The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » California court: Calling them "Crunchberries" doesn't constitute fraud (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2009-06-07 20:08, Scott Cram wrote:
Quote:
On 2009-06-07 05:53, Doug Higley wrote:
Frivolous law suits are always facinating.

But there is the potential for the media to twist them into a joke when they are not.

The famous one about the lady who sued McDonald's because her coffee was HOT is a good example. She has been (and her suit) made into jokes forever.

BUT it was a Legit case! The coffee was boiling hot and the BOTTOM of the cup fell OUT and the coffee DUMPED on her bare thighs (she was wearing shorts) which were scalded and badly burned and also her private parts were burned. Darn right I'd sue!!! So would you.


Really? The bottom fell out of her cup? You would think that the woman involved would've brought this up to her lawyer, the judge and the jury at some point.

According to Michael McCann, William Haltom, and Anne Bloom, ("LAW & SOCIETY SYMPOSIUM: Java Jive: Genealogy of a Juridical Icon," 56 U. Miami L. Rev. 113 (October 2001)), which describes the accident in detail:

Quote:
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49˘ cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.


According to Ralph Nader & Wesley J. Smith's article, No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America:

Quote:
Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed.


Was she not aware that coffee is hot (as per the warning that was printed on the cup at the time)? That cotton is absorbent? and that she could spill coffee she herself decided to hold in her own lap (and which McDonald's did not force her to do)?

Further, why did the maker of her cotton sweatpants get off so easy? It was their material that held it against her skin for so long! How about the carmaker? It was their seats that helped hold the coffee against her skin for so long, and possibly the poor design of their cupholders that made her decide to hold it in her lap instead.




The stuff you don't usually hear about the McDonalds case, that surely didn't help them, was that
1) their coffee wasn't just "hot" as we all expect coffee to be, but 20-30 degrees hotter than is typical in the industry.
2) they'd hired experts who advised them to reduce the temperature at which they serve coffee.
3) they'd had numerous cases in the past of serious injury from their coffee.
4) the woman who was burned wanted them to cover her hospital bills (low 5-figures, as I recall). It only became a lawsuit because they refused to do even that much.

The nature of a result such as the McDonalds suit isn't that the particular plaintiff "deserved" that much; it's that McDonalds had to lose that much to deter its conduct from harming future parties. We all know that coffee is hot; however, we don't reasonably expect, after getting 155-degree coffee (yup, that's hot) everywhere else, that THIS coffee is going to be 185-degrees (that's hotter, and the difference is significant, medically. It's not "Ow, that was hot! I'm an idiot!" It's "Ow, I have to go the emergency room and get treatment for third degree burns!"

That is to say,
1) it was outside the realm of reasonable expectation; and
2) they know that it was, and they were on actual notice from their own experts that the difference posed serious health risks to their customerss.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Doug Higley
View Profile
V.I.P.
Here and There
7173 Posts

Profile of Doug Higley
I heard the 'Cup bottom fell out' from a Legal show where the lawyers were discussing this problem. The details were explained as to how she got burned and what the burns were.

Also these must be TWO seperate cases. No sweat pants in this one. She had shorts on...(bare thighs).
Higley's Giant Flea Pocket Zibit
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
I thought it was a brewery by-product? Yeast "extract."
I like to mix it with peanut butter on toast. It's an interesting contrast of flavors.

Quote:
On 2009-06-05 22:02, Destiny wrote:
Don't let them come to Australia - vegemite, our naional delicacy is made from beef extract.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
I like the 'sue every medice producer in America' trend the lawyers have going on. By golly, we should not rest until all those companies are out of business!
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2732 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
I posted this in the thread about web comics, but it fits here too.

http://www.webcomicsnation.com/poyorick/......er=10960

and this fits in with the whole lawsuit angle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfO9JUNXN7U


My take on the McDonald's case is; if your product causes third degree burns and similar products do NOT cause third degree burns, you need to re-think your product.
"There's no time to lose," I heard her say.
"Catch your dreams before they slip away."
"Dying all the time, lose your dreams and you could lose your mind.
Ain't life unkind?"
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2732 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On 2009-06-05 20:42, LobowolfXXX wrote:
They probably wouldn't have tried, except it IS the 9th Circuit...


Same attorneys, by the way, tried pretty much the exact same thing previously vis a vis "Fruit Loops." Surely, Fruity Pebbles are next.


Technically the "Froot Loops" people are on better legal group because they're not calling their cereal "Fruit Loops," thus implying it may have real fruit in it some where. They're calling in "Froot Loops." Now you would have to go out and insist that you think there's really something called "Froot" that these "Loops" should be made of.

"Fruity Pebbles" are also safe because they're not claiming to be "Fruit Pebbles" only "Fruity" i.e. "Fruit _like_"
"There's no time to lose," I heard her say.
"Catch your dreams before they slip away."
"Dying all the time, lose your dreams and you could lose your mind.
Ain't life unkind?"
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » California court: Calling them "Crunchberries" doesn't constitute fraud (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.16 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL