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.
This is really getting off the rails, but I did research on the McDonald's coffee case in a law class in college, here is what the major turning point of the case was IMO:
The McDonald's store had been warned that their coffee was too hot, it was too hot because the machine was faulty, McDonald's store did not take steps to have it repaired or replaced - even after multiple warnings that their product was too hot by both customers and health inspectors. Result: a woman was burned, badly, requiring skin grafts as well as other problems 'down there', a lawyer would call it pain and suffering as well as mental anguish because of the damage done to her 'parts'.
Now we have all spilled coffee on ourselves, undoubtedly she set the coffee her between her legs as she probably had done hundreds of times before, this time though it spilled.
So, seem so silly now, frivolous, shifting blame?
Nuff said.
Now on with GW, they seem to be framing mischief by decree with their suits against CHS and a little known writer. Hmmm, really? CHS products require you to buy GW kits in order to use them, yep that really causes harm. Space Marines are not GW's sole creation, neither in concept or even execution.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/22 23:50:30
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
I think you are projecting an opinion on both of us. I don't really about the case as such so much as the general principle. Coffee at any temperature does not require detailed instruction as to its consumption. Therefore a restaurant should not be held.liable for failingto provide them.
Surtur wrote: 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.
It's coffee. It's made with near-boiling water. Near-boiling water can, indeed, give you severe burns. That's not the result of negligence on the part of the person making the coffee... it's a side effect of making a beverage with near boiling water.
The whole situation is absurd. It's like someone buying a knife and accidentally cutting off a finger then turning around and suing the knife-maker because it was too sharp.
This isn't some crazy act of negligence. It's a product doing what it is supposed to do.
Manchu wrote: I think you are projecting an opinion on both of us. I don't really about the case as such so much as the general principle. Coffee at any temperature does not require detailed instruction as to its consumption. Therefore a restaurant should not be held.liable for failingto provide them.
You're completely missing the point. If the coffee hadn't been excessively hot due to a broken machine that McDonald's neglected to fix the lady would have spilled, possibly suffered a minor burn, and went about her day. The issue was that the coffee was so hot it caused third degree burns almost instantly and was only aggravated by her clothing.
I think it's completely outside of reason to expect that coffee will be so hot that it will cause burns so severe that you require skin grafts and years of rehabilitation to repair the damage tissue. The entire case is simply that the coffee was significantly hotter than reasonable, to the point that it was extremely dangerous. Whether or not the restaurant provided a pamphlet on how to handle coffee is irrelevant.
xraytango wrote: This is really getting off the rails, but I did research on the McDonald's coffee case in a law class in college, here is what the major turning point of the case was IMO:
The McDonald's store had been warned that their coffee was too hot, it was too hot because the machine was faulty, McDonald's store did not take steps to have it repaired or replaced - even after multiple warnings that their product was too hot by both customers and health inspectors. Result: a woman was burned, badly, requiring skin grafts as well as other problems 'down there', a lawyer would call it pain and suffering as well as mental anguish because of the damage done to her 'parts'.
Now we have all spilled coffee on ourselves, undoubtedly she set the coffee her between her legs as she probably had done hundreds of times before, this time though it spilled.
Are we just going to ignore posts that are inconvenient to our viewpoint or what Manchu?
Amaya wrote: You're completely missing the point. If the coffee hadn't been excessively hot ...
...which it wasn't. Having the water actively boiling would have been 'too hot' as it scalds the coffee. 80-85 degrees is not 'excessively hot'... It's the optimum temperature for making coffee.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that freshly made coffee will be around that temperature.
In tort there is the idea of a reasonable level of care. A professional is expected to perform with a higher level of care than a shlub off the street. Therefore the McDonald's store had a higher standard to adhere to.
Under a preponderance of the evidence it was decided by a jury that the while the woman might have been a bit careless in her handling of the product (though accidents happen), McDonald's did blatently and willfully disregard the malfunction of the machine after having been aware of it for more than a reasonable amount of time, in which it should/could have been replaced or repaired.
What exactly are you unclear of. If you would like, I can send you my old textbooks and you can read up on torts and reasonable care.
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
You might try Lexus-Nexus as opposed to a textbook with a one line summary.
If I remember correctly it was a broken machine, but I will concede that it may have been that the setting on the machine was too high, either way, McDonald's was at fault for not providing a remedy for the situation before someone got hurt.
Either way, it was community responsibility that held that store to be accountable for it's bad deeds.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/23 00:37:20
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
xraytango wrote: You might try Lexus-Nexus as opposed to a textbook with a one line summary.
I think you mean LexisNexis. Actually, we use WestLaw at my firm. I don't practice personal injury but it looks like I remember my law school classes well enough. You might be thinking of Judge Easterbrook's widely followed opinion McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic, where plaintiffs claimed the coffee machine made the coffee too hot. Judge Easterbrook disagreed. As for some broken machine argument, please let me know which case you are talking about if you can find your class materials. Of course, what we're talking about here is the duty to warn and not the duty to keep machinery in good repair.
I'm pretty sure there is a significant difference between "Caution: Hot" and "Danger: May cause severe burns."
There are multiple levels of safety. This issue seems really simple from a base standpoint. The woman put a hot drink in her lap and got burned. Happens a lot of times where someone spills coffee on themselves.
What some people are forgetting is the volume of a cup of coffee is actually quite small, even if she did manage to spill the entire contents of a standard cup over herself it's still a very small amount of liquid. But the maximum volume is a constant in this.
The two variables that matter are duration of contact and energy. The coffee was hot enough to cause injury instantaneously. This is where the safety level changes. I know people may think they like hot coffee, but imagine taking a sip and burning yourself so badly that you need medical attention. Can you honestly imagine that?
It's very obvious that McDonalds was responsible for this. The simple warning on the cup was not enough to indicate the level of danger the cup presented. Same thing can go with any product without a warning of the significance of injury. Compare this to any chemical product out there. They don't just have the warning lable "Caution: toxic". They have detailed instructions on what to do if exposed to skin or if injested.
I'm expecting an Imperial Knights supplement dedicated to GW's loyalist apologetics. Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."
"The argument is that we have to do this or we will, bit by bit,
lose everything that we hold dear, everything that keeps the business going. Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky."
-Tom Kirby
Good point Manchu. Obviously you passed your bar. Yes I did mean Lexis Nexis.
I however had to drop out for family concerns, however that does not preclude my ability to use my brain and understand the principles behind a case. You know, reasonable care and all that.
Do us a favor, and send us a link to the McDonald's case if there is a way to get the material off of WestLaw, or another reference library
EDIT: Nevermind, found some references on caselaw, evidently used the parallel with the Bunn-o-matic case to make my point in that paper. It has been ten years since I wrote that paper. Although it seemed to be the McDonald's policy to serve their coffee at extraordinarily high temperatures. Which still doesn't let them off the hook in that one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/23 01:09:24
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
I think there's a paper thin difference between "hot" and "hotter than normal."
We all know hot coffee is hot. What most people don't know is that they serve their coffee even hotter than normal.
The whole case is silly, not in the result, but because somebody decided to take a case to trial where the plaintiff is a grandma with third degree crotch burns.
But, this is why you don't take stuff like this to a jury.
The Liebeck vs. McDonalds case is an important one because it's been held up so many times as an example of abuse of the legal system, and been referenced in many arguments for tort reform. Despite the facts of the case. The wikipedia article actually summarizes it pretty well. There's also a documentary called Hot Coffee which goes into some detail on the case as part of discussing tort reform in general.
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard S.E. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck 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.[11] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[12] 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.[13] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[14] Two years of medical treatment followed.
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.[15] Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000.[6] Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.
A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[16] 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.[6] 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.
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
. Two things:
