The general decline in standards today

[TidiousTed]

If I buy a coffee, I can be reasonably expected to think that spilling it (regardless of the reason) would scald my skin -- but not that it would burn off my muscle tissue right down to the bone. That's essentially what happened to the lawsuit's badly injured plaintiff.

It is almost impossible to imagine that roughly 2 deciliter of a liquid that can't possibly reach more than 100 Celsius can do that much harm

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Lovemyhats, if you look at old photos from the golden era, people did this!
It's a physical/psychological decision though, kind of like what Tango Yankee said.
Some need laws to protect them from themselves, but often times laws don't protect them or us!
We've covered this before who knows how many pages ago, when common sense reigned because people were taught how to act and think for themselves. Now, several generations are told how to act and think by a little box in the corner. Ever since then things have changed IMHO.

I know,. and for what it is worth, at times I find myself a bit lost and confused but all it takes is a nudge and "clink" on the head, and I am right back to running again.

 

[C-dot]

And would this have been so 60 or 70 years ago? NO!
Why would you put your coffee there in the first place? Just out of curiousity. I wouldn't. The second thing is why would you drive and drink coffee at the same time? They come in those drink holder containers. Obviously she removed it from the holder.

She was not driving, her son was. He had parked the car in a parking space, and it was stationary when she picked up the coffee, opened the top, and spilled it on her lap.

If I buy a coffee, I can be reasonably held to expect that spilling it (regardless of the reason) would scald my skin -- but not that it would burn off my muscle tissue right down to the bone. That's essentially what happened to the lawsuit's badly injured plaintiff.

Marc, you don't know this, and neither does anyone else but Stella Leibeck. As I said, the case never went to trial, so no medical evidence was ever disclosed.

 

[ButteMT61]

It is almost impossible to imagine that roughly 2 deciliter of a liquid that can't possibly reach more than 100 Celsius can do that much harm

Maybe he's a defense attorney J/K!

 

[jamespowers]

According to the American National Coffee Association, McDonald's was keeping their coffee at the recommended 90°F temperature. Also, they were not hit with any damages, punitive or otherwise - The case never went to trial. McDonald's settled with Miss Liebeck for a still undisclosed amount.

There is another sad commentary. McDonald's didn't want to go to try becauzse it would cost more to try the case than to pay off this dolt. Another decline in standards.

 

[jamespowers]

She was not driving, her son was. He had parked the car in a parking space, and it was stationary when she picked up the coffee, opened the top, and spilled it on her lap.

Even more Idiocracy then. You know if you open that thing and it spills you are right in its path.:eusa_doh:

 

[LoveMyHats2]

There is another sad commentary. McDonald's didn't want to go to try becauzse it would cost more to try the case than to pay off this dolt. Another decline in standards.

I wonder if anyone got any free coffee coupons in the settlement?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

According to the American National Coffee Association, McDonald's was keeping their coffee at the recommended 90°F temperature. Also, they were not hit with any damages, punitive or otherwise - The case never went to trial. McDonald's settled with Miss Liebeck for a still undisclosed amount.

It certainly did go to trial, and the jury did elect to levy high punitive damages against McDonald's:


"The trial took place from August 8–17, 1994, before Judge Robert H. Scott. During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. McDonalds research showed customers intend to consume the coffee while driving to their destination.

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of comparative negligence, 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. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000."

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Even more Idiocracy then. You know if you open that thing and it spills you are right in its path.:eusa_doh:

I kid you not, I pay real close attention to where in place anything "position wise" in reference to my body, and anything hot!

 

[ButteMT61]

There is another sad commentary. McDonald's didn't want to go to try becauzse it would cost more to try the case than to pay off this dolt. Another decline in standards.

Which is what both sides count on these days! Ever since the (famous case, it started way before that) Corvair, corporate America has defined life with spreadsheets, and people toss the dice with bogus lawsuits hoping the other side settles - regardless of actual damages. Welcome to the modern era, destroyed by cons and lawyers and...

 

[scooter]

Quote, "You favor the legalization of meth, smoking wherever you wish to regardless of those around you, behaving drunk and disorderly, or jumping off a bridge despite the consequences it has for the public?"

No one is in favor of these things because they are obviously wrongful and damaging. Eating on the other hand is something we MUST do to live. It is terribly difficult to quit habits like smoking and drinking, habits we know are terribly destructive to our bodies. Imagine how difficult it is to break a necessary habit such as our personal pattern of food consumption. Can it be done, yes! It it extraordinarily difficult, you better believe it!

High fructose corn syrup, for instance, is a relatively new and permeates so much of the food we eat today. The corn industry would have you believe that it is NOT bad for you in any way, which is a blatant lie in my eyes. Someone here argued that sugar or HFCS is not habit forming. Think not? Try stopping it cold turkey today and let me know how your body reacts. I have quit eating sugar and I quit smoking cold turkey, and I can testify, most folks don't have what it takes to give up either, because once your body becomes conditioned to their effects, you undergo withdrawal if you give them up. A good example of this is Happy Meals for kids, hook 'em while they're young and most will stay hooked for life!

Here's another little factoid for you, everyone is aware of the food pyramid (major food groups) and how we should consume a portion or more of each daily. Notice how dairy enjoys such a prominent place in that pyramid! Ever wonder why?
It is because the dairy industry devised that little chart for the government! Is dairy bad for you, probably not terribly so, but is it a necessary ingredient of our daily diet, I would argue not. I think it is another stellar example of the use of one industry's use of their position to further themselves financially.

 

[jamespowers]

I kid you not, I pay real close attention to where in place anything "position wise" in reference to my body, and anything hot!

I think normal people with good sense do. Obviously 700 didn't though.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

It certainly did go to trial, and the jury did elect to levy high punitive damages against McDonald's:


"The trial took place from August 8–17, 1994, before Judge Robert H. Scott. During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. McDonalds research showed customers intend to consume the coffee while driving to their destination.

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of comparative negligence, 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. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000."

See now, that is the "detail" Marc will always present. Sharp and accurate.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I think normal people with good sense do. Obviously 700 didn't though.

I do because I value my...erm...well you know..."sensitive parts of the male body"....

 

[ButteMT61]

I'm just amazed we hit 200 pages and no blood

 

[jamespowers]

Which is what both sides count on these days! Ever since the (famous case, it started way before that) Corvair, corporate America has defined life with spreadsheets, and people toss the dice with bogus lawsuits hoping the other side settles - regardless of actual damages. Welcome to the modern era, destroyed by cons and lawyers and...

All part of the decline----savage people trying "to get theirs" in unsavory ways---new unsavory ways.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Quote, "You favor the legalization of meth, smoking wherever you wish to regardless of those around you, behaving drunk and disorderly, or jumping off a bridge despite the consequences it has for the public?"

No one is in favor of these things because they are obviously wrongful and damaging. Eating on the other hand is something we MUST do to live. It is terribly difficult to quit habits like smoking and drinking, habits we know are terribly destructive to our bodies. Imagine how difficult it is to break a necessary habit such as our personal pattern of food consumption. Can it be done, yes! It it extraordinarily difficult, you better believe it!

High fructose corn syrup, for instance, is a relatively new and permeates so much of the food we eat today. The corn industry would have you believe that it is NOT bad for you in any way, which is a blatant lie in my eyes. Someone here argued that sugar or HFCS is not habit forming. Think not? Try stopping it cold turkey today and let me know how your body reacts. I have quit eating sugar and I quit smoking cold turkey, and I can testify, most folks don't have what it takes to give up either, because once your body becomes conditioned to their effects, you undergo withdrawal if you give them up. A good example of this is Happy Meals for kids, hook 'em while they're young and most will stay hooked for life!

Here's another little factoid for you, everyone is aware of the food pyramid (major food groups) and how we should consume a portion or more of each daily. Notice how dairy enjoys such a prominent place in that pyramid! Ever wonder why?
It is because the dairy industry devised that little chart for the government! Is dairy bad for you, probably not terribly so, but is it a necessary ingredient of our daily diet, I would argue not. I think it is another stellar example of the use of one industry's use of their position to further themselves financially.

Yes indeed this may all be very true however, the proper diet calls for things that we do not find much in any food anymore. Thus the needs for the right sort of "supplements" comes into play.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

All part of the decline----savage people trying "to get theirs" in unsavory ways---new unsavory ways.

(And some have fangs, too )!

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I'm just amazed we hit 200 pages and no blood

I got my band aides ready!

 

[ButteMT61]

Yes indeed this may all be very true however, the proper diet calls for things that we do not find much in any food anymore. Thus the needs for the right sort of "supplements" comes into play.

It can all be blamed on NASA:

Tang (what the astronauts drink after all)
TV Dinners (just blame the space-agey jetsons)
Pillsbury Food Sticks (what the astronauts eat after all)