Lady wants to sue mall for falling into fountain while texting

[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!]

Originally Posted by tater

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

[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!

Note to big company legal teams:

Being indifferent to the suffering of a grandmother with 3rd degree burns does not sit well with juries. 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]

[August]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by August

Note to big company legal teams:

Being indifferent to the suffering of a grandmother with 3rd degree burns does not sit well with juries. 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.