Obituary of the late Mr. Common Sense

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

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.

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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by markolas

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

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Even so - what kind of dumba$$ puts even regular coffee in her lap while driving 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?

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. 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....

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

I think most people put their drinks between their legs in the car ....

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

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. 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?

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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. 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!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

and which are YEW dear boy?

[strandinthewind]

Both and then some

[DavidMn]

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

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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. 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?

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.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

No, it would not.

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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

. . . 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 . . . .

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

[strandinthewind]

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

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

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...

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

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

[strandinthewind]

^^^^

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.