD would actually give up selling coffee if they weren't allowed to sell coffee in the cheapest possible container. That is hard to believe...

[Skybird]

Her agreement is by virtue of her being in public.

http://www.gmcsvt.com/images/event/concert_crowd.jpg

Do you think the person who took this picture had to get the consent of everyone there in order to do so? No. They were in public. They cannot consent to waive a right to privacy that they don't have in the first place.

Cant see anymone there being mocked or ridiculed.

FYI, if you offend somebody< not in his private home, but in public space, you canjh still be sued by him, in Germany as well as in America. The law says so in both countries. If you get raped in public and not in your priovate home, you can sue the attacker nevertheless. A car accident on a public road is a case for the police, although it is not on private property. If you show somebody obscene gestures in poublic, he may sue you, although you are in no private space.

The woman in the fountain says she feels mocked and ridiculed and embarassed by the video of her mishap being spread in public. The spreading of this vidceo is the issue,. not where her mishap happened. Film her naked in her sleeping room and distribute the video, and it is a casue to sue you. Film her being naked in public by accident, and spread that video against her will or withiout her permnission, and it is exactly the same.

She is not suind becasue she behaved silly and a mishap struck her as a result. She is suing against the video being published to a wide public. Granted, she does not give me the impression to be too bright, and in the interview seems to be somewhat "delayed" in her head :) , and she probably does not plan to pay her lawyer from her private money only - but still she has a valid point.

[STEED]

Why doesn't she sue the moblie company who gave her the phone, as she is to dumb to use it safely?:hmmm:


:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::up::up:

[STEED]

Why it happen and how it happen

Excuse me!

Why it happen is because you were to busy not looking where you were going which leads to how it happened, simple you were to busy texting and not looking where you were going!

Stupid women.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Don't act like you actually have something better to do. :DL

Of course I do. It's 0558 and I just got off work but I'm not tired yet. There's all kinds of important stuff I need to be doing like......um....well nothing at the moment, but I'm sure something will come up. And there's always more Allied shipping to be sunk in the North Atlantic. I should probably get that done soon. Lives hang in the balance.


You claimed that MD expects it's customers to wait until they get to their destination before consuming their products. As i pointed out, and you've subsequently admitted, that just isn't true.


What I pointed out is that McDonalds expects its customers to do whatever they want. Customers, on the other hand, expect McDonalds to provide them with desireable products that can be used when and where they please. That does not imply that McDonlads has a responsibility to make sure that it is impossible for people to misuse their products in a manner harmful to themselves, especially when they provide a warning on a product that is already known to be hazardous by its nature.



Well I dunno, because their customers are human beings and human beings make mistakes? Look what banking on inhuman perfection got them. A big fat lawsuit.


That's actually kind of my point. McDonalds is made of human beings as well. They can't just assume responsibility for every possible action that everyone who asks them for a certain product could take. They provide a product for a reasonable price at a standard that will keep customers coming back. It's difficult for them to do much else on a large scale because the nature of their role is to satisfy demand. In other words, they got to be where they are now by satisfying people. It is hardly logical to assume that they should then be responsible for the choices of others, especially when those choices form the foundation of their success.

The same assumption you make has destroyed a lot of well-intentioned and productive businesses that never did anything wrong. Even when they were within total compliance of all regulatory standards, and then sought to make amends when they made mistakes, they were still aniihilated by lawsuits.

You've been fooled by the same tactics that lawyers use to sway juries in cases like this. Sympathies for the "innocent" victims are played upon to achieve settlements; a natural result, considering that both the lawyers and the victims benefit form this, and that the people who make these decisions are people, whereas corporations are assumed to be faceless entities. To be more accurate, corporations are assumed to be faceless entities with no morals and a great deal of money by the general populace.



Why do we have to create a single benchmark for everything? What do cell phones have to do with selling scalding hot liquid to grandmothers in a flimsy styrofoam cup? Talk about silly.

That's actually the basis of our legal system. Every action that anyone could possibly be expected to undertake is codified in our extremely complex and completely incomprehensible laws. Minus, of course, the things that nobody has considered yet. That's why there is an entire wing of the congressional library dedicated to law, and also why no single person could ever understand it.

What we call law is essentially our best attempt at reducing the various actions people might take into a few basic moral categories; right from wrong, just from unjust, beneficial from harmful.

Naturally, there is a lot of controversey over what fits these categories. Sometimes, what is defined as the above is incorrect. Other times, it is defined by manipulation and human nature.


No it wouldn't. What do you have against product safety?

Nothing, and successful companies don't, either. Bad product make for bad business. These problems take care of themselves. I made the case above, but it bears repeating. Companies cannot accept full liability for everything they ever did or did not do. If they did so, they'd be like the feel-good liberals who excel at bankrupting entire states despite their ability to requisition resources on a whim.


Well my wife for one. Our neighbors for another and none are doing it for the few cents they're beginning to charge for plastic bags at the supermarket, but rather because we're tired of you throw away people littering up the environment and don't want to contribute to it even indirectly.


That's two households, but you're still negative 200-something million, and I'm being generous by assuming that 150 million households adopt the same practice. Yours is a relatively wealthy household, and it has the luxury of adopting such a measure. I could afford it if I made a few cuts, but I choose not to because I believe my charitable contributions are suffiicient and I'm not about to pay $5.00 for a re-usable bag that I have to drag back and forth between the house and the store. More relevantly, however, I don't believe that the production of plastic bags or the disposal of them is significantly contributiing to the harm of the environment. You don't buy that junk, either, if I recall. Didn't you once say something about burning leaves or tires or something to celebrate Earth Day? I'm not judging you for that; Actually, I recall saying something similar in the same thread.



Dude. People are not going to give up their morning coffee just because it's served in a cup that costs a few pennies more than it did before.


Actually, they will. Even if they don't forego their coffee entirely, they are more likely to get it from somplace else. Ask yourself this; If you knew that McDonalds cofee was more expensive than that of Burger King or whatever, which one would you choose? You don't care about the quality of their cups or whatever. All you know is that one place has cheaper coffee.




Me either. You're actually trying to say that MD would actually give up selling coffee if they weren't allowed to sell coffee in the cheapest possible container. That is hard to believe...


Why is it hard to believe? Most companies sell drinks of all kinds in the cheapest possible containers. They don't do that just because of the profit margin, they do it because the profit margin is very narrow as it is. This is also why McDonalds is still allowed to sell coffee in the same cups that burned Ms. Liebeck. It's not a matter of consumer safety, it's a matter of the way lawyers can argue the vagaries of civil law.

If McDonalds were required to produce idiot-proof cups, they'd have quit selling the product. It simply isn't viable to sell disposable spill-proof containers for such a product at a price that recoups the investment; or not yet at least. Admittedly, QT has actually made this work to some degree, but only with the largest cups and only with soft drinks, which are much less expensive to prepare than coffee.

[Sailor Steve]

Well my wife for one. Our neighbors for another and none are doing it for the few cents they're beginning to charge for plastic bags at the supermarket, but rather because we're tired of you throw away people littering up the environment and don't want to contribute to it even indirectly.
I'm on my way to band practice this afternoon. I'll take my backpack because I plan to do a little grocery shopping on the way home. If I had a car I'd take a bigger bag.

My reasons are a liitle more selfish, though. I hate dealing with disposable bags.

[Rockstar]

The video on security cameras are made public to warn and inform the public against certain crimes or suspected criminals. Everyone within the bounds of that system still has a reasonable expectation of privacy unless that security system captured something it was intended to guard against.

Trained and payed personnel making public a video which only serves to cause further embarrassment is unprofessional and outside the scope and purpose of their job description and video system. I say hang'em.

Unless of course you wouldn't mind seeing yourself embarrassed without compensation on some Funniest Home Video show picking your arse in the mall too.

[Skybird]

A day of miracle and wonder: I agree with Rockstar on something. :DL

[Rockstar]

Surely another sign the end of the world is near :woot: