Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Where's this country headed?

Where's this country headed? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
ctt1wbw  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suffolk, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2009, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar V View Post
I've been dealing with stupid people for a long time too. I'm still amazed they can log on to MacNN.
The wit. The wit.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2009, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
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.
Wow.

You know you just summed up what happened at an entire multi-day trial, right? But after examining the facts of that case, the jury decided that the old lady deserved a huge award of damages, instead.

Amazing what you can learn. You know, when you read the facts about what you're talking about.

Oh, and you didn't take punitive damages into account, either.



greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2009, 09:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Wow.

You know you just summed up what happened at an entire multi-day trial, right? But after examining the facts of that case, the jury decided that the old lady deserved a huge award of damages, instead.

Amazing what you can learn. You know, when you read the facts about what you're talking about.
You mean like I did when when the trial was first in the news? Which part of "I didn't say she didn't deserve to sue, or wasn't harmed" didn't you get the first time? Which part of my explaining that I already knew about the trial did you not get?

I made it clear that MY POINT was that her burns were not likely to have been as serious as the one in the photo. THAT was my point. Then you went off with your snide and silly response that served not only to show that you don't pay attention, but that you are guilty of the very thing you accuse others of. Sometimes you should just stop while you are ahead.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2009, 10:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by ctt1wbw View Post
Dude, will you stop making excuses for this woman's ****ing stupidity? Sheesh.
Gavin has medical facts and sources. You have insults and censored swear words. Looking at these two sides impartially, which of you do you think is more likely to be right in this case?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
ctt1wbw  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suffolk, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 06:14 AM
 
A pic of a hand that bad was not the crotch of the woman who was stupid to spill coffee on her. And calling a stupid woman stupid is not insulting. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it has to be a stupid woman. I have no sympathy for people like her. None whatsoever. She should not have been allowed to win that court case. That is not what the court system is for.
     
ctt1wbw  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suffolk, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 06:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Gavin has medical facts and sources. You have insults and censored swear words. Looking at these two sides impartially, which of you do you think is more likely to be right in this case?
Plus, I'm ****ing sick of everyone being the "victim" about something. That's what this world is coming to. Everyone is a victim. Get over it. Learn that coffee is hot and you shouldn't drive with it between your legs. Learn.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 08:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by ctt1wbw View Post
A pic of a hand that bad was not the crotch of the woman who was stupid to spill coffee on her. And calling a stupid woman stupid is not insulting. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it has to be a stupid woman. I have no sympathy for people like her. None whatsoever. She should not have been allowed to win that court case. That is not what the court system is for.
Wrong.

That's precisely what the court system is for. And has been, for hundreds of years.

Why would you think otherwise?!

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 09:18 AM
 
Stupid bitch 79 year old woman who was sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car. What an idiot.

I hate 79 year old women. The next one I see I'm just going to punch her in the face just because.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
You mean like I did when when the trial was first in the news? Which part of "I didn't say she didn't deserve to sue, or wasn't harmed" didn't you get the first time? Which part of my explaining that I already knew about the trial did you not get?
Once, again:
Originally Posted by you, a little earlier
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.
You certainly have no qualms about repeatedly putting your foot in your mouth, do you.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 09:34 AM
 
And, just to repeat the point, once again, that you guys haven't as much as even bothered to Google the case from which you've so elequontly decided to draw conclusions on the social state of your coutnry:

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw View Post
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.
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I know pretty much everything that everyone else here does
So. Very. Rich.



greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ctt1wbw  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suffolk, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 09:51 AM
 
I guess everyone here is sticking up for then? Does everyone here think she's a genius, a smart person, the next Einstein? Please. Stop sticking up for her rights and stop making excuses as to why she won or anything. I challenge everyone here to pour hot coffee on their privates and try to sue someone.
     
ctt1wbw  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suffolk, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 09:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Wrong.

That's precisely what the court system is for. And has been, for hundreds of years.

Why would you think otherwise?!

greg
No, you don't deserve money for something that is your fault. McD's didn't pour coffee on her. That would be assault. She did it herself. Therefore, she's a ****ing moron. Period.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 10:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by ctt1wbw View Post
I guess everyone here is sticking up for then? Does everyone here think she's a genius, a smart person, the next Einstein? Please. Stop sticking up for her rights and stop making excuses as to why she won or anything. I challenge everyone here to pour hot coffee on their privates and try to sue someone.
I will say what she did is less disappointing than stubbornly continuing to stick to a premise against all evidence and logic.

Yes, spilling coffee on yourself is stupid. But it's the sort of harmless stupid thing that people do all the time. That wasn't what she sued for. If it had been a normal cup of coffee she'd spilled, she would have cleaned it up and that would be that. Instead, she had to get undergo expensive medical procedures because McDonalds did the coffee equivalent of putting broken glass in a Big Mac. She sued because the coffee was much hotter and did much more damage than it should have. It wasn't the spill but the excessive harmfulness of the coffee that McDonalds was at fault for. And that was not her fault. QED.
( Last edited by Chuckit; Jun 3, 2009 at 10:36 AM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 10:23 AM
 
McDonald's sells hundreds of thousands of cups of coffee every day. Many of these will be spilled. Spilling coffee does not make you stupid. It's something that happens to human beings who are living their lives.

ctt1wbw please go and spend 2 minutes skimming the wikipedia entry for this case before posting anything else on this subject. Thank you.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post

So. Very. Rich.



greg
WOW. More snide comments by Greg that adds very little to the discussion. Whodathunk?

She was in the passenger seat when she put the freshly brewed, hot coffee (which can cause 3rd degree burns regardless of where you buy it) between her legs and tried to pour cream into the cup.

Yeah...you really got me there. It's been several years since I'd last read all the facts, and forgot that she was a passenger in the car where she'd decided it was okay to put hot liquid that is dangerous to human flesh in her lap, then took action which caused it to spill. Yeah...you REALLY got me there.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 12:33 PM
 
Coffee doesn't normally seem to be that dangerous. I've spelled coffee and tea on myself many times without ever sustaining worse than second-degree burns.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Coffee doesn't normally seem to be that dangerous. I've spelled coffee and tea on myself many times without ever sustaining worse than second-degree burns.
True, but according to wikipedia, coffee at regular temperature apparently can cause 3rd degree burns. So the question would be medically, how much more severe where the burns in question because the coffee was about 40 degrees hotter than normal? I'd like to see the data they used to determine that the burns in question could not have happened with coffee at regular temperature, given that non-boiling water out of a tap can cause third degree burns.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 01:07 PM
 
I'm sure you can dig up the court documents if you really care. I'm not sure why you keep shifting your research burden elsewhere.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
I'm sure you can dig up the court documents if you really care. I'm not sure why you keep shifting your research burden elsewhere.
I said I'd like to see it as a matter of curiosity. I didn't demand that someone provide it.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I said I'd like to see it as a matter of curiosity. I didn't demand that someone provide it.
Well, when you argue vigorously against the status quo (that McD was found negligent because its coffee was heated to overly-dangerous levels) on the basis that it couldn't have been that much more dangerous, and speculate about evidence but never provide any, it smells like passing the buck.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
True, but according to wikipedia, coffee at regular temperature apparently can cause 3rd degree burns. So the question would be medically, how much more severe where the burns in question because the coffee was about 40 degrees hotter than normal? I'd like to see the data they used to determine that the burns in question could not have happened with coffee at regular temperature, given that non-boiling water out of a tap can cause third degree burns.
If only we had two different well-funded teams of experts to argue both sides using every conceivable metric and then had an impartial panel of observers to make some sort of call one way or another. Then we might be able to get to the bottom of this.

I wonder what kind of conclusion they would come to?

Too bad we'll never know.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 02:17 PM
 
A car rear-ended a bus in Los Angeles a few years back. By the time the cops showed up, eleven more people had gotten onto the bus and started complaining about whiplash.

Such is Amerika.

Whiplash... ...hot coffee... ...Sting not marrying you after he wrote that song just for you...
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
If only we had two different well-funded teams of experts to argue both sides using every conceivable metric and then had an impartial panel of observers to make some sort of call one way or another. Then we might be able to get to the bottom of this.

I wonder what kind of conclusion they would come to?

Too bad we'll never know.
Okay now that was funny.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
A car rear-ended a bus in Los Angeles a few years back. By the time the cops showed up, eleven more people had gotten onto the bus and started complaining about whiplash.

Such is Amerika.

Whiplash... ...hot coffee... ...Sting not marrying you after he wrote that song just for you...
As myself and others mentioned earlier in the thread, I think more regulation penalizing unsuccessful tort lawsuits might help curb this problem quite a bit. I'm not exactly sure how costs work in the US, but I've heard that it makes it especially easy to bring claims without getting hit by the same expenses as in other countries...?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 03:21 PM
 
The losing lawyer pays the court costs.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2009, 10:25 PM
 
Including the defence costs, I assume? Hmmm, that's pretty much like here then. I wonder why the difference then? It's incredibly expensive to pay lawyers to make a lawsuit claim; how do people afford all these supposed frivolous claims?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2009, 02:11 AM
 
The idea is that the American legal system is perceived to be easy to game. Lawsuits are so expensive that you can usually get a pretty sweet settlement.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Gavin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2009, 03:51 AM
 
There needs to be disbarment for lawyers who keep filing junk lawsuits.

Other ideas floated include a quick review for merit by a panel before a law suit even gets to a judge.

There are problems with having the loser pay the legal costs of the winner. You have a $600 lawyer, giant corporation that spilled raw sewage on your porch assigns 7 $120,000 a year guys to the case who drag it out for 38 months and run up half a million dollars in billable hours. Your cheap a$$ lawyer misses a paperwork deadline - you loose. Pay up!
( Last edited by Gavin; Jun 4, 2009 at 04:00 AM. )
You can take the dude out of So Cal, but you can't take the dude outta the dude, dude!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:11 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,