Lady wants to sue mall for falling into fountain while texting

[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.

[August]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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 product

No.

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?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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.

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...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by August

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

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.