Obituary of the late Mr. Common Sense
 

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has
been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was,
since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
Why the early bird gets the worm;
Life isn't always fair; and
Maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more
than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children,
are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned
but overbearing regulations were set in place.

Reports of a 6 year old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a
classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch;
and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, which only worsened
his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job
that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their misbehaved
children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent
to administer sun lotion or a band-aid to a student; but could not inform
parents
when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments
became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received
better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a
burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed
to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little
in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his
wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 3 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else Is To
Blame, and I'm A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do
nothing.

Really? Nobody? :shrug: I thought sure this was perfect for us.

I never saw it!!

Very amusing, and so true. Personal responsibility - or taking responsibility for anything just doesn't happen anymore...

And I have long wanted common sense to make a comeback....because along with it I think survival of the fittest can come back...

I think this is a very true commentary on our society....you know...I was watching an episode of LIttle House on the Prairie the other day (shut up) in which this kid was out of control so they hired him out to Pa and Pa worked the kid into the ground....I was thinking that this kid is being taught to take responsibility, work hard etc...but seriously..today Pa would have been charged with child abuse....seriously.

I like it lol. So very true... sadly.

You know that coffee was like, 4000 degrees or something? Way over what any coffee should be. The lady had 3rd degree burns, had to have skin grafts on her upper thighs and hooha, the works.

But yeah, the rest is good.

Even so - what kind of dumba$$ puts even regular coffee in her lap while driving :shrug: And then says she did not know it would burn her and she, therefore, should have no responsibility whatsoever and it is all McDonald's fault. I mean I sorry that she got burned, but who da fool?

Terrific
 

That's my favorite part. :nod:

I was waiting for the part that whines about supposedly not being allowed to pray in schools, or the gays or the n*****s taking over. :rolleyes:

I wonder if the people bellowing about the 10 commandments would have no problem posting the Five Practices of Practitioners of the Lotus Sutra alongside it. I'm betting they would.

Since when do schools perform abortions? :rolleyes:

If the D's had their way, there would be a suction hose on every $0.50 Pepsi machine in America :eek:

Oh!
 

Is that what it said? Sorry, I read it as the schools couldn't inform the parents their daughter was pregnant and was contemplating abortion.

:rolleyes:

Yeah. It's because Democrats hate babies. And puppies. And our mothers, and God, and apple pie. We also want to turn everyone gay and foist our San Francisco values on them.

Unless your teen daughter gets impregnated by a black man, or a Mexican. Because we also hate white people and have a secret agenda to turn the United States into a nation of mud people.

Well apple pie does have way too much fat and is loaded with every kind of bad carb I can think of :p

Yep. We want more gays and we want them to marry because that is contagious and it will tear apart hetero marriage forever ruining the institution. This is the dem agenda. We hate god, love, and breeders. :lol:

Don't forget abortion on demand and as late as when the baby is on the way out of the birthin canal - it's a woman's right they say :p :xoxo:

Well, they should be working in the yard or housecleaning or building anyway :p

I think most people put their drinks between their legs in the car. Especially before ubiquitous cup holders. But part of the defense was, if the coffee was normal hot, it wouldn't have burned that bad. But they had heated it to the same temperature as the surface of the sun. If normal coffee spilled, she wouldn't have needed skin grafts. I used to think what you do until I heard the details of the case. Also, the person...mcdonald's worker...didn't put the lid on the cup properly. :shrug: So you have an improper lid with coffee the temp of the surface of the sun. I think someone going through the drive through of McDonald's and putting a cup of coffee between their legs, or very near their body at some point, is a forseeable plaintiff - so McDonald's does owe a duty to that general customer.
Even if it wasn't between her legs, and she put it somewhere else, it could easily have splashed and burned her, cars are not that big. Where was she supposed to put it? No cupholder. And what if she set it between her legs for a sec while she got her food situated, etc., like many of us do when going through the drive through? Again, totally forseeable plaintiff IMO. and the jury's O. Again, cup lid not on. After that case McDonald's was required to have their coffee heated to only a normal hot temperature....

Then they are fukcing idiots who get what they deserve for being so stupid. If you really think that this idiot did not know that coffee at any temperature or in any container had the chance of burning her but she put it between her legs while driving (which requires use of said legs) anyway, then I say to you that I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn :laugh:

On edit - I do hate that this woman got burned. But, I just think that if you are dumb enough to put a piping hot liquid between your legs while driving, you ought to assume the responsibility for doing so. Moreover, even if the coffee was hotter than normal, that likely played no part in her decision. Surely, she knew that regular piping hot coffee would have burned her if it spilled, the cup broke, etc. :shrug: Does anyone really think she thought, oh well, the burn of the regular piping hot coffee is worth the risk and that the burn of the hotter than hell that coffee was not? Moreover, did she deserve the three million dollar (or whatever) judgement for her own stupidity?

I'll bite: YES!

and I only said that to piss you off!

Well, I suppose there are some who are used to having things hotter than hell in their crotch and some whose crotch's are naturally hotter than hell :D

and which are YEW dear boy?

Both and then some :xoxo:

I'd love to meet him someday. Maybe soon. I think I'm finally starting to get it. Maybe.:lol:

Well, I disagree, then, I think most people, even many who are not idiots, put drinks between their legs from the drive through, I think she probably thought the lid was on - I don't see how it's her fault that the lid wasn't secure, if it was secure her coffee would likely not have spilt. So I don't think she thought "regular temperature coffee wouldn't burn me", I think she thought "This is coffee with a lid on it, I'm not expecting it to spill". I don't think she was driving, either, she was a passenger.
3 million dollars? I don't know, but certainly the medical costs, which if I recall, were substantial. It's no small thing to have your hooha burned all to hell. When I heard the details of the case, I was convinced. Maybe you haven't heard them? Either way, I still say totally forseeable plaintiff that McD's owes a duty to. Wouldn't be the first time we disagree, though. :laugh: :wavey:

^^^

No, it would not.

And, for the record, the coffee would actually chill my crotch - hookah :D

See, here is where you are assigning any sense of personal responsibility to a large corporation. If you were going to put piping hot coffee in between your legs while driving (which is an unforgiveably idiotic act in the first place), wouldn't you make sure the lid was fastened and it was not going to burn you?

_________________________________________

Here is an interesting article:

Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald's coffee case
Thirteen courts have reported opinions looking at product-liability/failure-to-warn claims alleging that coffee was "unreasonably dangerous" and the provider was thus liable when the plaintiff spilled coffee on him- or herself. Twelve courts correctly threw the case out. Another trial court in New Mexico, however, didn't, and became a national icon when the jury claimed that Stella Liebeck deserved $2.9 million in compensatory and punitive damages because McDonald's dared to sell the 79-year-old hot 170-degree coffee.

The case is ludicrous on its face, as a matter of law and as a matter of common sense. Eleven years later, this should be beyond debate, yet somehow, it keeps coming up in the blogs, and we keep having to refute it. (Dec. 10, 2003, Aug. 3, 2004, Aug. 4, 2004).

Amazingly, rather than argue that the tort system shouldn't be judged by the occasional outlier, the litigation lobby has succeeded in persuading some in the media and on the left that the Liebeck case is actually an aspirational result for the tort system, and, not only that, but that anyone who says otherwise is just a foolish right-winger buying into "urban legends" (Aug. 14, Aug. 16, and links therein). Even the Mikkelsons at snopes.com have made the mistake of buying into the trial lawyer hype, calling the case "perfectly legitimate" and effectively classifying the common-sense understanding of the case as an urban legend.

But the real urban legend has to be that the case has any legitimacy. Worse, this urban legend is being taught to a generation of law students by professors like Jonathan Turley and Michael McCann. Now, any peripheral mention of the McDonald's coffee case provokes a gigantic backlash from the left, who, while congratulating themselves on their seeing past the common-sense view of the case and being above urban legends, spread a number of urban legends of their own about the case. Witness the 200-plus comment outpouring at Kevin Drum's Political Animal blog. This post provides a partial rebuttal to some of the things said in that thread, and will hopefully serve as a FAQ in the future.

Kevin Drum: only the "most extreme" support the position of "trial lawyers who sue McDonalds over hot coffee"

False: The main trial-lawyers lobby, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, publishes an Orwellian "fact-sheet" defending the verdict; many law professors incorrectly teach their students that it was a legitimate case. Indeed, Drum is attacked by several commenters for taking this position.

Commenter cmdicely: the industry standard was to serve at a lower temperature

False: The National Coffee Association of the USA recommends serving at 180-190 degrees; another article suggests industry standard is 160 to 185 degrees.

According to a Sep. 1, 1994 Wall Street Journal interview with Reed Morgan, Liebeck's attorney, he measured the temperature at 18 restaurants and 20 McDonald's, and "McDonald's was responsible for nine of the twelve highest temperature readings." Which means that, even before one accounts for conscious or unconscious bias in the measurements, at least three, and probably more (what about the other eleven McDonald's?), restaurants were serving coffee at a higher temperature. And Starbucks serves at a higher temperature today, and faces lawsuits over third-degree burns as a result (Jan. 2, 2004).

Commenter Carl: I presume hundreds, if not thousands of people have been saved from severe burns from unreasonably hot coffee.
Commenter MSR: Go to your home coffee maker and make a cup; it will be at about 140 Fahrenheit.

False: To the extent that McDonald's and other restaurants lowered the temperature of their coffee, all it did was cost those institutions market share—people like hot coffee, and today Starbucks has gone from a local shop to a dominant national chain, despite prices several times higher than McDonald's, because they serve their coffee hotter than McDonald's served it to Stella Liebeck, recommending a temperature of 175 to 185 degrees. Starbucks faces suits over third-degree burns hot coffee cases (Jan. 2, 2004), and so does McDonald's Aug. 13). And, moreover, while in the early 1990's home coffeemakers only brewed up to 130-140 degrees, today people can and do buy far more expensive and higher-quality coffeemakers that can serve coffee at the 190-to-200-degree temperature that coffee is supposed to be brewed at.

I've seen no data that suggest that the small number of people who've burned themselves on hot coffee has gone down. If it has, it's far more likely that the publicity over Stella Liebeck has caused people to be more careful with their hot beverages, and because coffee sleeves, a product invented shortly before Liebeck's suit went to trial, have become a popular way for restaurants to save paper with the added benefit of additional safety.

Commenter Robert: McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding - capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle.

False: Stella Liebeck suffered terrible third-degree burns because, while wearing sweatpants that absorbed the liquid and held it to her skin, she sat in a puddle of hot coffee for over ninety seconds.

Commenter Stefan: The burn victim offered to settle with McDonald's for a token sum (around $10,000 if memory serves)

False: Liebeck asked for $20,000, and then, later, $300,000 to settle before trial. McDonald's offered a token sum. And why should McDonald's offer any money when they hadn't done anything wrong?

Commenter Jeffrey Davis: I'm trying to imagine anyone who was injured that way and that severely not seeking redress. And failing.

Well, Angela McMahon suffered third-degree burns from spilling coffee on herself, and sued on the identical legal theories that Stella Liebeck did. Her case was correctly thrown out, even though the defendant waived the most obvious legal defense.

The tort system is meant to deter wrongdoing; the mistake of the left is the increasingly successful attempt to make the main purpose compensating the injured, and redistributing wealth from wealthier bystanders tangentially related to the victim who haven't done anything wrong. The tort system is a remarkably inefficient means of performing this task, which is why litigation reform is needed.

Commenter MSR: One other point about the McDonald's case that should be mentioned here. The award to the woman for injuries was about $130,000 or 13 times her original request. Enough to cover her costs and send a message that it's better to just settle than take a loosing [sic] case to court.

False: The jury award was $2.9 million. The court lowered this to $650,000. Both Liebeck and McDonald's appealed, and then settled, allegedly for something close to, if not identical to, the final judgment. McDonald's didn't have a losing case: it was only the error of the judge in letting the case get to the jury combined with the error of the jury that caused them to lose. The fact that a defendant can exposed to many multiples of actual damages is one of the serious problems of the tort system. Even when 9 out of 10 juries get it right, if the tenth jury awards ten times as much damages as it should, it undoes the work of the juries that exonerated the defendant. This encourages lottery litigation. (E.g., Jun. 3, 2004).

Commenter MSR: In the course of the trial, as others have noted, it was made clear that the coffee was much closer to boiling than to the temperature of ordinary coffee

False: As noted, coffee is supposed to be that hot, and people prefer coffee that hot, and Starbucks serves even hotter coffee today.

Commenter MSR: many people had been injured (some 700 over the previous decade)

Misleading: McDonald's sells billions of cups of coffee. There had been 700 complaints over hot coffee in the previous decade, which translates into a complaint rate of 1-in-24-million, with only a small fraction of the complaints reflecting injuries as severe as Liebeck's. By comparison, 1-in-4-million Americans will be killed by lightning in a given year, and 1-in-20-million Americans (and a much higher ratio of American toddlers) drown in 5-gallon buckets in an average year.

Commenter MSR: the complete absence of any warning that the coffee was nearly at the boiling point

False: Aside from the "open and obvious" danger that coffee presents that should eliminate a warning, Stella Liebeck's cup did have a warning! The jury thought it was "too small", which reflects the problem with failure-to-warn claims—one can always second-guess a warning after the fact, because it's always possible to give a more extensive warning. And defendants are caught in a trap, because if they give too many warnings, they're accused of failing to warn by burying the important warnings in a morass of unimportant warnings. At what point does common sense come into play?

Commenter theorajones starts off correctly noting that the McDonald's coffee case is a no-win argument for liberals, but then blows the winning streak when she invokes Valerie Lakey.

Commenter Alek Hidell: it was McDonald's, not Ms. Liebeck, that forced a trial (and the subsequent "jackpot award"), was it not?

Why is it the defendant's fault for "forcing a trial" by refusing an unreasonable settlement demand? It's blaming the victim to say that the shopkeeper brought on his own broken knees because he refused to pay Tony Soprano protection money. McDonald's was entitled to a fair trial when the plaintiff insisted on going forward, and didn't get one.

Commenter Cyan: many of these claims were settled

Misleading. Yes, McDonald's took responsibility when one of its employees spilled coffee on a customer and settled cases of burns from such spills. Because a coffee-spill is usually the fault of the person who spilled the coffee. The Liebeck jury and judge decided to mostly blame the deep pocket instead.

http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/...lla_liebe.html

Interestingly, if the Lieback case is the one we are talking about then the person driving the vehicle was Liebeck's grandson Chris (not Stella Liebeck herself, as some sources would indicate), who had parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Ms. lieback 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. 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.

_______________________________________________________

So, the facts are different than we thought, but I still think it is her fault for putting piping hot liquid between her legs. The jury somewhat agreed with me as they found her 20% at fault.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

:lol: So not only is this woman daft for A) not checking the lid herself (something I ALWAYS do on hot and cold beverages alike) B)Putting the hot liquid in her lap...subsequently spilling it....

She is also daft for SITTING in the liquid for 90 seconds...I mean I realize she's old but good gravy - when I spill anything on myself (hot of cold) the first reaction is to jump - get away from the liquid...:shrug:

Also - my home coffee maker makes coffe at a comparable temp and when I worked at Starbucks - 'til true- higher temps than the McDonald's coffee :nod:

Personal responsibility is going the way of the dinosaur though...

^^^^

I think the jury awarded this because they felt sorry for an old lady who was badly injured. I do also feel horrible for her and wish it never happened.

Oh definitely...It is horrible - but it was an accident...an accident caused by her carelessness...and the fact that this was fought out in courts to the extent it was is what gets me. I mean...my mom once fell in an Applebees- she tripped on the carpet - did she sue the place? No - she did accept their free lunch lol...and then she did have some wrist issues because of that....but she always said it was her own stupid mistake (true) and it would be ludicrous to sue over something like that...

I tend to look at this case the same way.

^^^

I did tort law for a long time and the shiitte you see makes you want to hurl. But, if I had the opportunity to get 3 million from MCDonald's for my client and one million or so of that was my fee, I'd do the same thing -- thus, I am a hypocrite and a cad. So sue me :cool:

It's cool - my sister's best friend does this sort of thing...she's a lawyer and moved from youth/drug court thing to this type of stuff..and yeah - she says it's sickening..but pays reeeeally well :laugh:

I like how some people are talking about this case (not you Strand) as if they know anything about it, or anything about tort law at all. Opinions are not law, as I've learned over and over. You can have all the opinions you want, but to see what will really happen, you need to go to the law. Also, even your opinions are lame if you don't know all the information, regardless of law knowledge or not (not you, Strand). And no one here but me has heard those details (unless Strand read all the testimony and evidence).

I don't understand how someone can be lame enough (wait, maybe I do, I'm actually not suprised) to think it was the lady who was careless by holding her coffee, when it was the McDonald's employee who didn't put the lid on the cup of hotter than the sun coffee.

This was a case we discussed in one of my classes, the professor was really good. He started out by saying "what do you think of a lady getting a 3 million dollar settlement from McDonald's because hot coffee spilled in her lap?" And of course everyone was like "Lame! So lame! Super lame!" like some of the people here who don't know anything about the law or the case (not you, Strand) are saying. He went on to explain all the factors involved in the case (I have forgotten some of the details, but have said some of them) and by the end, after he told us all the factors, and the costs and length of her medical bills, all the complete evidence, everything - we had changed our minds. We had even changed our minds to the extent that we thought 3 mill. was pretty fair. At least for sure within the realm of tort law. And in tort law you are supposed to be able to recover for not only injuries, but pain and suffering, lost wages, future medical bills, all of that.

This lecture was partially an illustration of how everyone had an opinion about this case, but it was just based on what the media reported, which didn't contain any of the pertinent facts that were actually part of the case, the facts that the jury heard. This happens a lot, cases are tried in the media with a proliferation of either misinformation or non information about the evidence. Kind of like poeple here who don't know anything about the case or tort law are having an opinion that it was a ridiculous settlement. Even though they know nothing. Not you, Strand.

If certain people are lame and bother you then let me introduce you to the "ignore" feature. Its a handy little gadget.

If that little old lady had used a travel cup, she would have saved her legs, pain, hospital time, court time, and (over time) some trees. :D
I think the coffee was too hot, I think she was careless in using the space between her legs to steady a soft cup, I think she was owed money anyway for her hospital bills.

I used to interview clients in personal injury cases, and I was shocked at the avarice and lack of personal responsibility I heard from some of those clients. I also heard stories from some really deserving people, who had been badly injured do to corporate or other negligence.

***

Diminished common sense is an important ingredient for a successful economy, especially in this retail holiday season.

no, you get a star for being an honest pettifogger. howzabout THAT for an oxymoron eh?

This from Wikipedia:

My 50freakincents:

McDonalds sure as heck knew they were selling blistering hot coffee, the temperature of which the quality control manager acknowledged was sufficient to cause 3rd degree burns......Since they had already settled on a significant number of lawsuits, McDonald's CERTAINLY KNEW their coffee was hazardous. As far as Im concerned, the PRIMARY responsibility lies with the producer of a product to offer a product that isnt obviously harmful. Yes, Stella was comparatively negligent, but McDonalds bears the primary burden to offer a safe product to its customers.

I find it significant that Stella offered to settle for her medical expenses but McDonalds' counter offer was a JOKE. Tells me they felt they didnt need to assume any responsibility and that is just WRONG.

Which "people" might those be, HMMMMMMM?
BULL. oh, and **** too. (all together now: BULL. ****. BULL. ****.)

Quite. One could even say
RETARDED. Yep, one could say that......:nod:


I myself believe that Stella deserved a settlement, certainly more than McDonald's offered her, and at LEAST enuff to cover her bills. That said, I know that not everyone agrees with me. SOME PEOPLE would do well to remember that as well. It takes all kinds in this world. Yep.