Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
She spilled the coffee on herself. She spilled the coffee on herself because she took the lid off. She spilled the coffee on her legs because she put her hot coffee in between her legs.
McDonalds, nor their employees, did any of these things.
Is it unfortunate that she got burned. Sure.
Are there any laws that say McDonalds has to serve coffee below a certain point? Absolutely not.
So the fact that fault was placed on McDonalds is, IMO, absolutely absurd.
The coffee was not faulty. In fact, there are other drinks (black & chai tea) that you're supposed to serve at a higher temperature than that.
The packaging was not faulty. It was marked "Hot" and given to her with a lid on. She removed the lid. She spilled the coffee on herself.
Just because a single jury found in her favor doesn't mean it's 'right' or any less 'frivolous.' Juries don't always get it right.
I used the other example simply to demonstrate that, just because something is upheld in court doens't make it "right;" that's the sole reasoning for using the perspective of another disabled person.
But again, a large percentage of the United States has no interest in being held accountible for their own actions, so I guess I should be used to it.
Why did you put "should" in ''? Assuming, arguendo, that the two artists with nothing to gain are being truthful in their independent statements, the following is what is going on;
I think this portion is a misunderstanding: I meant that if GW wanted to obtain the rights of the pieces from the artists, they SHOULD pay them for them.
- That the copyrights are assigned to GW. Untrue, Chalk and Nichols are quite clear that no such assignment was ever made.
-That the assignment was contemporaneous with the work being done (that is, GW has held ownership for the last 30 odd years). Again, flatly contradicted.
Thanks for clarifying this piece. That's pretty much what I assumed; I don't think I articulated that understanding well.
reduced to the simplest formulation, if you believe the sworn declaration of G. Chalk, Games Workshop is lying to artists in an attempt to steal their property
I agree this is an unethical act. They should pony up the cash and pay. Like I stated, I don't understand their lack of willingness to be forthright about it. Would it have been that damaging to the case, or would that have necessitated the artists' willingness to participate in the suit because, at the time of the suit, the copyright wasn't owned by GW? Had GW purchased these copyrights from the artists prior to the suit, would that have made a difference?
The reason for asking for the documents isn't particularly important, the problem with the "shore up records that may have been lost" assertion is... the records weren't lost, they never existed.
I'm probably wrong again here, but what I read made it sound like a paper trail didn't exist out of lack of due dilligence, but rather no one did it at the time. Have we come that far since 1985 in regards to paperwork filing? Or is GW just a disorganized mess?
"gaks the Space Marine"? (Please note that Cinc did not use the word "gaks".) So, a woman writes a book, using terms that are completely generic and have been in use since before the second World War. Games Workshop misuses a legal filing in an attempt to improperly increase their IP and destroy this random woman's livelihood, and and in the interest of fairness you insult her? ]
I probably shouldn't have insulted her, but the book looks like a pile of crap to me. If Amazon believed they were being truthful, shouldn't they STILL Have allowed the author to respond before removing the files? I have more trouble seeing this as more an unethical act as an act of bad faith or, in crude terms, a crappy move. But I can understand why they'd do it. If they can establish a precedent for ownership of the phrase Space Marine I'm sure that somewhere that makes the road to aquiring that trademark easier. Or not. There's a good chance I'm completely off base here.
It seems almost incomprehensible how you are able to reconcile these beliefs. GW isn't in breach of some petty, corner case legalities here, they are violating bedrock principles of law and order: seriously now, thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not swear falsely are... not new ideas.
You're right. Though Shalt not steal and thou shalt not swear falsely aren't new. But if we're going to apply them to GW, we have to apply them to Chapterhouse. All the legalese aside, it's very apparent that Chapterhouse ONLY exists because of GW. While studios like Kromlech, Puppets War, etc, can say the same, none of those companies removed photos or webpages or so brazenly abused any grey area that exists within IP law. I have no sympathy for Chapterhouse. None. If in fact GW is suborning perjury or doing anything else illegal, they'll be punished for it.
If that's the case, my opinion will certainly change. But if they're doing stuff that is legal but a bit seems a bit crappy...well at least in regards to Chapterhouse, I don't care. Because the perception of ethics isn't a black and white area, and because it seems like most of the acts in this instance that would be considered unethical are also illegal, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think. Should our code of ethics be dictated by the Bible or Darwin? Living in the United States, especially now, I can't say there aren't times I lean more towards Darwin and survival of the fittest. I realize this is going to win me exactly zero points with a bunch of you, but it is what it is.
Again, I have no respect for Chapterhouse or their business practices or their arrogance in regards to what could have been an easy fix. Based on how they've operated, I think it's a reasonable conclusion that CHS wanted this to go to court from the outset. If that's the case, they're as bad as the woman that spills hot coffee on her hooch and the sues because she didn't realize it was hot.
With all due respect Cinc, you are simply wrong. After... wait... whaaaaa?
cincydooley wrote: But if they're doing stuff that is legal but a bit seems a bit crappy...well at least in regards to Chapterhouse, I don't care. Because the perception of ethics isn't a black and white area, and because it seems like most of the acts in this instance that would be considered unethical are also illegal, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think. Should our code of ethics be dictated by the Bible or Darwin? Living in the United States, especially now, I can't say there aren't times I lean more towards Darwin and survival of the fittest. I realize this is going to win me exactly zero points with a bunch of you, but it is what it is.
Ooooookay. You got me, I got nothing on that.
Just one thing though: if you're going to be all Blue and Orange Morality, that's fine (makes discussions a bit more trying, but c'est la vie), but you seem to be rather inconsistent in applying the moral system you appear to be espousing.
That is, if you are going to regard GW's blatantly unethical and legally improper DMCA action with "I have more trouble seeing this as more an unethical act as an act of bad faith or, in crude terms, a crappy move. But I can understand why they'd do it. If they can establish a precedent for ownership of the phrase Space Marine I'm sure that somewhere that makes the road to aquiring that trademark easier. Or not. There's a good chance I'm completely off base here." That is, if it helps GW do better then perhaps some misconduct is understandable. Very Nietzschean.
But if that's going to be your position... how can you dislike CHS so viscerally? In terms of purely quantifying their disrespect for the law, GW seems miles ahead of CHS, to the extent that CHS is a mere disciple of the art GW has mastered. Is the problem that CHS isn't stealing enough? They should be more aggressive about screwing people over?
Or, on the other hand, if you are going to take the position that the court cases are still in play, that's fine... but then don't say that CHS can burn in hell.
Put another way, you've been presented with evidence of malfeasance by CHS and GW.
-You read the accusations against CHS, realized that you didn't really understand the law and pronounced that "I have no sympathy for Chapterhouse. None."
-You read the accusations against GW, realized you didn't really understand the law and decided " If in fact GW is suborning perjury or doing anything else illegal, they'll be punished for it. ...If that's the case, my opinion will certainly change."
Don't pretend to be encouraging discussion when you allow people to throw around the inflammatory "white knight" term at anyone who disagrees with them.
So you and others get to thorw around the term haters, bu the defenders of GW get bent out of shape like you are for beiing called a white knight.
Fine, fanboy, if thats whats really bothering you. I'll simply start calling you something else. You refuse to accept facts, throw around terms like "no one cares about" aussie and new zeland, among other things. Inoging facts about compaines IS what fan boys do after all.
Hope more old fools come to their senses and start giving you their money instead of those Union Jack Blood suckers...
kronk wrote: Well outside of what you are allowed to safely serve the public.
Which law is that again? (I'm being serious.)
I'm not entirely certain, but I believe this sort of thing is effectively an OSHA style issue - people have the right to go about their daily activities without concern that mundane, everyday situations that they might encounter will cause grievous bodily injuries. Remember, they recommend that you reduce your hot water heater setting to 120 degrees in order to reduce the risk of recieving scalding injuries from hot water out of your tap - 130 degree water will cause 1st degree burns in 30 seconds.
160 degree water will cause 3rd degree scalding burns in one second. That the coffee being served was at 180 degrees was a serious health hazard - realistically it was a burn hazard to both employees and the people it was being served to.
I don't believe there is an OSHA reg regarding how hot a restaurant can serve its coffee (which makes sense considering that body of regulations deals with work place safety).
Manchu wrote: I don't believe there is an OSHA reg regarding how hot a restaurant can serve its coffee (which makes sense considering that body of regulations deals with work place safety).
Overall though, the case got as far as it did due to McDonalds refusing a settlement of more than $800 when the woman's medical bills had totaled over $10k. To an extent, you can argue that there would have been no major outcry if they had been willing to settle for covering her bills as opposed to fighting it out in court, which resulted in the 2.8 million dollar judgment (was later settled for about $640k before an appeal could be completed).
Getting this back to the topic, it's a good example of why a company needs to show some sensitifity and not just fall back on the courts as its first option - a light touch with a degree of sympathy and empathy for the people you are dealing with generally is less expensive and less embarassing than simply pulling out the legal department sledgehammer right off the bat.
I love the McDonald's coffee case. When you look at from a 1st year torts perspective, it's actually a pretty simple case.
The plaintiff showed that what caused the burns wasn't just coffee, but coffee at that temperature. They also showed all the complaints McDonalds had received about how hot the coffee was. Finally, McDonald's served the coffee 20 degrees above industry standard.
So, McDonald's served coffee hotter than most, knew it carried a risk, and kept doing it.
RuneGrey wrote: realistically it was a burn hazard to both employees and the people it was being served to
Realistically, we can expect adults to understand that things that are hot could burn them.
Without referring to the specific facts of the case, there is a legal point that you can't sell someone something that is hazardous if used in the usual way. Certainly we all can agree that it is not proper to serve someone coffee at 200 degrees F, at which temperature the merest touch would raise painful burns, right? So the question then is, how hot is too hot? I honestly don't know the answer, but it does not seem unreasonable that a beverage is assumed to be in a consumable state at the time of sale.
In the simplest analysis, a product such as that would be un-merchantable: that is, unfit for its intended purpose.
RuneGrey wrote: realistically it was a burn hazard to both employees and the people it was being served to
Realistically, we can expect adults to understand that things that are hot could burn them.
Without referring to the specific facts of the case, there is a legal point that you can't sell someone something that is hazardous if used in the usual way. Certainly we all can agree that it is not proper to serve someone coffee at 200 degrees F, at which temperature the merest touch would raise painful burns, right? So the question then is, how hot is too hot? I honestly don't know the answer, but it does not seem unreasonable that a beverage is assumed to be in a consumable state at the time of sale.
In the simplest analysis, a product such as that would be un-merchantable: that is, unfit for its intended purpose.
Also, as fun as it is to say that stupid people should suffer for their lack of wit or knowledge, society doesn't work that way. People who do (or should) know better generally have an ethical obligation to protect those who do not. That's why we require licensing for a lot of jobs where the average lay person simply doesn't have the knowledge to understand what is going on, and it's why we need to place warning signs for hazards - you can't just assume people will understand something. 'Should have known' is not an acceptable excuse.
Buzzsaw wrote: there is a legal point that you can't sell someone something that is hazardous if used in the usual way
That's not quite it. If a product is foreseeably hazardous in the course of its normal use, regardless of how the product is intended to be used, the company manufacturing or selling it has a duty to warn of the hazard. Hence, the coffee cup says "CAUTION HOT."
McDonald's, as an example, has these rules and regulations in their employee hand book. Some are good practices, and some are requirements. When you are audited by your local food safety guy (I have no idea what they call them), they can fine you or shut you down for serious food and or health code violations. Like nu-refrigerated meat. The McD book DID have rules about how hot the coffee could be, but I admit that I do not know if that was company policy or a regulation at the time. I admit that my statement might be erroneous.
This time...
And now I'm off on a long weekend. Have fun!
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a law that you can't serve coffee above 100 degrees centigrade.
I see what you did there!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/02/22 22:48:32
In the case of this coffee, we're not getting past point one. Does a restaurant have a duty to sell coffee at any specific temperature? No, it does not. Does it have a duty to warn the customer that the coffee is hot? Not according to any statute or regulation -- so far as anyone here can tell. But clearly that does not relieve the restaurant of all potential liability. Generally speaking, a duty does arise out of the inability to make a product safe in the course of its foreseeable use -- but that duty is only to warn. Therefore, whether or not there is in any given circumstances a judge that would find such duty did indeed arise from such circumstances, as matter of managing liabilities many companies will incur the additional cost of warning.
Why is a warning enough? Again, because it is reasonable to expect that an adult who is told that a liquid is hot will be careful not to be burned or that an adult who is told that a floor is wet will be careful not to slip.
RuneGrey wrote: realistically it was a burn hazard to both employees and the people it was being served to
Realistically, we can expect adults to understand that things that are hot could burn them.
Realistically, we can expect adults shouldn't require skin grafts for drinking coffee.
It turns out we are saying the same thing because if adults can reasonably handle hot liquids then they will not require skin grafts as a matter of handling hot liquids.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/02/22 22:56:47
Buzzsaw wrote: there is a legal point that you can't sell someone something that is hazardous if used in the usual way
That's not quite it. If a product is foreseeably hazardous in the course of its normal use, regardless of how the product is intended to be used, the company manufacturing or selling it has a duty to warn of the hazard. Hence, the coffee cup says "CAUTION HOT."
First, I did not mean to imply that there was either no duty to warn, nor that items that have some hazard cannot be sold.
The problem with that analysis is the inadequacy of the word "HOT"; coffee at 150 degrees is hot, but then what is coffee at 205 degrees? Surely there must be some differentiation between a cup of coffee that can be pleasurably consumed, and one that will scald the palette.
Put another way, if you are given a cup of hot coffee, what will you do? You might blow on it, but at some point you will test it, probably by sipping it. If the coffee is so hot that it retains the ability to scald exposed flesh for some time, then a more fulsome warning would seem to be indicated.
"Hot" as a word of caution means the same thing whether applied to coffee at 160 F or 180 F. It means, "this is hot -- use your best judgment when you drink this." The word "Hot" suffices not because it describes a temperature but because it prescribes caution regarding temperature.
Surtur wrote: Realistically, we can expect adults shouldn't require skin grafts for drinking coffee.
If you're not capable of handling hot liquids without spilling them on yourself, maybe you shouldn't be ordering a drink that is made by heating water to near boiling point...
Can I sue the makers of my kettle if I spill boiling water on myself when I'm making coffee at home? Or should I just assume that if I choose to consume a drink made with boiling water, that boiling water may be involved and I should take due care to not injure myself with it...?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Buzzsaw wrote: Put another way, if you are given a cup of hot coffee, what will you do?
Assume that it might involve water that is near boiling, and be appropriately careful...?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/22 23:07:52
Sorry guys, I know you want to be arm chair lawyers and bemoan an old case of someone spilling coffee, but what was the connection with the topic of the thread again? I missed it.
In the case of this coffee, we're not getting past point one. Does a restaurant have a duty to sell coffee at any specific temperature? No, it does not. Does it have a duty to warn the customer that the coffee is hot? Not according to any statute or regulation -- so far as anyone here can tell. But clearly that does not relieve the restaurant of all potential liability. Generally speaking, a duty does arise out of the inability to make a product safe in the course of its foreseeable use -- but that duty is only to warn. Therefore, whether or not there is in any given circumstances a judge that would find such duty did indeed arise from such circumstances, as matter of managing liabilities many companies will incur the additional cost of warning.
Why is a warning enough? Again, because it is reasonable to expect that an adult who is told that a liquid is hot will be careful not to be burned or that an adult who is told that a floor is wet will be careful not to slip.
Polonius wrote:
Spoiler:
I love the McDonald's coffee case. When you look at from a 1st year torts perspective, it's actually a pretty simple case.
The plaintiff showed that what caused the burns wasn't just coffee, but coffee at that temperature. They also showed all the complaints McDonalds had received about how hot the coffee was. Finally, McDonald's served the coffee 20 degrees above industry standard.
So, McDonald's served coffee hotter than most, knew it carried a risk, and kept doing it.
It's a dopey case, but not ludicrously so.
I'm just going to say I tentatively concur with my learned colleague Polonius and respectfully disagree with learned colleague Manchu, and express my own preference for applying the standard of merchantability (which, one will note, no one ever seems to do in these cases, which may be an indication of how far from my practice area these cases are).
Surtur wrote: Realistically, we can expect adults shouldn't require skin grafts for drinking coffee.
If you're not capable of handling hot liquids without spilling them on yourself, maybe you shouldn't be ordering a drink that is made by heating water to near boiling point...
Can I sue the makers of my kettle if I spill boiling water on myself when I'm making coffee at home? Or should I just assume that if I choose to consume a drink made with boiling water, that boiling water may be involved and I should take due care to not injure myself with it...?
Well accidents happen. I agree she could have been more careful, but seriously, something you drink shouldn't be giving you 3rd degree burns. People die from those if they're extensive enough.
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
RAGE
Be sure to use logic! Avoid fallacies whenever possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
