Slashdot Mirror
Toyota Claims Woman "Opted In" To Faux Email Stalking
An anonymous reader writes "ABC News is reporting that a California woman is suing Toyota for $10 million for sending her email that appeared to be from a criminal stalker. The woman claims the emails terrified her to the point that she suffered sleeplessness, poor work performance, etc. Toyota says the ruse was part of a marketing campaign for the Toyota Matrix. A Toyota spokesman says they are not liable for the woman's distress, because 'The person who made this claim specifically opted in, granting her permission to receive campaign emails and other communications from Toyota.'"
On the other hand, Toyota did a really really weird thing.
One solution is to apply the very same punitive penalty, but award the punitive part of it to a fund/charity. In essence, whenever a major company causes somebody harm, that person is eligible to receive whatever amount is considered reasonable depending on the damages. In addition to that, the company is also fined an amount that is relative to its size and financial status, simply as a form of punishment. The latter amount never comes in contact with the victim.
What this does is ensure that company's are probably punished for causing harm, but removes the incentive to sue for enormous amounts for trivial issues (or not-so-trivial issues that don't justify $X million). This system is relatively common, and it always surprised me that people find it reasonable that the amount of damages awarded should be relative to the offenders ability to pay - Not primarily the crime itself.
...and sued McDonalds because they didnt warn *coffee* was *hot*)
Everyone misunderstands this. I have a friend in Law school. They analysed this case in class, and it turns out that this is generally misunderstood. The coffee was EXCEPTIONALLY hot, not just hot. McDonalds was keeping the coffee on the burner at a higher temperature so they would have to make new batches less often. This temperature was above what is generally used, and necessary. Hence, the coffee was hotter than it needed to be, and the burns were far more severe than if it had been at the normal temperature (I think this is generally somewhere around 50C).
Evolution - Est. 4500000000 B.C. Don't piss in the gene pool.
And once again for those of you who are incredible dense ...
JUST BECAUSE YOU PUT IT IN A CONTRACT AND GET SOMEONE TO SIGN IT DOESN'T MAKE IT LEGALLY BINDING.
We've been over this, it in fact was one of the factors that lead to the civil war, after which we (the USA) made efforts to make it so a bullshit contract could no longer be considered valid.
The right to freedom in America should only be given to those who care enough to understand what having and protecting that right means, your right to freedom would most certainly be revoked.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
And individuals will come and try to sue hoping an easy way to get rich (after hearing about the women who drop hot coffee on herself and sued McDonalds because they didnt warn *coffee* was *hot*)
Yes, everybody who is capable of ordering coffee knows it's hot. McDonald's coffee was scalding hot, more than 40F higher than the minimum temperature known to produce third degree burns - a 49 cup produced third degree burns over 6% of that woman's body, and lesser burns over another 16%. If you think experiencing that is an easy way to get rich, I have to believe neither you nor anybody you love has ever experienced a serious burn.
79 year old Stella Liebeck suffered third degree burns on her groin and inner thighs while trying to add sugar to her coffee at a McDonalds drive through. Third degree burns are the most serious kind of burn. McDonalds knew it had a problem. There were at least 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents at McDonalds before Liebeck's case. McDonalds had settled many claim before but refused Liebeck's request for $20,000 compensation, forcing the case into court. Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. McDonalds knew its coffee was exceptionally hot but testified that they had never consulted with burn specialist. The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees. And so the jury came back with a decision- $160,000 for compensatory damages. But because McDonalds was guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct" punitive damages were also applied. The jury set the award at $2.7 million. The judge then reduced the fine to less than half a million. Ms. Liebeck then settled with McDonalds for a sum reported to be much less than a half million dollars. McDonald's coffee is now sold at the same temperature as most other restaurants.
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-11.htm
Summary: 700 complaints of scalding incidents. Requests from the Shriners burn unit. This was willful disregard for people's health. And the size of the reward? Calculated as the profits from one morning's take from the sales of coffee across the enterprise. I'd say that's a reasonable--if maybe small--slap on the wrist.
I don't know why people choose to defend corporations over the people they hurt. It's not like McDonalds would cross the street to piss on you if you were on fire; it must be something like the Stockholm Syndrome.
The CB App. What's your 20?
You are so wrong about the McDonalds thing. It is used as a propaganda tool (as you are by spouting it) by corporations who want to get liability limiting legislation passed by painting her as greedy. She just sued for her medical bills (tried to settle for 20k but McDonalds refused). The jury awarded her punitive damages when she won (I think she also got 200k for actual damages). The jury decided to PUNISH McDonalds (which is what punitive damages means) for flagrantly putting people at risk so that their bottom line would benefit. The amount of punitive damages was 2.7mil, which was 2 days worth of McDonald's coffee sales. I hope you are getting paid for being a corporate mouthpiece.
Maybe McDonalds wouldn't need warning signs if they didn't serve coffee at temperatures that can cause third-degree burns after 2-7 seconds of exposure. ::sigh::
.
Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."
If you don't believe the national Coffee Association (I mean, what do they know about coffee, Right?) , How about Bunn? Their website (http://www.bunn.com/retail/bunn_difference.html) says "The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200." and another page (http://www.bunn.com/retail/dos_donts.html) mentions "water at 200 Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature)" and further down the page that say "Don't" "Re-heat for serving any coffee with a temperature below 175 F ", which means it has to be above that temperature to be served.
Still not convinced? How about a judge?
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 F (82 C) in this case) is not “unreasonably dangerous.”
"The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 F [93 C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 F [66–71 C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further."
Maybe McDonalds wouldn't need warning signs if they had simply helped the 79-year-old victim with her $11,000 in medical expenses, or accepted her later settlement offers of $90,000 and $300,000.
Why should they help her? The spill (and therefore the injury the spill caused) was her fault, not theirs.
Oh, and she asked for $20,000 to cover her $11,000 of medical bills. Hmmm.
Maybe Mcdonalds wouldn't need warning signs if documents obtained from Mcdonalds didn't establish that more than 700 people were burned to various degrees by Mcdonalds coffee between 1982 - 1992.
The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever.
Please explain how one burn per 24,000,000 cups is 'unreasonable dangerous'.
Maybe you need to come up with a better example of a lack of "common sense" in US courts
'Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants' does fine, thank you.