Lady wants to sue mall for falling into fountain while texting

[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]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

On the coffee one she, lost on appeal.

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

[tater]

Originally Posted by August

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! 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]

Originally Posted by tater

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!]

Originally Posted by August

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 range

A 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!]

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]

[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.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by 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.

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. If I had been there, I would have walked behind her, slipped and fell, and I would be suing her!