Lady wants to sue mall for falling into fountain while texting

[tater]

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

[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 tater

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[tater]

Originally Posted by August

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]

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?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Her agreement is by virtue of her being in public.



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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

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...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Her agreement is by virtue of her being in public.



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]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

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

[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.