[subego]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Is that statement okay?

That depends. Was it a joke?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I am not comparing "harm caused by food products" I am comparing "actions taken while driving and their possible results".

This is true enough, but the problem is that the McD's case wasn't about "personal responsibility for actions taken while driving." Your example is equivalent to the woman suing McD's because she had an accident while trying to add milk to her coffee. Well, that didn't happen. In fact, if it had, more than likely the judge would've said "too bad, you're responsible for your driving and you should've been more careful."

The issue is that McD's caused her loss. Your example would only become valid if the Whopper somehow had some negligent defect that caused the person to have the accident; even then, McD's responsibility for the ensuing car accident would probably only be limited to damages that would be reasonably foreseeable from the Whopper's defect.

The point being that the woman contributed to her own scalding by trying to add cream to a coffee while driving a motor vehicle. I think in this instance the majority of the liability for the woman's pain and suffering lies with the woman. Now, if she was sitting inside the McDonalds at a table, spilled the coffee, and scalded her crotch I would be willing to assign more blame/responsibility/culpability to McDonalds but as it was the woman was doing something she shouldn't have been doing* while driving and injured herself as a result.

*Again I want to reiterate that I know most all of us do these types of actions while driving. But simply because most all of us do these types of actions while driving without incident does not absolve us of the responsibility for when something does go wrong while driving and doing something else at the same time.

Certainly true that the woman could (and perhaps was) be accorded some responsibility for her own actions; I'm a big proponent of personal responsibility myself, and sometimes I get annoyed by some of the cases I have to read.

But, what you still haven't accepted here is the point that all this could have been avoided if McD's coffee hadn't been so unreasonably hot. She could still have been driving and spilled it on herself. She might've gotten a mild scald. She might've even been an annoying litigious American and tried to sue for this scalding, and the judge probably would've said "come on, you spilled coffee on yourself while driving, gtfo."

But that wasn't what happened. Because McD's had been so insistent at keeping their particular coffee at a hotter temperature than everyone else's and ignoring complaints, the woman was horribly scarred for life. No judge will ignore that kind of injury, when it was so obvious that it would happen eventually and when McD's had the opportunity to correct it and chose not to do so.

I mean, this is kind of off track here; as I said, I'm a big fan of personal responsibility, and I also think the American system should introduce rules that penalize with costs for bringing petty lawsuits. I just wanted to point out that the McDonald's coffee case is pretty misunderstood and a lot of people incorrectly hold it up as an example of "what's wrong" with the system.

greg

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by subego 

That depends. Was it a joke?

I'm serious. I'm smarter than a Latino, right? I am capable of making a wiser decision than a Latino. Isn't that what she is suggesting?

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This is true enough, but the problem is that the McD's case wasn't about "personal responsibility for actions taken while driving." Your example is equivalent to the woman suing McD's because she had an accident while trying to add milk to her coffee. Well, that didn't happen. In fact, if it had, more than likely the judge would've said "too bad, you're responsible for your driving and you should've been more careful."

The issue is that McD's caused her loss. Your example would only become valid if the Whopper somehow had some negligent defect that caused the person to have the accident; even then, McD's responsibility for the ensuing car accident would probably only be limited to damages that would be reasonably foreseeable from the Whopper's defect.


Certainly true that the woman could (and perhaps was) be accorded some responsibility for her own actions; I'm a big proponent of personal responsibility myself, and sometimes I get annoyed by some of the cases I have to read.

But, what you still haven't accepted here is the point that all this could have been avoided if McD's coffee hadn't been so unreasonably hot. She could still have been driving and spilled it on herself. She might've gotten a mild scald. She might've even been an annoying litigious American and tried to sue for this scalding, and the judge probably would've said "come on, you spilled coffee on yourself while driving, gtfo."

But that wasn't what happened. Because McD's had been so insistent at keeping their particular coffee at a hotter temperature than everyone else's and ignoring complaints, the woman was horribly scarred for life. No judge will ignore that kind of injury, when it was so obvious that it would happen eventually and when McD's had the opportunity to correct it and chose not to do so.

I mean, this is kind of off track here; as I said, I'm a big fan of personal responsibility, and I also think the American system should introduce rules that penalize with costs for bringing petty lawsuits. I just wanted to point out that the McDonald's coffee case is pretty misunderstood and a lot of people incorrectly hold it up as an example of "what's wrong" with the system.

greg

Why didn't she sue the car maker because the car had touchy brakes or rough suspension?

[Wiskedjak]

I'm gonna have to agree with ctt1wbw on this one. People need to take responsibility for their actions. Yes, McDonald's coffee is hot, but, it's *coffee*, we *know* it's hot and there's even a warning on the cup and if it weren't hot people would complain about that as well. Yes, McD's losses are less than those of the woman, but what happens when we *all* "accidentally" spill coffee on ourselves?

But, really, is comparable losses how we gauge responsibility? If I get into a car accident with my Mazda and someone I care about dies, my losses will be significantly greater than Mazda's, should I try to pin the responsibility on them for producing a car that wasn't accident proof. Should Mazda be found responsible, simply because their losses will be less than mine?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'm gonna have to agree with ctt1wbw on this one. People need to take responsibility for their actions. Yes, McDonald's coffee is hot, but, it's *coffee*, we *know* it's hot and there's even a warning on the cup and if it weren't hot people would complain about that as well. Yes, McD's losses are less than those of the woman, but what happens when we *all* "accidentally" spill coffee on ourselves?

I've spilled coffee on myself hundreds of times. I've never had to go to the hospital for it. That's because all other coffee in the world is significantly less hot than the coffee in this case. After a lifetime of coffee drinking (or even only a few times), it's reasonable to gain the expectation that a coffee spill is an annoyance, not a safety hazard. If McD's wants to serve their coffee differently than the rest of the world, a difference that can cause injury, they have to take responsibility for the injuries caused by that difference. I would agree with you if with every cup they informed the customer that their coffee was more dangerous than any other coffee they had ever had in their life.

Look, lots of foods are cold, too, but if they were significantly colder than the reasonable expectation, say -77C because they were made from dry ice instead of the expected water ice, a lot of people would get injured from it. Sure, it's supposed to be cold, or hot, but it's not supposed to be so cold or hot that touching it will send you to the hospital, and we all know that from a lifetime of experience with foods of the same name and appearance but less severe temperatures.

But, really, is comparable losses how we gauge responsibility?

No, it's how we gauge whether the punishment fits the crime. This isn't the verdict, it's the sentencing. It's after dcmacdaddy has already said "ok so they're partially responsible, but how much so?" Get it?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Why didn't she sue the car maker because the car had touchy brakes or rough suspension?

Maybe it's because it didn't actually have touchy brakes or rough suspension.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I'm serious.

Not only did I use the word "some" 6 times in that post, I underlined it.

Where did you get "most" from?

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I'm smarter than a Latino, right? I am capable of making a wiser decision than a Latino. Isn't that what she is suggesting?

Capable of making wiser decisions than some latinos, about some things.

[finboy]

Unfortunately, this country is headed down the toilet. It's not about the standard of living of the "rich," whoever they are, or the middle class even. We'll be doing well to keep the standard of living that the "poor" in this country maintain - car, cellphone, cable tv, video games, computer in every home, etc. When you hear the words "global economy" you should be very afraid.

[ctt1wbw]

Amen to that.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not only did I use the word "some" 6 times in that post, I underlined it.

Where did you get "most" from?





Capable of making wiser decisions than some latinos, about some things.

Some... Most... who gives a ****? The fact that she SAID it makes me wary and afraid of her intentions.

[Gavin]

Actually she wasn't driving, she was in the passenger seat. I don't think the car was moving.

The arguments here kind of go to my point (which I did not stress very well), people jump to conclusions but when presented with all the facts they do the right thing. You had several people on a jury who listened to all the details, probably over several days - maybe weeks, who came to the conclusion that McDonald's was in the wrong. I'm sure going in most of them thought it was total BS too like I did when I first heard it.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Unfortunately, this country is headed down the toilet. It's not about the standard of living of the "rich," whoever they are, or the middle class even. We'll be doing well to keep the standard of living that the "poor" in this country maintain - car, cellphone, cable tv, video games, computer in every home, etc. When you hear the words "global economy" you should be very afraid.

Just to add to that about the "rich".... one of the statements I like to say to people is "have you ever gotten a job from a poor person?"

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Maybe it's because it didn't actually have touchy brakes or rough suspension.

My point was that she could keep skipping the blame away from her and onto some other entity. Just because someone is born dumb and stupid, does that mean they should get money for it?

[Gavin]

Let's illustrate this:

Wendy's coffee after spill (stain, no damage to skin):


McDonald's coffee after spill (3rd degree burn after a couple of seconds):
(Click for gross photo - not for the weak of stomach.)

 

This is an actual 3rd degree burn - destroys all layers of skin causing blistering, damage to underlying tissues, destroys nerves, usually brings serious infections, and requires skin grafts. Painful beyond belief.

Imagine this is your crotch.

Now do you get it?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm essentially saying the opposite. A lack of experiences being a certain race, or gender, or whatever are reasons you can screw up a determination of right and wrong.

Eeesh. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Making a fair-minded determination of 'right and wrong' (in so much as the court actually determines 'right and wrong' as opposed to merely upholding the constitution and the nation's laws) has nothing to do with the color of someone's skin, or what they're packing between their legs. Until the day we can get passed making mountains out of useless criteria like that, we'll continue to have racism and other problems.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Gavin 

Let's illustrate this:

Wendy's coffee after spill (stain, no damage to skin):


McDonald's coffee after spill (3rd degree burn after a couple of seconds):
(Click for gross photo - not for the weak of stomach.)

 

This is an actual 3rd degree burn - destroys all layers of skin causing blistering, damage to underlying tissues, destroys nerves, usually brings serious infections, and requires skin grafts. Painful beyond belief.

Imagine this is your crotch.

Now do you get it?

Sorry, I gotta raise the bullshit flag over this. The second pic looks like someone poured boiling water over the hand. Sorry, but water coming out of a coffee maker isn't hot to that degree. I've had McD's coffee for years and years.

Truth of the matter is: don't drink and drive. It's that simple. Grow up and accept responsibility for your own stupid actions. Stop blaming others.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Eeesh. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Making a fair-minded determination of 'right and wrong' (in so much as the court actually determines 'right and wrong' as opposed to merely upholding the constitution and the nation's laws) has nothing to do with the color of someone's skin, or what they're packing between their legs. Until the day we can get passed making mountains out of useless criteria like that, we'll continue to have racism and other problems.

Amen to that, too.

[moep]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Sorry, I gotta raise the bullshit flag over this. The second pic looks like someone poured boiling water over the hand.

OT: I have no medical background but I highly doubt that a spill of water at 100°C can cause burns such as the one pictured. That must have been some other substance at a significantly higher temperature IMHO.

If that picture is really from a hot water spill I shall never cook pasta again.

[Gavin]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Sorry, but water coming out of a coffee maker isn't hot to that degree. I've had McD's coffee for years and years.

The point is that they used to raise the temperature of the drive-though coffee. It was hotter than what came out of your coffee maker and therefore unreasonably dangerous. They don't serve it that hot anymore, so maybe this woman's law suit saved you from a disfiguring burn.

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Truth of the matter is: don't drink and drive. It's that simple. Grow up and accept responsibility for your own stupid actions. Stop blaming others.

Here's where I agree with you, remember the person suing because McDs made them fat? That case is a good example of don't blame others because you're stupid. But guess what: they lost.

The coffee thing is a whole 'nother animal.

1. She wasn't driving.
2. It's never that simple.

The issue is not that she spilled it - it's how much damage it caused. The spill is her fault, but the damage is a direct result of McDs stupid policy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Eeesh. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Making a fair-minded determination of 'right and wrong' (in so much as the court actually determines 'right and wrong' as opposed to merely upholding the constitution and the nation's laws) has nothing to do with the color of someone's skin, or what they're packing between their legs. Until the day we can get passed making mountains out of useless criteria like that, we'll continue to have racism and other problems.

You're not really saying anything I'm disagreeing with here, so I may have inadvertently foiled your plans for us to agree to disagree.

[Chuckit]

Yes, coffee is hot. So are laundry dryers, but I think most people would probably sue if their dryer exploded into a fiery inferno and killed their kid. I've spilled coffee on myself — heck, I've spilled boiling water on myself — and not sustained injuries like those the woman supposedly did. So yes, I would say it's the fault of McDonalds that their coffee caused such an injury in this case. Personal responsibility only extends to things you can control — the unreasonable temperature McDonalds made the coffee is not among those factors.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

New reason why "this country" is going down the toilet: people are ignorant and refuse to educate themselves before giving their opinion:

Sorry, I gotta raise the bullshit flag over this. The second pic looks like someone poured boiling water over the hand. Sorry, but water coming out of a coffee maker isn't hot to that degree. I've had McD's coffee for years and years.

Clearly, you know nothing about the case, or about the multitude of things that McDonald's did to firmly turn the jury against them. You don't know about the hundreds of burn cases that McDonald's had settled in the years previous to this incident, and you don't know that McDonald's knew that its coffee was dangerously hot, and had firmly decided they weren't going to do anything about it and had never even consulted an expert about the issue. You also don't know that the plaintiff was an elderly woman who had absolutely no history of filing suits against other people, and who wasn't even going to sue McDonald's except that they refused to even compensate her for medical bills resulting from her week-long stay in the hospital and skin grafts.

So, you don't know anything about the situation. And yet, you keep giving your opinion on it, going so far as to raise "bullshit flags" over simple facts of the case - that the lady had third-degree burns on her tush and legs.

And yet, in the same breath... you claim that everyone else is dragging your country down by not taking responsibility for their actions? The hypocrisy makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.

Bah.



greg

[ctt1wbw]

I drink at least a pot a day. I've never seen coffee boil. Those burns are from boiling water. After the water drips down the filter, it cools off. The burner keeps it hot. Not keeps it boiling. I've never seen a coffee pot or burner get so hot to actually boil BOIL water or coffee, which is what those burns are from... boiling water. I've spilled coffee on my hand and it left a mildly red mark for an hour or two, it didn't go ebola on my ass like that.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

That's precisely why McDonald's was sued.

[Gavin]

Coffee boils (like all water) at 212 degrees. Most coffee makers spits it out at 130, which will make you red for a day or two. McDs kept it at 190.

A third degree burn is a third degree burn. That photo is most likely a couple of days after the initial burn, after the skin has blistered and then the dead shriveled skin has pealed off. It's like a sunburn but when it peals instead of the top layer coming off all the skin comes off. What you see in the pic is the fat layer underneath. It wouldn't have looked that bad the day it happened.

I'm glad you never got burned that bad, but it is a fact that she did.

The whole point is, yes it sounds idiotic when you first hear it - $2 million for spilled coffee. Then you hear the details.

Like the preacher in San Diego. It sounds like the city harassing him over his beliefs - but it turns out it's about the 20 cars in a small cul-de-sac and the neighbors got sick of not being able to park at home, finally one of the visitors hit a neighbors car and left - nice. What goes on inside the house has nothing to do with it.

[ctt1wbw]

Then why try to extort the money from him when they know he's doing Bible study?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Huh? What does Bible study have to do with anything? He shouldn't be liable because he does Bible study? I don't get it.

Side note: the McD's lady got about half a mil, not 2 mil. I think that was her original award but that was later reduced.

greg

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

"The statement went on to explain: 'The disagreement was over the size of the flag and not what it symbolized. We have invited the employee to put the flag back up.'"

Somehow this went from a "that thing is too big, it's taking up the whole wall" to "some b**ch from Africa hates America." Thanks FOX News.

It's pretty much the same story I read on CNN. If the issue was the flag was too large, why is she now allowed to put it back up?

[Gavin]

If you are going to wrap yourself in a flag it has to be big!

[stupendousman]

I will bet you NO ONE has ever had injuries to any part of their anatomy due to spilled coffee that looks anything like that hand photo.

I'd like to see actual photos of the injuries in question. Does the lady also have her neck in one of those big dramatic foam braces? You know, the kind that Doctors, injury lawyers and insurance companies who want in on big cash settlements have their clients wear whether they really need them or not?

If you're under the impression that there are Doctors/Lawyers who won't exaggerate the extent of injuries to get paid, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Back to Sotomayer....she's not qualified and a very poor choice for the Supreme Court. Not because she's liberal - that's to be expected. But rather, because she's a bigot and she has little respect for the Constitution due to her clear belief that the courts are to be used to create law, not interpret already existing ones for Constitutionality. I don't think that any judge who doesn't make it clear that their purpose is the Constitutional one they where appointed for is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

It's pretty much the same story I read on CNN. If the issue was the flag was too large, why is she now allowed to put it back up?

Because she was apparently never required to take it down. The person who worked next to her had apparently taken it down, feeling it was too large for the workspace. As usual, the story was completely distorted to a form that would be more entertaining to the viewer.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I will bet you NO ONE has ever had injuries to any part of their anatomy due to spilled coffee that looks anything like that hand photo.

I'd like to see actual photos of the injuries in question. Does the lady also have her neck in one of those big dramatic foam braces? You know, the kind that Doctors, injury lawyers and insurance companies who want in on big cash settlements have their clients wear whether they really need them or not?

Heh.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

New reason why "this country" is going down the toilet: people are ignorant and refuse to educate themselves before giving their opinion.

greg

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Heh.


greg

Greg,

Your post would have come off as much more clever - maybe even as clever as you thought it was anyways, if you'd just had provided some actual pictures of burns caused by hot coffee spills that looked anything like the one of the hand above. Seeing how you came up empty and all you had to offer was a snide response, I'll do your job for you.

Here's typical coffee spillage burns:
The Studied Casual: wrex-n-fx
http://www.okbar.org/public/judges/burn.jpg
File:Blister2.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

If you look on the following page, you can see a burn caused by contact with BOILING (hotter than McDonald's coffee) water:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_(injury)

If you notice, not a single one looked like the FOURTH DEGREE burns shown on the hand in question. That's not to say that the woman in question didn't have a right to sue, or that McDonald's coffee should be that hot. It just doesn't help to ad hype were it isn't needed unless you can prove that the burn in question was any where near the extent that was shown in the example.

Ps. I believe that the photo that was originally posted is a fourth degree burn, not 3rd, due to the extensive damage that appears to be done to the underlying muscle. It looks like the burn even went down to the bone in some areas. That would classify this burn as 4th degree. It looks as though maybe the hand was actually on fire at some point.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I have no idea if the picture is "technically correct" to a third-degree boiling-water burn or not, and I don't really care, and it doesn't really matter. Someone just used it to show what a third-degree burn could be like.

All I know is, the woman had third-degree burns which required an extended hospital stay, skin grafts, and the loss of any possible further sexual pleasure (given her advanced age I don't know how significant that point was, but I can't comment on that). That's what was determined by a jury, at trial. If you want to go ahead and demand pictures of some old lady's tush just to confirm that the jury was correct, then good luck with that.

greg

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I have no idea if the picture is "technically correct" to a third-degree boiling-water burn or not, and I don't really care, and it doesn't really matter.

Then there was really no reason to respond to my post, which explained that the example given likely looked nothing like the injuries in question, and that it's likely that the extent of injuries where exaggerated for maximum litigious value. I guess if you where one of the people who chose to "educate themselves" before giving their opinion, you would have stopped when you realized the point I was making was valid.

All I know is, the woman had third-degree burns which required an extended hospital stay, skin grafts, and the loss of any possible further sexual pleasure (given her advanced age I don't know how significant that point was, but I can't comment on that). That's what was determined by a jury, at trial. If you want to go ahead and demand pictures of some old lady's tush just to confirm that the jury was correct, then good luck with that.

My point wasn't that she was not injured. I said as much. I made it clear that she had a right to sue and that McDonalds probably shouldn't have coffee that hot. My point is that likely what has happened is the same thing that's happened HERE. Great exaggeration in order to achieve maximum desired effect.

I posted what happens to skin when boiling water is poured on skin. While it looks painful and is not something that I want happen to me, it's a far cry from those 4th degree burns that where given as example. The boiling water picture is probably much closer to reality, and with the woman's advanced age she probably did not heal as a healthy younger person may have. I'm still wondering though what it is in my post that required me to get further educated before giving my opinion....

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Then there was really no reason to respond to my post, which explained that the example given likely looked nothing like the injuries in question, and that it's likely that the extent of injuries where exaggerated for maximum litigious value. I guess if you where one of the people who chose to "educate themselves" before giving their opinion, you would have stopped when you realized the point I was making was valid.

No. No, your point wasn't valid. Neither you, nor I, know what the lady's injuries looked like, beyond a considerable amount of facts which were given in the case, a small few that I've already described. We also don't know whether, or how, the extent of her injuries were exaggerated; being that it was a burn case and there were clear pictures and diagnosis available for her injuries, why would you claim that she exaggerated her injuries? The jury seemed to think she should be awarded $2 million dollars for what she suffered, and it sounded to me like her injuries were fairly serious.

You're making baseless and misinformed accusations about a case which you know little to nothing about.

As for "educating themselves before giving an opinion": I've actually read the case. We both know you haven't, and won't.

My point wasn't that she was not injured. I said as much. I made it clear that she had a right to sue and that McDonalds probably shouldn't have coffee that hot. My point is that likely what has happened is the same thing that's happened HERE. Great exaggeration in order to achieve maximum desired effect.

Baseless and misinformed accusation without any proof to substantiate your claim.

I posted what happens to skin when boiling water is poured on skin. While it looks painful and is not something that I want happen to me, it's a far cry from those 4th degree burns that where given as example. The boiling water picture is probably much closer to reality, and with the woman's advanced age she probably did not heal as a healthy younger person may have. I'm still wondering though what it is in my post that required me to get further educated before giving my opinion....

Hmmmm... maybe because, once again, you're making baseless and misinformed claims? "Probably" this, "probably" that, "may have." Why not try reading what the judge and jury found actually happened...

...oh wait, never mind, that would involve actual research and time invested. Better to just make a few hasty judgment calls on teh intarwebs and move on....



greg

[Gavin]

A third-degree burn is also called a full thickness burn - literally all the way through the skin. It would probably look red and dark purple and bubbly for a day or two before it finally dies and turns black, then surgeons pull it off and replace it with skin grafts. I chose the hand pic to illustrate the the graft aspect, other 3rd degree burn pics I found were before the skin died and didn't look quite so shocking even though the damage was the same. The pic is actually not that bad all things considered, this person might have full use of the hand after the graft took. A fourth degree burn would have eaten the yellow fat layer as well and shriveled tendons, blackened muscle, maybe even turned some bone to charcoal.

The "typical coffee spillage burns" links above are all 2nd-degree burns - the skin will usually heal eventually. But the fact is hers was a non-typical burn due to non-typical coffee. It doesn't take boiling water to make a burn like this, 150 degrees will do it.

Try these for 3rd degree burns:
Burns, Health Information, UW Health, University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison
Near Infrared Imaging (NIR) Spectroscopy - National Research Council Canada
NASD: Hot Water Burns
NIOSH - Electrical Safety - Safety and Health for Electrical Trades - pg. 2
Third-degree burn - 6th day on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[ctt1wbw]

Dude, will you stop making excuses for this woman's ****ing stupidity? Sheesh.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

No. No, your point wasn't valid. Neither you, nor I, know what the lady's injuries looked like, beyond a considerable amount of facts which were given in the case, a small few that I've already described. We also don't know whether, or how, the extent of her injuries were exaggerated; being that it was a burn case and there were clear pictures and diagnosis available for her injuries, why would you claim that she exaggerated her injuries?

Because that's almost ALWAYS what lawyers do in order to increase damages. Are you under the impression that lawyers don't exaggerate and that when stating their case only provide just enough information to give a clear explanation of the facts?

Again, my claim is that the burns in question likely looked nothing like the example given above. That's my point. You responded with a rebuttal that contained nothing but a virtual raspberry.

The jury seemed to think she should be awarded $2 million dollars for what she suffered, and it sounded to me like her injuries were fairly serious.

You're making baseless and misinformed accusations about a case which you know little to nothing about.

I know pretty much everything that everyone else here does, and I never said that she wasn't injured, or didn't deserve to sue.

As for "educating themselves before giving an opinion": I've actually read the case. We both know you haven't, and won't.

There you go not practicing what you preach again, stating an opinion about things you don't have a clue about.

Hmmmm... maybe because, once again, you're making baseless and misinformed claims? "Probably" this, "probably" that, "may have." Why not try reading what the judge and jury found actually happened...

I provided evidence that shows that the typical burn from hot coffee (or even boiling water) looks nothing like the photo shown, which was my point. While I'm sure some coffee burns are less damaging and some more, I think that the wide array of examples provided gives evidence that would lead a normal person to believe that hot coffee will not burn your skin off to the bone, leaving a gelatinous mass in it's place. I challenged someone to provide actual photos of ANY hot coffee or water burn that looks anything like the photo in question. No one seems to be able to do so. That's not a matter of "misinformed claims" since I know a little about the subject, and challenged others to provide evidence.

While there are degrees of burns, even the degrees have a wide range of damage associated with them. There's a pretty wide distance between a burn that just reaches the 3rd degree mark and one that is almost a 4th degree burn. I stand by my assessment (as someone who has treated burns and had quite a bit of advanced emergency training) that the burn shown above would likely be rated a 4th degree burn if the damage shown was done by the burning itself.

...oh wait, never mind, that would involve actual research and time invested. Better to just make a few hasty judgment calls on teh intarwebs and move on....

I provided visual evidence. I have experience. I posted my opinion. In return you offered snide comments. I'm more than happy to let others judge the contributions of our individual posts.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Dude, will you stop making excuses for this woman's ****ing stupidity? Sheesh.

Only stupid people spill coffee?

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Only stupid people spill coffee?

Yes. If it's between your legs in your crotch with the top off and your dumbass is trying to pour cream and sugar in it while you're driving. Then yes, only stupid people spill coffee. And hence, she shouldn't have gotten a damn dime in that suit.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Yes. If–

Stop right there. You seem to have a lot of qualifiers.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Because that's almost ALWAYS what lawyers do in order to increase damages. Are you under the impression that lawyers don't exaggerate and that when stating their case only provide just enough information to give a clear explanation of the facts?

We could get into a long discussion of how claims are made and damages assessed, but my point was that this is all entirely irrelevant. What does it matter? The entire point of trial is to weed out any discrepancies and determine "the truth." Whatever your comments about exaggeration, they're entirely irrelevant and heresay in the context of the discussion.

I provided evidence that shows that the typical burn from hot coffee (or even boiling water) looks nothing like the photo shown, which was my point. While I'm sure some coffee burns are less damaging and some more, I think that the wide array of examples provided gives evidence that would lead a normal person to believe that hot coffee will not burn your skin off to the bone, leaving a gelatinous mass in it's place. I challenged someone to provide actual photos of ANY hot coffee or water burn that looks anything like the photo in question. No one seems to be able to do so. That's not a matter of "misinformed claims" since I know a little about the subject, and challenged others to provide evidence.

While there are degrees of burns, even the degrees have a wide range of damage associated with them. There's a pretty wide distance between a burn that just reaches the 3rd degree mark and one that is almost a 4th degree burn. I stand by my assessment (as someone who has treated burns and had quite a bit of advanced emergency training) that the burn shown above would likely be rated a 4th degree burn if the damage shown was done by the burning itself.

Dude... what I'm saying is that, "no one cares and this is entirely irrelevant." Your analysis of the types of burns is completely and totally irrelevant. Why are you typing all this? What does it have to do with the discussion of the injuries to the old lady? The injuries she actually received are already on record; why are you going on about the difference between 3rd and 4th degree burns?!

greg

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Stop right there. You seem to have a lot of qualifiers.

I bet she puts her finger in a socket and goes "ouch". Or sticks her wet tongue on a frozen flag pole and then wants to sue the maker of the flag pole.

Yes, I've been dealing with stupid people for a long time. You should have seen of the stupid people in the military. I'm amazed that they manage.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Yes. If it's between your legs in your crotch with the top off and your dumbass is trying to pour cream and sugar in it while you're driving. Then yes, only stupid people spill coffee. And hence, she shouldn't have gotten a damn dime in that suit.

What's amazing is that you seem to have the magnificent inability to comprehend that what everyone is saying is that the old lady would've gotten the money if she had received those injuries while sitting on her couch with coffee cup firmly and safely in hand.

It wasn't what she was doing, it was what McDonald's was doing that created the problem!

Sigh.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Yes. If it's between your legs in your crotch with the top off and your dumbass is trying to pour cream and sugar in it while you're driving. Then yes, only stupid people spill coffee. And hence, she shouldn't have gotten a damn dime in that suit.

For the most part, I agree with you. Though, I think that if McDonalds has been found to have served coffee that is much hotter than the norm, then they would at least be culpable for part of any damages. Here's why:

The woman is stupid. SHE had an accident entirely her fault. She was driving, trying to put cream in her coffee at the same time it was in her lap. 100% her fault. The thing is though, she likely assumed that the risk of doing so was probably to get a painful, temporary burning sensation in her crotch if she spilled it and worse case scenario she may have gotten first or 2nd degree burns. A reasonable person would not be able to judge risk due to McDonald's decision to make the coffee hotter than a normal coffee maker would create.

If she indeed did get third degree burns and the damage was what was claimed, then given the fact that McDonalds provided a situation where someone assumed the coffee was regular temperature (which apparently can still give 3rd degree burns if you are exposed long enough), then McDonalds should only be liable for the damages that where caused due to the burns being greater than second degree. The question would be how much more significant where the injuries above and beyond what would normally occur when you spill 140 degree liquids in your lap.

McDonalds shouldn't be liable for her injuries, other than those which occured because the coffee was hotter than normal. Had the coffee been normal temperature, she likely would have still sustained damaging burns which is no fault of McDonalds.

That's the way I see it.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Yes, I've been dealing with stupid people for a long time. You should have seen of the stupid people in the military. I'm amazed that they manage.

I've been dealing with stupid people for a long time too. I'm still amazed they can log on to MacNN.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

What's amazing is that you seem to have the magnificent inability to comprehend that what everyone is saying is that the old lady would've gotten the money if she had received those injuries while sitting on her couch with coffee cup firmly and safely in hand.

It wasn't what she was doing, it was what McDonald's was doing that created the problem!

Sigh.

McDonalds put the hot coffee in her lap? Had McDonald's coffee been the regular temperature, are you saying she wouldn't have had any qualms about dumping it in her own lap, given that she could still receive third degree burns?

I'm trying to figure out what possessed McDonalds to pour the hot liquids in her lap. Had the hot liquids not entered her lap, then there would not be a problem. The woman knew the liquid was hot, knew that normal coffee will create serious burns, and yet still did what was necessary in order to put the coffee in her own lap. McDonalds did not create the problem. They could be seen however as having made the problem that the woman created, worse.

The question then comes to how you would know how much more damage the woman received due to the coffee being 40 degrees or so hotter than normal, given than even coffee at regular temperature can apparently cause third degree burns.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

We could get into a long discussion of how claims are made and damages assessed, but my point was that this is all entirely irrelevant. What does it matter?

Because examples that are exaggerated cause people to react in ways that they would not had the exaggeration not taken place.

That's pretty much the basis of the advertising industry and personal injury industry.

Dude... what I'm saying is that, "no one cares and this is entirely irrelevant." Your analysis of the types of burns is completely and totally irrelevant. Why are you typing all this?

Someone provided an example. The example was extreme. If what the damages looked like where unimportant, then why didn't you ask the person who posted the photo why he was wasting your time given that the photo was not of the woman in question?

I stated my opinion that the photo was likely an exaggeration of the type of damages suffered by the woman in question so that others who saw the photo didn't immediately assume that the damages shown were equal to what the woman in question had. You simply responded with a snide reply. The more relevant question is why you bothered with the snide comment when you couldn't add anything reasonable in rebuttal?