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.
Just like you have opted in to viewing kittens.
Saatchi & Saatchi told the marketing magazine OMMA last year that it had developed the campaign to target men under 35 who hate advertising.
I'm over 35 and I really hate advertising now. If I did something like this, I'd be in jail awaiting trial, my name would be smeared all over the place, and my life as I know it would be over - even Saatchi & Saatchi wouldn't hire me.
Toyota? Nothing.
Saatchi & Saatchi? They'll probably get more business because the dipshit MBAs will think that "there's no such thing as bad publicity."
Assholes.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Did you read the article?
Toyota's marketing campaign was in POOR taste, although one wonders why she never reported it to the police.
I think giving her 10 million seems high, but I think that a class action suit with everyone who got this incredibly lame marketing campaign isn't such a bad idea.
Pretend stalking someone is a terrible idea.
How about this:
What if you kept getting phone calls.. that said:
I'm coming for you.. in a mysterious raspy voice, at all times of the day.
That would be a clear cut case of stalking and instilling fear.
When you sue, you ask for as much as you could ever possibly imagine to get. It doesn't mean you'll get that much; but you certainly won't get more than you ask for, so in the starting phases you just ask for the world. If she actually got $10 million, that'd be another matter.
Yes! I'd like to receive death threats, disturbing messages, and other items of a stalking nature from Toyota Motor Corporation.
Advertising gets weirder and weirder. I don't understand how this is supposed to get someone to buy a car. The only thing I could think of is she didn't had a car so maybe she's supposed to buy a Toyota so she can get the hell away? I think it's lost on me.
"Yeah, you need $10 million to cover that" - Tell me then, how do you punish a company except by a fiscal penalty?
How does this in any way make anyone want to buy a Toyota?
I get that companies all want to 'push the envelope' these days so you see them over the competition, but this is just ridiculous.
I guess that's another benefit to marking every email I don't recognise as spam.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
This reminds of a psychology experiment a few decades ago, where the consent form was something like:
I agree to *insert a bunch of things here* including "I agree to be deceived."
Then you became the subject of an experiment that appeared to be one of the other things, but in reality, you were being deceived as part of the experiment.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Or am I swept up in an extremely elaborate episode of Punked?
Its really getting to the point that I can't tell anymore.
Agreed, a normal person who'd never done anything wrong would obviously assume an anonymous stranger threatening them was playing a prank on behalf of a large company. The vast majority of stalking cases are like that, and innocent people are never targeted by crazy people for no reason.
Seriously though, WTF are you talking about?
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Not to be pedantic, but it's all right there in the EULA. See below (emphasis mine):
Limitation on Scope of Content
The Toyota Web site, toyota.com, contains information regarding Toyota and its products and promotional programs. The Toyota vehicles described on this site contain uniquely American specifications and equipment and are offered for sale only in the continental U.S.A. The promotional programs described on this site are only available in the continental US and may be limited to particular states as described by the program. All pricing information referred to on this site is in U.S. dollars.
No Representation or Warranty
Toyota reserves the right to modify the information contained on this site at any time without notice. While Toyota makes all reasonable efforts to ensure that all material on this site is correct, accuracy cannot be guaranteed and Toyota does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or authenticity of any information contained on this site. By viewing this site, you agree to release and indemnify Toyota from all legal responsibility arising from sending you emails, hiding in bushes outside your house, picking through your trash and dry-humping your dog, cat and/or hamster(s). This site and all information and materials contained herein, is provided to you as is without warranty of any kind.
Obviously you've yet to interact with the mysterious beings known as "women" or you'd realize that the typical woman has fragile emotions. Imagine that they did this to your mother, or grandmother, and how they would react. I honestly can't even continue because frankly, it's making me mad that people like you are out there convincing any possible alien observers that we're still to stupid to handle a formal greeting.
Is this what we can expect from targeted marketing, now that They have more information on each of us than we do of ourselves?
Yeah, you need $10 million to cover that. Only in USA.
Well, you need enough to hurt the plaintiff. You need enough to clearly and unambiguously convey the message "Never ever EVER do that again".
I don't think $10 million is going to be enough, but it's a good start.
BTW, your choice of emphasis in your quote of TFA is most peculiar. Was there a point you were trying to, but utterly failed to, make?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
No. Cases end in settlements for an amount that both parties agree to. If you sue for $100 trillion that does not mean any settlement will be for $10 trillion. If the company you are suing thinks your case is entirely frivolous they might not settle at all. Or they might agree to settle for 75%, or 1%, or whatever they think is reasonable. On the other hand the company is not going to settle for MORE than you sue for, aiming higher is obviously a good idea. But I think the courts have a dim view of people grossly inflating their claims for no reason.
how do you punish a company except by a fiscal penalty?
you get an article put up on a major news site that features the company name and alludes that they've been stalking their customers.
So either she didn't see the opt-out links or address of the company, or the email didn't have these. Unless they got really creative with the opt-in, this sounds like a violation of the CAN SPAM act. A $10M lawsuit from one woman is the least of their worries.
Twelve fingers or one, its how you play. ~Gattaca (Vincent)
I wonder where in the hell you get the idea that this is acceptable behavior in Europe.
FTFA:
I work in research with human subjects, and there is no way this constitutes informed consent.
If Toyota wants to argue that the fine print spelled it out and it's her fault she didn't read it carefully enough, maybe they can win the case through legalistic hairsplitting. But if they buried it in fine print and incomprehensible language, they're jerks no matter what.
But they're making a much broader claim if they're calling it informed consent. Informed consent means that she comprehended what was going to happen to her as a result of agreeing. In other words, "informed consent" isn't just a statement about the objective content of the opt-in statement -- it's an assertion about the state of mind of the person who gave consent. If she had truly given informed consent, then not only would she have no legal claim, but she'd have no moral claim either (because she'd have known what she was getting into). But it's blindingly obvious that that isn't true here.
What the fuck?
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
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.
Corporate death penalty. Revoke their charter, sell off their assets, pay the shareholders something, dissolve the business. In this case, a penalty is fine, but if the company kills a bunch of people, kill the company.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
weird isn't worth $10 million...
Creative marketing scores free publicity from a major news network (which will be copied by another, another I'm sure.) Most companies might pay 10 million for that. Applying the (Durden) formula -
A new marketing campaign built by my company punks people over the email. Someone gets offended, looses sleep even, and decides to sue for damages. But, the new marketing strategy also spreads word of mouth, people go check it out sign up, stories get posted on major new sites that ones that post stuff that matters.
Now:
should Toyota initiate a recall of their marketing campaign? Take the number of punked ads in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, Toyota doesn't do one. (ie. If the cost of potential mitigation over crazy lawsuits is still less then the revenue generated from increased public awareness of their product-ego-props to Toyota.)
"Engineering. Where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream." -Sheldon
I think a week in jail for the VP of marketing will do much more. But a week is probably all this is worth.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Suburban housewives and other miscellaneous yuppies can be frightened into buying and voting for anything. From the Wikipedia article about Megan's law, shortened for clarity:
A...study by Kristen Zgoba Ph.D., Philip Witt Ph.D., Melissa Dalessandro M.S.W., and Bonita Veysey Ph.D. found that Megan's Law has no effect on community tenure (i.e., time to first re-arrest), showed no demonstrable effect in reducing sexual re-offenses, has no effect on the type of sexual re-offense or first time sexual offense (still largely child molestation/incest), and has no effect on reducing the number of victims involved in sexual offenses. Moreover costs associated with the initial implementation as well as ongoing expenditures continued to grow over time...The authors feel that given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan's Law on sexual offenses, the growing costs may not be justifiable. Philip Witt is a psychologist and the co-principal author of the study who helped implement Megan's Law in New Jersey.[6]
Tell that to people who pull out a fake gun when robbing a bank, or when confronted by a cop.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
she suffered sleeplessness, poor work performance...
Unanswered question: how was her work performance before the emails? Was it really that much worse?
Currently hooked on AMP
This is wrong on so many levels. Next we will have companies sending us letters from Nigeria telling people they have millions of dollars and all they need to do to get it is to buy a new car. I for one am sick of companies using deceitful(all advertising is) tactics to trick/scare/lure people to their products and then when they get caught they use the "but its advertising so its OK!" line. If they would have made it clear that it was from a company and it was an advertising campaign(yes it would lose its intended effect) then I think it would be a bit different. But for them to make it appear as though a real person was traveling overseas who was in legal trouble was coming to visit a person is incredibly wrong.
I'm not quite sure how you'd word an "Op-In" agreement that would effectively cover this; "I consent to receive life threatening emails, harassed, etc."?
In other words anything that would, in plain English, explain what you were agreeing to, no one would sign.
And regarding $10M, though this may seem like a lot of money, the point to this type of suit is deterrent, and at $10M, I doubt that it is.
$10 million, that's assuming she even gets the full amount, is something that Toyota makes ever 30 minutes. It amounts to .005% of their total yearly revenue.
Exactly. It doesn't hurt them in any way - it's just counted in the marketing budget - but the person thinks she has an easy way to get rich.
So free publicity is a punishment now?
What if you kept getting phone calls.. that said:
I'm coming for you.. in a mysterious raspy voice, at all times of the day.
That would be a clear cut case of stalking and instilling fear.
That depends. I am currently getting a steady stream of 'updates' about a particular organism that is also supposedly out there trying to get me. The authors of this communication are undoubtedly attempting to use fear to get the desired response out of me.
Stalking or Flu awareness? Depends on the intent, I'd say, not the fear.
If I'm wrong, then we'd better put a stop to this whole 'Terror Level Brown' thing, too. Because that's all about inducing behavior through fear as well.
Since Toyota clearly never intended for someone to actually come within a reasonable distance of anyone, the 'stalking' was as fake as the person.
This puts us down to basic harassment, and lets face it, advertisers have gotten away with that crime for far too long to do much about it now.
This "Goatse" kitten is the second ugliest kitten I've ever seen!
Reading things like this, I am often reminded of The Game, though the film describes an 'interaction' which is on a totally different level than these e-mails and faux web pages.
... er... "gone bad". What protection does the law provide for a person who signs an endless legalese document without reading it, thus opting in to something well over their heads?
... I always wondered what the legal consequences would have been of a Game
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
I read this before but haven't seen jack shit in terms of details. What was in the actual mail? Was it obviously fake/advertising or was it real-seaming? Why anyone would pay attention to random shit they get in email I'll never know, but does anyone have a link to the actual mails?
Here's their IM campaign: toyotamarketing: *heavy breathing* ambermate: who the hell is this? toyotamarketing: what are you wearing? ambermate: i'm calling the police toyotamarketing: is your husband home? ambermate: 9-1-1 toyotamarketing: they can't stop me, i'm driving a prius with the all new Pre-Collision System ambermate: you crazy f%^k, i have a shotgun toyotamarketing: i have Driver and front passenger Advanced Airbag System ambermate: FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!! toyotamarketing: lol--tell you what? i won't come over if you come down to the dealership tomorrow... i'll make you an offer you can't refuse ;-)
Maybe, but terrifying sure is. Victims of stalking find that they are incapable of doing day-to-day things. The lady had a legitimate fear, she told her friends, then she later was ridiculed for those fears. This is all the fault of Toyota.
I for one hope that she wins the whole $10 million. Maybe only that way will dumb-ass marketers start *thinking* about what they do!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
What about creating a law that prohibits marketing companies from creating any type of campaign that doesn't inform the target that it is marketing?
In the same way that cigarettes are not allowed to be sold without the health disclaimer.
It would turn out to be much more effective to prohibit, punishable by law, this kind of behavior from marketing companies than ENCOURAGE the company to not do it again by fiscal penalty. That's because if that marketing actually generated, say, $50 million in revenue for the company, even if we make them pay the highest possible amount of $10 for this lawsuit, where's the guarantee that they wouldn't do it again?
It's not the simple. Taking an 10 million dollar hit inpacts the stocks, and in fact their market values can drop by MORE then 10 million dollars. This impacts bonuses of the top executives.
"sued McDonalds because they didn't warn *coffee* was *hot*"
that's not true at all. They intentionally kept it hotter then needed to be in order to maximize there profit, and they had ignored at least 2 warning to stop keeping it that hot.
And she did not get rich.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No, the reason she asked for $10M was because Toyota is a huge company. If a small business did the same thing she wouldn't likely be suing at all or she'd be suing for a damn sight less. In fact, if it was a small company it's more likely that the police would be filing criminal charges which I believe Toyota deserves but of course won't get.
And I never did understand why it is up to the first person filing a civil lawsuit to "send a message". That's total BS. They don't want to send a message...THEY WANT CASH! Sending a message is just an excuse to add a few zeroes to the claim and the deeper the pockets the better. The only place for "sending a message" is in criminal court and class action lawsuits. Anything else is opportunistic greed.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
While that certainly would fulfill our baser desires for revenge, it would have a ton of consequences for a lot of innocent people. You would be putting tens of thousands of people out of work because something only a tiny fraction of them had anything to do with, or any knowledge of.
Yeah because when your yearly revenue exceeds $200 billion you definitely are going to sweat 10 million dollars.
So free publicity is a punishment now?
if you believe the salesman mantra of, "there's no such thing as bad publicity."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Uh... they created a MySpace page with all her details! I'm not really surprised she freaked out.
Oh, incidentally, as she's a female I don't think she really needs to "grow a pair".
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's Therac-25 killed 3 people and maimed 3 others. Until AECL were forced by their customers to deal with their piss-poor attitude towards patient safety, they were all too happy to blame it on "operator error" (save for the first accident, for which a "faulty microswitch" got the blame with ZERO objective analysis).
The Durden formula would have to be modified and simplified to:
If the total cost of out-of-court settlements, is less than value of publicity that results in increased sales, Toyota doesn't do one.
Unfortunately for Toyota - people checking out this ad are likely all going "WTF was Toyota thinking - and how would this relate to selling a damn car? The ad execs must be cracked!"
IMNSHO, $10M (which I would feel is justified since that is the only way you make corporations hear you) >> the publicity that translated to new car sales.
1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
Different cultures... google this "japanese gameshow sniper".
Fun.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Oh man... while that post certainly flames on, it makes some decent points. Someone mod it up?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Wait, so if you were an established well-known corporation you would WANT to get associated with cyberstalking? That kind of publicity is only effective for obscure small companies, and even then not very well.
like must other cases of such ludicrous nature targeted against large companies, this will be settled out of court for a few mil and everyone will forget it ever happened.
"Toyota's marketing campaign was in POOR taste, although one wonders why she never reported it to the police. I think giving her 10 million seems high"
ya think? Also strange that this happened Spring 2008, and now a lawsuit is being filed.
"Duick claims she was ridiculed by those she contacted about the fictitious man from England after they found out it was a prank, but to her it was no laughing matter."
I'm thinking those neighbors, friends and family are going to be ridiculing you a bit more when they find out you decided to sue for 10 million dollars. I can imagine a few Dr Evil 10 million dollar comments.
"Her attorney, Nick Tepper, said the Matrix campaign was similar to "Punk'd" a former MTV show"
And just like the Punk'd show no one should be sued. If she was scared she should have called the police.
Myself and several family members have received death threats through Myspace by a local adult male, an acquaintance of an acquaintance. When police were contacted they said "Sorry, can't do anything, the threats are online". Nothing happened. Never though to sue for 10 million dollars, but judging from the guy's myspace he didn't even have enough $ to pay the legal fees so it'd be a waste.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
If you actually bothered to learn about the McDonalds case you would have found out that the coffee was hot enough to melt her pants to her downstairs. It really was too hot, and she deserved everything she got.
Oh, incidentally, as she's a female I don't think she really needs to "grow a pair".
See, that's what I'm talking about. (If you don't know what grow a pair means, then you can stop reading here).
Why should women be defenseless and helpless? Why is that OK/expected?
Just because you have given permission for people to send emails to you, it does not grant them permission to threaten you.
Similarly, if I give someone permission to enter my home, that does not mean I give permission for them to take my TV, grab the cord, and swing it around their head saying "LET ME WATCH FOX NEWS OR I LET GO!!!"
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
maybe, but Toyota overstepped a line, and it's her due right to try to make them accountable.
In the end, Toyota impersonated another person and royally overstepped the boundary of the agreement with her to send her marketing messages from Toyota.
Consider: If I grant access to my restricted private house to friend X, I can surely legally restrict that same person if he impersonates another person. According to the original agreement I must provide access to friend X, but I have no legal way to distinguish between friend X and what he impersonates, so I can clearly deny him access. The same holds for Toyota: they cannot impersonate the US President, the Police and waive this lawsuit away by saying that they had the right to send messages. While impersonating the Police is a felony (obviously), impersonating someone random immediately voids the e-mail agreement, since there is no way for the "victim" here to distinguish between them. (Toyota can send her messages, vs. Toyota impersonating a stalker).
IOW, this is in terrible bad taste. Toyota screwed up badly, and the law will likely be against them.
...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.
Whew, thanks thats a relief - so those phone calls that I've been getting from Samara Morgan for the past 7 days are fake ack2^@%!$@6....
I think stringing them up on the town square would work better, their lawyers can warn them about the law but only their common sense can warn them about the people.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
No, but if you make $9 million in profit and lose $10 million in a lawsuit, then they'll not do the marketing campaign again. Even if they make $12 million from the campaign (doubtful), the return becomes so small that it's not worth them doing any more. Further to this, hopefully the arsehole marketer who came up with the idea loses a job or some advertising agency loses revenue as Toyota moves to another company.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
This site sometimes breaks major news sites.
OTOH, this may not actually be a news site.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
They sure did. Very creepy, and no doubt terrifying at the time... ummm...
Except if it was so terrifying, why did she do everything but call the police, who have the powers to actually investigate things like this and would have probably figured out in about 5 minutes who sent the emails? Why make her boyfriend sit by the bed with a club, when she's getting notices from someone who sounds like a hardened and probably ARMED criminal that they are coming for a visit? If this were a real event, she and her boyfriend would likely be dead by now.
Why sit cowering in your home for FIVE DAYS then claim you were unable to live your life for MONTHS, when a quick three-digit phone call ("911", in case anyone has forgotten the number) would have started an investigation that would have rapidly debunked it in a hurry? Toyota would have no doubt issued a deep apology to avoid a lawsuit, suffered some well-deserved bad press, and Ms. Duick could have gone about her life with nothing more than a probable (and understandable) lifetime hatred/contempt of Toyota Motor Company, and not a long-term debilitating fear.
I'm not saying Toyota was in the right here. No way. This was just plain effing stupid.
I think both parties are clearly in the wrong. Toyota's actions were reprehensible and deserving of punishment, but Ms. Duick's response (or utter lack thereof) certainly gave Toyota no indication of the harm they were causing to her. They thought they had agreement, she was unaware of the agreement, they acted stupidly, and she didn't do anything useful to help herself until after she found out it was a prank ad campaign.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
If the employees were part of a functional business, why would they be laid off if the business were broken apart and sold off? The new owners would likely keep them on. I'm not talking about destroying factories in revenge, I'm suggesting taking the business away from the people who let it perform criminal actions, and selling it to others. The threat would be to stock owners, who would then put pressure on boards to obey laws lest the company be dissolved and the stock owners compensated at a government determined value somewhat below the market value of the stock.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I don't think she needs the $10 million; it couldn't have done that much harm to her.
On the other hand, reading the article, I have no problem with Toyota being FINED $10 million, in order to prevent them or any other company from repeating that behavior. What an unbelievably stupid thing they did.
Welcome to corporate Absurdistan worldwide, my friend.
You can't run, you can't hide,
from no morals and no pride!
weird isn't worth $10 million...
Isn't worth 10 million?
Why don't we stop and think about this for a moment...
When you sell something, say your car, do you always offer the buyer your lowest price in hopes that he increases his offer as negotiations progress? Or do you, oh I don't know this may sound crazy, offer your highest price because he is going to negotiate it down?
You do realize that the $10,000,000 figure is the attorney's opening bid, to which the courts and the defendant (toyota) will argue the value down.
Very rarely do people ever argue the price they are willing to pay up.
Either way, it's a ridiculous amount of money for one person to ask for, but I agree that the penalty should be large enough to make the company (almost) crap themselves. IMHO, the person should get a percentage (up to a max of 2 million), and the rest goes to various charities of their choice, where it will do far more good than in one person's pocket.
Evolution - Est. 4500000000 B.C. Don't piss in the gene pool.
"Yeah, you need $10 million to cover that" - Tell me then, how do you punish a company except by a fiscal penalty?
Yes. I love how libertatians have perfect faith in torts as the only mechanism required to regulate corporate behavior, but when someone tries to do exactly that, it's all whiners and losers trying to make a buck.
On the other hand, cases like this are a pretty good way to sort Slashdot commenters into either actual libertarians (people with a thing for individual liberty, including freedom from fear) or corporatists (peasants who believe that corporate rule is infallible).
You mean that she should form testicles. I'm sure that's exactly what she needs.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Maybe the woman from TFA could get a restraining order, preventing Toyota from placing any adverts she might possibly see? After all, the usual resolution of stalking cases is to forbid the perpetrator from contacting the victim in any way.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Maybe, but terrifying sure is. Victims of stalking find that they are incapable of doing day-to-day things. The lady had a legitimate fear, she told her friends, then she later was ridiculed for those fears. This is all the fault of Toyota.
I for one hope that she wins the whole $10 million. Maybe only that way will dumb-ass marketers start *thinking* about what they do!
I suspect (but do not know) that once we see the actual emails there's no way on earth anyone with an IQ above retarded would believe it was real. Have you ever seen one of these campaigns? Even imbeciles know they're fake.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
On the one hand, $10 million isn't something to sneeze at, even for a company with $200 billion in yearly revenue. That $10 million represents a lot of lower level employee's worth of salary which might lead to lots of average Joes getting layed off (face it, it won't be the execs. that feel the hurt). On the other hand, it sounds, to me, like they, honestly, earned the punishment (though, perhaps somewhat less than what she's asking) on this one. It isn't reasonable to say that just because she checked a box somewhere agreeing to accept marketing communications from a company that she should expect those communications to take the form of a simulated stalking. What next, are they going to go door to door in white robes burning crosses on people's front lawns to drum up attention for next year's Carolla?
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
I'm willing to bet $10 million that no one is going to get laid off over this.
They should written about the "Oh, What a Feeling" he'll have when the so-called stalker doesn't have to run from the law anymore.
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
I think giving her 10 million seems high,
I think I'd lean toward her getting $1m, and Toyota and S&S each having to pay $100m in court fees for having to adjudicate crap like this.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Bull. It means that a $50,000 marketing program ran by three people in the marketing department now has a $10,000,000 overrun. It means people will be fired, it means policies will be changed. You think the boss of the people responsible will think "Eh, ten million, we make that much money in six hours. No worries."? That's not how business works.
Meh. "Any publicity is good publicity" is simply not true. It can be true if you're not widely known, as it gets name recognition out there. See e.g. reality TV "stars". But for a large multinational corporation that almost everyone already knows it's just that - bad publicity.
They really need to rewrite some of these old sayings people take for granted. Another one is that "the victor writes the histories". Yeah - not anymore. Teh Interwebs pretty much ruined that idea, and it's fairly easy to point to some incidents that happened 50-60 years ago where someone clearly tried to whitewash history but the facts are plain as could be for anyone willing to spend 20 minutes googling.
Contrary to popular belief, no, innocent people aren't randomly targeted.
There is, in almost every single case, a link between the two.
Seriously though, WTF are you talking about with your degree in criminology ... wait ... you don't have on do you?
Of course, the sane person who really believes they are being targeted calls the authorities, they don't just let people continue to disturb them.
I'm sorry, but it IS your fault if you don't tell someone or ask for help.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
To be fair, the claim is that this is a different fucking flu than the one we've been living through every winter. Everyone knows pig flu is scarier than human flu!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
What is the money amount going to punish? They just calculate it into marketing budget.
Exactly. And next time they sit in the conference room discussing a new ad campaign, someone will note "let's not do Option B - last time it cost us $10 mil more than we expected. Options A and C will be much cheaper."
And by the way - the coffee wasn't just hot. It was exceptionally hot; scalding hot. During the court case it was noted that coffee served at home is usually 135 - 140 degrees. McDonald's required it's coffee to be maintained at 185 degrees plus or minus 5 degrees. The victim suffered 3rd degree burns - from coffee. Burns that are unlikely to come from coffee even at 155 degrees. In addition, McDonald's was aware of the safety involved with their policy and had been aware of it for 10 years with over 700 reports of injuries (including other cases of 3rd degree burns). This wasn't a simple case of getting rich with a frivolous lawsuit - it was clear negligence on McDonald's part. Investigations after the verdict showed local area McDonald's serving coffee at a much safer 158 degrees. Clearly the punitive damages worked.
You sue them for $10 million and that $10 million goes toward a charity and never even touches the hands of the person suing.
For all you people that work in marketing for a company that produces mundane products like cars or electronics just put a check box on all communications with your customers asking if it's ok for you to send marketing info to them in the future (like almost every company already does). Then, for all the ones that have agree, figure out if they have a cat or dog. Wait until the pet is let out of the house and then deliver a severed cat/dog head (simulated, if local laws prohibit this, but make sure it's the same breed/colors as their real pet) on their front stoop with your product's name carved in it. They authorized you to contact them didn't they? How can they, possibly, blame you for any mental trauma they might have? It is, after all, perfectly reasonable to contact them in any form you can think up right? After all, you're just being "inventive" and "edgy"...
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
"The person who made this claim specifically opted in, granting her permission to receive campaign emails and other communications from Toyota."
Ah, so he means:
"My boss told me, 'OH, SHIT! TELL THEM SOMETHING, ANYTHING! MAKE THIS GO AWAY!!'"
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
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.
The elegant thing about giving victims the penalty money is that it encourages them to take on litigation. A lawsuit is expensive, risky, and time-consuming. Without motivating litigants and lawyers with potential rewards, the powerful would be much freer to abuse the weak. In your system, this lady would stand to win at most a few thousand in actual damages, but would risk losing tens of thousands in costs should Toyota prevail. Further, all the good lawyers would be on salary or retainer for large companies; few would be willing to work for a chance to get paid a reasonable hourly rate.
It's good to keep large companies walking on eggshells when it comes to causing harm, and the current tort system is the best way we know to do so that we can afford.
I'd prefer that but then again, I wasn't the one who was stalked, and a week of jail time won't do restitution to the harmed. Maybe combine it and let the VP of marketing be her bitch for a week?
One thing's for sure: when people are harmed, law as it applies to corporations should be a lot more personal and pierce the corporate veil. That would rectify a LOT of stupidity done in the search for profits.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Need a modification for "obscure reference"
What if you kept getting phone calls.. that said:...
Actually, something like this happened once, almost. Some movie that Sam Jackson was in had a promo where you could go to a web site and fill out some information and Jackson's voice would make a custom call based on that information.
I was out of town on a business trip, and late in the night a buddy of mine had did this and my wife picked up. She's not a movie buff, and while I would have recognized the voice in a second, she didn't. She just heard an angry-sounding man talking about coming to our house in [our town], checking in on [one of my hobbies, one of hers], and a few other spooky things. Even though it was clearly a recording, it was really unsettling to her, so she called me right away.
Luckily, the system sends an email after calling, so when we were talking about it, I thought it sounded like something prank-ish and checked my email on a whim. I was able to talk her down, but she was a little pissed and asked me to tell my buddy not to pull that shite again.
The CB App. What's your 20?
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.
On the other hand, whoever designed the personality test mentioned in TFA is a muthafukkin' GENIUS.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
This is way beyond "poor taste". People (are supposed to) go to jail for harassment like this.
And W T F does it have to do with cars?
What is with the 'victimization' culture these days?
You mean, among people who have genuine greviances? Yeah, I know! The "victims" of my pyramid scheme have SUCH a sense of entitlement!
Grow a pair and make some more money for me to steal.
I tried telling the judge that many of the people I ripped off weren't even trying to get new jobs at say, Mc Donalds to earn more money, so they obviously weren't hurt enough to change anything about their life. Jerks.
Sincerely,
Bernie Maddoff
Just to hide out from Johnny Law for a tick, luv.
Click here to unsubscribe from the Bowser the Homicidal Maniac's Road Tour
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
how do you punish a company except by a fiscal penalty?
you get an article put up on a major news site that features the company name and alludes that they've been stalking their customers.
Yeah, that's so gonna come up a year from now when I buy a Prius.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe, but good acting sure is. People who are are about to become millionaires due to a frivolous lawsuit find that they are "incapable" of doing day-to-day things.
There, fixed that for you.
They'll never be able to sell her that matrix now...
[Hypothetical Situation:]
I jokingly said to the Toyota person 'oh sure, you can send me threatening email, but then I get to come to your store in the middle of the night and slash all the tires of your vehicles'. We both had a great laugh over it, shook hands, and we walked away.
2 death threats later, and Goodyear is having a wonderful fiscal year.
[/Hypothetical]
Somehow, I doubt Toyota would be as easily forgiving if the tables were reversed. So why should this women have to cave in?
Ok, let's break it down a little:
Flu innoculation advertisements: warn you of a serious health threat that kills a lot of people every year. Not paying attention leads to evolution in action.
Terror alerts: announced by the government to the entire country. Might be political, might reflect real intelligence.
Getting threatening messages and phone calls over a series of days aimed at you personally: stalking.
Got it?
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?
Advertising is fine, but as soon as you cross that line from advertising into the land of criminal harassment then we've got a serious problem. While I'm up in Canada, I'd be much happier to see criminal harassment charges filed against the entire company. See unless you've actually dealt with people who've been victims of this stuff, seen how the system has failed people, and how the ball has been dropped you really don't have a clue as to what can go wrong.
I don't have any problems with her going after them for this. Not only did they cross the line, they crossed the line into a felony in my book. "Opting in" be damned, you're either dense, or simply heartless if you think that way.
Om, nomnomnom...
I suspect (but do not know) that once we see the actual emails there's no way on earth anyone with an IQ above retarded would believe it was real. Have you ever seen one of these campaigns? Even imbeciles know they're fake.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Do you remember this story?
Or how about this one?
I don't contest that Toyota's tactics are shady at best here, but like the old saying goes: "Make something idiot proof, and someone will build a better idiot"
And she did not get rich.
Yeah. And talk about bad PR. I don't know why people are so quick to defend corporations, but Ms. Liebeck really took it on the chin when all she wanted were her medical bills paid. Given the circumstances, the request was more than reasonable.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Cyberstalking? They were playing a prank on a woman at her friend's bequest. Bad taste? Yes. Effective? Probably not. I might think their marketing department is full of idiots (or Japanese people who don't understand other markets, it seems like something they would do). But, I don't think worse of Toyota. I think the woman is a complete idiot, though, and is just trying to make some easy money.
you can't punish SUPER large companies. its impossible. when was the last time one was 'hurt' by a penalty?
they laugh it off.
all the way to the bank.
PRISON time is what is needed. ENTIRE CEO AND STAFF to prison.
pmita is what strikes fear in aged white men. and young ones, too. money penalties mean nothing to them.
corps are 'persons' so let them rot in jail, like persons do!
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
TFA does not contain the emails.
Not everyone wants the police in their home, rifling through their possessions, looting^w removing their computer, video game consoles, and HDTVs as "evidence," and otherwise violating their privacy.
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
You have probably an overly optimistic guess as to what the police would have done. (On top of that, the article does not specify one way or the other whether or not she called the police)
Here's my guess about what that 911 call would have sounded like:
911) What's your emergency?
Woman) A man is coming to my house.
911) Who is the man, and has he threatened you?
Woman) I don't know, and no, he hasn't threatened me. He's just coming to my house.
911) You don't know who the man is?
Woman) No, I only got an email. I've never met him.
911) I'm sorry, unless there is a man in your presence who has made a credible threat against you or physically assaulted you, we can't do anything. Have a nice day.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Grown adults with college degrees sat around in meetings and agreed to this. They thought it was a good idea. It must have been a somewhat long process- coming up with the concept, refining it, composing the threatening emails, foraging for opt-ins, getting the emails sent- and in all that time these university enhanced creatures thought it was all just tickety-boo.
I dunno. My head hurts.
I think that pretending will get you pretty far on the way to actually doing.
"Sending a message" and punishing a defendant for egregious misconduct is the very purpose for which punitive damages exist in the U.S. legal system. The system recognizes that in some cases, merely compensating the victim for their actual damages is not sufficient. Punative damages exist both to punish, and to deter this defendant, as well as others, from repeating the same or similar tortious acts in the future.
I don't wonder why she never reported it to the police: its' because this entire episode, including her and her complaint, is a fake. The news story itself is the actual marketing campaign for Toyota (and Saatchi & Saatchi), not the events it relates. Why else would the marketing company put an actual sales blurb into the article?
It's a reverse psych-out, and we're the ones they're trying to punk
A part of that break emphasizing: $160,000 for compensatory damages.
In other words, she had 160,000 dollars worth of medical bills from that coffee. (Well, that figure includes lost wages and stuff.) Which is not that amazing for third degree burns.
Incidentally, 185-190 degrees is 22-27 degrees lower than the boiling point of water. If you were to put a pot of water on the stove until it started to boil, cut it off, and wait maybe a minute...that's the temperature McDonalds was handing people coffee in in tiny cardboard cups.
Go ahead, people who say she didn't deserve that. Pour that in your lap. I dare you. (Call 911 before you do that.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
About a hear and a half ago my mother in law got a voice-mail along the lines of... "Please call [insert car company that sold her the vehicle] right now as there is a safety issue with your vehicle." ... It was a marketing thing, not an actual safety alert. What a load of crap.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
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.
It was a hard sell.
Or maybe they are getting too cocky. Remember how the Sony guys were all like "Oh, we can charge anything for the PS3 and people will bend over and pay it" and all that hoo ha that blew up in their faces. Toyota might be thinking in "there's no such thing as *bad* PR" mode.
Given the weird minds of marketeers these days, I really wouldn't be surprised if that "victim sueing Toyota for email ad campaign" is in reality part of that campaign. Because otherwise that ad wouldn't have made it to the frontpage(s).
If imbeciles didn't hire lawyers, what would all the two-bit lawyers do for a living? Please, someone think of the 2b lawyers! They have children too!
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Last one standing get lifted out,
Piffle. This here is Thunderdome. They leave under their own power or not at all. :-P
...of stupidity.
On the other hand, I hope their "opt-in" defense works. Such a precedent might discourage the use of "opt-out" by those who still use it. And BTW, I consider it to be "opt-out" if you have to uncheck an "opt-in" box that's pre-checked when the web form loads.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
I think it's pretty insightful, given the context. It's what we in the biz like to call an 'analogy'. Although it would have been better with a car.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Man, you've got your headquarters in your hindquarters. No offense. Even if we grant your premise, that some large proportion of people would spot the campaign as fake, you have to remember that (1) Telling lies from truth is different from IQ. Some very bright people are extremely gullible, some very dull people have an unerring radar for falsehoods. (2) It's neither morally nor legally permissible to purposely scare the hell out of someone merely because they're less intelligent. (3) Many tens of thousands of people - mostly women - are stalked each year in this great nation, and a portion of them murdered by their stalkers. So a campaign like this odds are will reach some of them, who already know that stalking threats are real, have already been stalked, and just like a veteran hearing a backfire and finding himself back in battle, can easily be returned to the real psychological state - even by an instance they intellectually know is fake.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I used to be in favor of the 'corporate death penalty', and I still am, but only in a certain way.
We shouldn't break the company. What we should do is fire all corporate executives (Everyone who legally empowered to agree to contracts.), and the board of directors, cancel all stock and leave it operated by the government for a while. (1) They will run it basically as before, and also do a housecleaning to find illegal behaviors that have become ingrained in the company.
It then, after about a month, publish balance sheets and stuff so that people can see how it's doing. Then the company should issue new stock, under a new stock symbol, on the stock exchange, so people can purchase it. And the new owners will, presumably, elect a new board of directors, etc, and the temporary executives put in by the government will resign.
I.e., we don't need to dissolve the company if they commit crimes. We need to fire the people who ran the company in a criminal manner, and we need to take it away from the owners who let the company get run in a criminal manner. Then we clean it up, and sell it to whoever's willing to pay for it.
'The company', as an abstract entity that presumably provides some actual services, and employs a bunch of people, can continue to exist. So 'death penalty' isn't really the right word. Let's call it corporate forfeiture. (Hey, if we call it that, does that mean we don't have to have a trial?)
1) The government running a company, incidentally, is not without precedent, especially during bankruptcy. The federal government does assume caretaker responsibility of some business, the most famous example being when it found itself running a brothel in Nevada for about a year.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I can't find anything on google news about this besides blogs. Is this a hoax?
We'll see, won't we?
Pull my finger for my public key.
Okay, this whole "McDonald's Hot Coffee" thing is not what people think it is.
1.) The coffee wasn't just hot, it was scalding. The woman got 3rd degree burns, for Christ's sake. The woman had to be hospitalized for eight days and had to undergo skin grafting. She had to also undergo debridement treatments(basically, having dead and damaged tissue removed so that the healthier tissue around it can begin to heal).
2.) The woman was in the passenger seat and the car wasn't moving.
3.) The coffee was undrinkable at the temperature it was served at. 180 degrees(the temperature it was served at), will cause 3rd degree burns in 2 - 7 seconds. Basically, drinking the coffee as soon as you get it will cause your throat to almost instantly receive 3rd degree burns.
4.) McDonalds had settled 700 cases regarding their hot coffee, many instances involved similar 3rd degree burns.
So, basically, saying that the coffee was hot is a vast understatement. I know people love to point it out as an outlandish lawsuit, but once you know the facts, it is anything but outlandish.
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
This sounds like a great idea. Much more fleshed out and realistic than mine. I nominate you to run things. ;)
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Just because there were complaints, does not mean that McDonalds was at fault. Many people like their coffee piping hot. McDonalds was trying to satisfy their custmers. Some don't like it, some do. Just because there were people complaining about it does not make it wrong.
The lady was 79 years old. My guess is, this was not her first time geting a coffee at McDonalds. If it is so damn hot and dangerous, why didn't she buy her coffee somewhere else? Why didn't she ask for OJ instead of coffee.
Just because something has potential to do harm does not mean that it is bad. She had a choice to take her business where coffee would have been cooler. She decided to go to McDonalds knowing what kind of coffee they serve. While I feel bad for her ordeal, she is an adult and need to take some responsibility for her mistakes.
What was the Safe Word, Toyota? If she really opted in, there was one. I bet you they'll say next that when she said "no", she really meant "yes", so it was consensual.
I've had a similar idea. Inflate the stock as part of the settlement. When a corporation is sued (by an individual or in a class action) determine the damages as additional stock in the company and distribute that stock to the winners of the suit. This deflates the value of the current stock witch will upset any current stock holders. If a company continues to screw up and gets continually sued then you can bet that the primary stock controllers are going to either pull out or get rid of the dumb execs that are making their stocks take a nose dive.
It isn't reasonable to say that just because she checked a box somewhere agreeing to accept marketing communications from a company that she should expect those communications to take the form of a simulated stalking.
More likely, the box was pre-checked, and non-nerds generally don't bother to uncheck pre-checked checkboxes in web forms.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
I would love to see companies forced to do something like:
1.) Ads must have the word "ADVERTISING" printed on an uninterrupted 1/3 of the ad. It must be instantly viewable when looking at the ad.
2.) Medication and legal advice cannot be advertised for in any form.
3.) Advertisements on radio or television must not raise their volume higher than what is normally heard in a television program.
4.) When someone is speaking about their experiences with a product, if they have received ANYTHING from the company in exchange for speaking, the words "PAID ENDORSEMENT" must be displayed in large letters that can be easily read from across the room during the entire duration of the endorsement.
Yes, I hate advertising. Yes, I hate marketing. Marketing/Advertising is filled full of mistruths and half-truths.
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
1) most of the time people suing corporations are lazy people that want to get rich
Here's a radical question: do you have any idea if this is true?
caritj.org
We got a spate of those and then several waves of the damn warranty people. I used to get a kick out of leading them on before telling them I own a Merkur and asking how much the coverage would be. That was the one and only thing that made them stop calling our call center lines; threatening to call the cops didn't bother them.
On-topic:
Marketing is the art of convincing people to do things without them realizing that you've convinced them. This art is often poorly practiced or intercepted by unintended people. For that and for many other reasons, advertising is generally reviled. Way to go Toyota's ad people for sinking to new and abysmal lows. What kind of idiot would think this would be ok?
To all of you commenting on cops or lack thereof, try it sometime and see how fast they respond to internet threats. A couple of minutes? To trace a bunch of emails that were intentionally hidden? Ridiculous. Even with credit card fraud it can take months for them to even take the first few steps. You can spoon-feed them IP traces, dns registration information, anything you want. They do nothing.
-1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
On the other hand, cases like this are a pretty good way to sort Slashdot commenters into either actual libertarians (people with a thing for individual liberty, including freedom from fear) or corporatists (peasants who believe that corporate rule is infallible).
What about the people who hate the antics of huge corporations, but also don't mind paying taxes?
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
Man, you've got your headquarters in your hindquarters. No offense.
No offense taken.
(1) Telling lies from truth is different from IQ. Some very bright people are extremely gullible, some very dull people have an unerring radar for falsehoods.
Perhaps I used the wrong semantics. I don't mean that literally. What I meant is that a reasonable person would be able to understand that it isn't "real". It appears likely to me that this woman is just greedy. But as I said I've not seen the campaign materials, so it's just what I suspect based on my knowledge of similar "viral" marketing.
(2) It's neither morally nor legally permissible to purposely scare the hell out of someone merely because they're less intelligent.
I'm really not sure how to respond to this, except to say that I believe thinking like this created the concept of Politically Correct speech. You need to ask yourself if this woman had a reasonable reaction. It's safe to assume that Toyota doesn't think they can sell cars by scaring the hell out of people.
(3) Many tens of thousands of people - mostly women - are stalked each year in this great nation, and a portion of them murdered by their stalkers. So a campaign like this odds are will reach some of them, who already know that stalking threats are real, have already been stalked, and just like a veteran hearing a backfire and finding himself back in battle, can easily be returned to the real psychological state - even by an instance they intellectually know is fake.
I understand what you're saying, but would it not be a more reasonable to contact law enforcement and seek protection, then sue? Her lawyer wouldn't say if she had or not, but I'm confident if she had actually called the cops then she'd be suing them, too.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Probably a fake woman.
Exception Duck - may or may not contain chicken.
I highly recommend the Versa if you're looking for cheap and fuel efficient. The EPA estimate is 31mpg, I get around 39mpg with a 50 mile commute to and from work. I got the 2009 base model ($9990) which is manual, no AC and no radio. I live in Phoenix so yes, I considered the AC thing. Installing a radio yourself is cheaper than having the factory do it. With only three months of unbearable heat I just drove in the mornings and evenings with the window down. It's only during the day that it really sucks to drive. The rest of the year I can drive all day long and not miss AC.
I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure the significantly improved MPG is due to not having to power a compressor for the AC. It's certainly not because of my driving style.
Work Safe Porn
I assume this kitten is the winner? Or am I old and not up on the new shock sites?
*disclaimer: I haven't tested the link, being at work and all. I have no idea if it still works.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Many people like their coffee piping hot. McDonalds was trying to satisfy their custmers. Some don't like it, some do. Just because there were people complaining about it does not make it wrong.
This is nuts. Have you tried to drink 190 degree (F) coffee? Given that, as the GP pointed out, coffee this temperature causes 3rd degree burns in seconds, I doubt you, or anyone else, would enjoy the experience. Rather, McDonalds was finding that it was simply easier to make coffee at this temperature than at a safe temperature, putting their customers at risk to make a few extra cents per cup.
I also don't see how you can claim that the woman somehow assumed the risk by buying McDonalds coffee. Even if, as you idly speculate, she was a frequent purchaser of their coffee, she probably would not have known that it would cause extremely serious burns if she spilled it on herself.
caritj.org
Your opt-in is written after the main text. So I hasn't seen and comprehended it until after I read your post. I'll see you in the machete pit for writing an incomprehensible (before the fact) opt-in.
700 complaints over a decade (wherein BILLIONS of cups were sold) leading to a lower incidence rate than being struck by lightning.
http://overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebeck-and-the-mcdonalds-coffee-case/
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.
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.
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.
Maybe you need to come up with a better example of a lack of "common sense" in US courts, and why such a concept should be a factor in determining the merits of a case.
I don't care why you're posting AC
So it's ok to frighten and harass people, as long as they're imbeciles?
What is the money amount going to punish? They just calculate it into marketing budget.
Exactly. And next time they sit in the conference room discussing a new ad campaign, someone will note "let's not do Option B - last time it cost us $10 mil more than we expected. Options A and C will be much cheaper."
And by the way - the coffee wasn't just hot. It was exceptionally hot; scalding hot. During the court case it was noted that coffee served at home is usually 135 - 140 degrees. McDonald's required it's coffee to be maintained at 185 degrees plus or minus 5 degrees.
That's the proper temperature for hot coffee! Check this out:
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71
The victim suffered 3rd degree burns - from coffee. Burns that are unlikely to come from coffee even at 155 degrees. In addition, McDonald's was aware of the safety involved with their policy and had been aware of it for 10 years with over 700 reports of injuries (including other cases of 3rd degree burns). This wasn't a simple case of getting rich with a frivolous lawsuit - it was clear negligence on McDonald's part. Investigations after the verdict showed local area McDonald's serving coffee at a much safer 158 degrees. Clearly the punitive damages worked.
Yeah, great, now it's harder to get a good cup of hot coffee served AT THE PROPER TEMPERATURE.
Because stories about a legal system run amok play better to target news audiences than stories about the legal systems working.
after hearing about the women who drop hot coffee on herself and sued McDonalds because they didnt warn *coffee* was *hot*
You heard wrong, that never happened.
Given the troll mod, I'm sure you don't care about 'facts' and little annoyances like that thou, so I won't bore you.
There was no issues in the court case about labels.
She had boiling coffee handed to her in a cup with no lid. People want their coffee hot, not beyond boiling.
She asked for reembursement for her medical bills, something like $160k, with zero dollars left over for her to keep (IE the money was to go straight from mcdonalds to the hospital billing department, not through her hands)
McDonalds was being a dick about everything, and as punishment the JUDGE said they now must pay millions to her.
I'm sure she wasn't going to complain (I wouldn't) but its not like she ASKED for millions, let alone demanded or sued for it.
That poor lady keeps getting blamed for doing things she never once did... a judge did.
If you have an issue with a judge hearing the lady ask for medical bill payment, and the judge said "Oh no, you get your medical bills, plus a few million in profits from it", that is the judges fault. Go blame him.
Doesn't this violate the Myspace Terms of Service? Like in the Lori Drew ruling? Is Toyota guilty of hacking?
is there a particular reason this was a reply to my comment?
Here's a radical question: do you have any idea if this is true?
You have a point, I should have left out the part "want to get rich". There are plenty of lazy rich people suing corporations, and probably even more than poor people, simply because the rich can afford the lawyers.
This is my sig.
me@slashdot> slashdot --gamemode
slashgame: YOUR ARE IN A ROOM
slashgame: LOOK NORTH
slashgame: YOU SEE AN ANONYMOUS COWARD
slashgame: HE HAS A KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COWARD THROWS THE KAFKA-GRENADE AT YOU
slashgame: CATCH KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: YOU CATCH THE KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: PULL PIN FROM KAFKA-GRENADE
slashgame: THROW KAFKA-GRENADE AT ANONYMOUS COWARD
slashgame: KAFKA-GRENADE EXPLODES ON ANONYMOUS COWARD
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COWARD TURNS INTO ANONYMOUS COCKROACH
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COCKROACH SCREAMS IN FEAR ABOUT RAID IN COMPUTER
slashgame: MOTHER OF ANONYMOUS COCKROACH SCREAMS FROM OTHER SIDE OF BEDROOM DOOR "ARE YOU WATCHING GAY PORNO AGAIN?"
slashgame: MOM ENTERS BASEMENT BEDROOM
slashgame: MOM SEES ANONYMOUS COCKROACH
slashgame: MOM REMOVES SHOE WITH SOLE OF MATERNAL INSTINCT
slashgame: MOM INSTINCTIVELY CRUSHES ANONYMOUS COCKROACH WITH SOLE OF MATERNAL INSTINCT
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COCKROACH DOES FINAL SWIRLY AROUND THE RIM AS MOM GIVE HIS REMAINS "BURIAL AT SEA"
slashgame: ANONYMOUS COWARD -- 1784 KARMA, WILL RESPAWN A FLOATER IN TIDY-BOWL COMMERCIAL
slashgame: YOU HAVE EARNED 1 BONUS SCROLL OF GUMMY-BEAR
slashgame: EXIT
me@slashdot >
I thought the reason we have safety standards in many industries is due to insurance companies demanding these things?
Where were the health insurance companies trying to recoup their losses in these cases?
Maybe there would be no need for health insurance reform if the insurance companies pursued the interests of their clients more proactively.
"We have clients who are addicted to cigarettes, we know they'll have more health problems because of it, let's take the tobacco companies to court: collectively, with other insurance companies."
Yeah, great, now it's harder to get a good cup of hot coffee served AT THE PROPER TEMPERATURE.
Yes, I'm sure you're going to McDonald's for that quality cup of coffee. Especially that coffee that's served immediately or within 15 minutes just like your supplied link notes.
There are a lot of culinary practices that are far too hazardous for restaurants to follow. They lead to better tasting food. But you're not going to find it done at McDonald's.
You need to make up your mind. Either the coffee was so hot that you can't even drink, in which case the woman WOULD have know that it could cause burns. OR the temperature cools down quite quickly (which is why some of us want the coffee REALLY hot) and the woman bought the coffee from McDonalds specifically for that reason. Either case, she should have know better. Now she just makes them make lukewarm coffee like everyone else. What about those of us who want them hot? We are adults, I can take care of myself.
More like... "I'm coming to get you... Unless you get your ass down to your local Toyota dealership and buy a new Toyota Matrix. I better see a Matrix parked in front of your house within the next 5 days, or else! " ...
Seriously though, how exactly do they advertise Toyota (and in a positive way at that), with an advertising campaign designed like this one?
When your "viral marketing" campaign is indistinguishable from criminal harassment, perhaps it is not a very good marketing campaign!
Of course one must consider the possibility that this woman's complaint is itself a planned part of the campaign, in which case congratulations slashdot on giving Toyota free press.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Because ill-informed rage is so much easier. Is it not "common sense" to read a bit about something before you criticise it eh gp?
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Inaction (not unchecking a box) is not informed consent. Informed consent requires action, not inaction.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The article states that her lawyer (who provided a lot of details about what she DID do in response to being allegedly threatened) refused to state whether she called the police or not.
You can draw your own conclusion from that one, unless there will be a separate forthcoming $100 million lawsuit based on a conversation exactly as you describe. :)
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
It's no more misleading than Toyota sending someone "advertising" that resembles a stalker ...
... and that's the whole point. This thing (overly-aggressive publicity) was in really bad taste, and its' spreading.
I used to believe that the only thing worse than bad publicity was no publicity. Seeing a pop-up that said "Stalking your ex? Why not try something different .." for Yoplait yogourt change dmy mind. The retards are running the zoo, and they definitely have more money than brains.
You're citing commondreams.org? Dude, put the bong down.
Go check the Wikipedia cite for this: There was a similar suit against Bunn-O-Matic, in which the judge noted that
the National Coffee Association's standards for brewing coffee have it brewed between 195 and 205 and held at 180-185.
The gaijin method for making tea involves heating the water to 212 degrees.
190 degrees may be too hot, but by 5-10 degrees, not 60!
Further to this, hopefully the arsehole marketer who came up with the idea loses a job
Saatchi & Saatchi told the marketing magazine OMMA last year that it had developed the campaign to target men under 35 who hate advertising.
Hey, thanks. So, Mr. Marketing Genius Man [not you, parent], why exactly is it that you think that there are people out there who hate advertising or marketers in general? Maybe because of stupid ideas like this?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Why sit cowering in your home for FIVE DAYS then claim you were unable to live your life for MONTHS, when a quick three-digit phone call ("911", in case anyone has forgotten the number) would have started an investigation that would have rapidly debunked it in a hurry?
Three reasons:
1. The law of averages. If you email credible threats to enough people (and when I say credible, I mean to say that since her "friends" colluded with Toyota, that's what made the threats credible to her, I don't mean to say that those threats would have necessarily been credible to the police), so let's say if you email credible threats to two or three thousand people, you are bound to hit a few disturbed individuals (or if not disturbed yet, just at the brink). Plus, I should also say that since those targets were not chosen at random, they were chosen by their so-called "friends", so it would make sense that some of those "friends" would pick the most paranoid and the most emotionally immature persons they know. When it comes to annoyingly paranoid and emotionally immature people, I believe that many of us have the capacity to prey on that weakness and give those types of people a very hard time (that's what some call bullying, notice that strong people and/or emotionally mature people rarely get bullied themselves. I'm not saying that it never happens, just that it rarely does).
2. I don't believe you know 911 very well. 911 is for *immediate* life-threatening emergencies only (at least, in California it is). I've called 911 myself (from my landline) to report a drunk driver that had hit several cars and had driven away just as recklessly (that was before CHP had those signs on the freeway that now tell us to do just that), but at the time, the 911 operator told me very rudely that this wasn't a life-threatening emergency, to call the police instead on their regular line, and to hang up the phone right now! Also, you said "hardened and probably ARMED criminal", good luck saying that to the 911 operator: "W: He's probably armed.", "911: Probably!!? Is he? Or isn't he *ARMED*?", "W: Well, he's probably armed. I haven't seen a weapon yet.", "911: Where is the suspect right now?", "I don't really know. Last time he contacted me, he said he was in Florida, but he said he's coming over. If he's prompt, he's due any minute now. If the guy is a flake, I can't really know for sure."
3. And last but not least, city police departments are not all funded equally. When I lived in Oakland, and there was a trespasser in my backyard, the police didn't (or couldn't) come. And when I made the same call when I lived in Alameda, the police came absolutely right away, and in full force. I should also say, that in places like in Berkeley or Alameda, the police usually swarms suspects just like they do on TV. In Oakland, I've witnessed several instances of cops fighting suspects with their battons, losing to them, and the suspects successfully running away, because in all these cases, the cop was alone, and he was against one or more suspects (and also the city cops in Oakland are instructed not to use their use their guns unless their lives are absolutely in danger). And it doesn't stop there, in cities like San Francisco and Oakland, the police will purposefully downplay any crimes that are committed against you, and they'll do everything they can to dissuade you from even filing a police report or starting a formal investigation (because if it gets reported, it goes in their statistics, and if it goes in their statistics, it makes their city look bad). So if you live in a city like that, and have any experience with the police, you come to learn that you can't really depend on the police, especially for something as trivial such as threats made over email -- made by an unknown person (who's not even in their jurisdiction yet according to his own emails/mailed hotel invoices).
It's even simpler - their research showed that people equated "hotter coffee == better coffee", so they could sell crappier coffee for more profit, and people wouldn't notice that it wasn't fresh.
"This coffee tastes like mud!"
"It should. It was fresh ground this morning."
1. Well below average intelligence
2. Unable to communicate in a coherent fashion(no ability to elaborate on a point except to repeat it verbatim but louder)
3. Blissfully unaware of points 2. and 3.
4. Create weird recursive lists when trying to explain the failure of other people to communicate coherently.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
Except if it was so terrifying, why did she do everything but call the police, who have the powers to actually investigate things like this and would have probably figured out in about 5 minutes who sent the emails?
I had it happen to me once, for real threats though (at least they were really being made, not that they came to pass). He said when he was going to come over, which should have made it obvious to me that he didn't intend to follow through, but I was young and stupid. I didn't call the police. I just invited a couple friends over. I figured if he wanted to come get his ass beat it would be an entertaining evening all 'round, except for him.
Now, my reason is obviously not hers (and I'm a vastly different person now), but claiming to understand how a person who feels threatened will respond shows more hubris than awareness. Maybe she was embarrassed to tell the police she was scared, maybe she got laughed at by an authority figure when she was young. Or maybe she didn't want to waste their time with something so inconsequential, maybe she had an authority figure scold her for wasting their time.
Or maybe she's a dissocial opportunistic asshat. But you don't know that based exclusively on the fact that she did not call the police. Why don't abused women call the police?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Anyone else feel we're not getting the whole story here? Descriptions of emails and events -- but I saw nothing that sounded threatening. Then there's the fact that she "made" her boyfriend sleep with a can of mace... but never called the cops. Methinks there's more here than we're hearing.
I wonder if gross stupidity is a legal defense.
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
Yes. I love how libertarians have perfect faith in torts as the only mechanism required to regulate corporate behavior, but when someone tries to do exactly that, it's all whiners and losers trying to make a buck.
This is what pisses me off when 'conservatives' start whining about 'tort reform'.
Look, you either get more regulations or you let people freely sue. One or the other, or both. I think the latter leads to disasters, but it at least is somewhat consistent.
Right now, they want to have 'tort reform' for medical stuff. Now, the reason most of those medical mistakes happen is to due to cost cutting. One less nurse to check things, one surgeon who doesn't have the time to get to know his patient, one OR cleaning crew that is doing the work of two. And someone gets the wrong pill, or a reaction to anesthesia, or an infection.
The constant and continual reduction on staff in hospitals is the cause of probably 80% of medical malpractice. (And bad doctors are the other 20%.)
Now, sane people would attempt to reduce the amount of mistakes, which would incidentally also reduce the amount of malpractice insurance. Like I said, either rules about this stuff, or the malpractice insurance industry exerting pressure because they're sick of paying out on lawsuits, would end up working in the long run.
But trying to fix that would require that medical care become slightly more costly, and as it's already on the thin line of profitability, what it would actually mean is that insurance companies can't suck as much money out of them. (At least, not without killing them, and the health insurance industry is a smart enough parasite to avoid that most of the time...although there are plenty of hospitals that it has killed.)
But the right in this county is, in fact, corporatist. They don't want to regulate companies, and they don't want to let people sue them either. They apparently don't want any constraints on their behavior at all. (And the left is about halfway there also, at least the ones who've been elected!)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
is there a particular reason this was a reply to my comment?
Yes. There are other people on this site that might actually think the things you said were true.
Perhaps it is just rage for all the times I get blamed for things I don't do, but I can relate to this poor woman, even if I've never been falsely blamed for things out of my control on the sheer scale she has and is.
Many people blame others for things completely out of their control. and not even possible to be stopped by them if they wanted to. We call them bigots and racists and such usually. I don't believe you are a bigot, but you do have some misinformation.
I am sorry it came across as angry, as unfortunately that is because I am angry, just not at you personally.
Here, this might help show some ratio. The bold parts are not true:
The way you normally hear this story is all about the labels. Some lady didn't know that coffee is hot[1], and she sued McDonald's for not putting a little "caution: hot!" label on it.[2] Now they do, and that solves that. But the fact that it was really about the coffee being too hot, and the solution involved not just a label, but an actual reduction in temperature[3] makes this seem a lot more reasonable.
(Oh, and I excluded your one line of opinion from the end.)
[1] false. she knew it was hot. in fact she ordered it hot. unfortunately for her, it came at a temperature so far above hot that 'hot' would have been down right chilly compared to it. We call it 'boiling', of which 'hot' is just a small subset of.
[2] also false. she sued because the boiling water she got instead of hot water, melted her skin, flesh, tissue, and muscles off of her body. it had nothing to do with labeling, that too was all on the judge for demanding.
[3] false, not of that happening, but that it was her solution. Warning labels, nor reduction in temperature, did not in any way aid her in reaching her goal or solution which was to have McDonalds pay the hospital bill for handing her a cup of boiling water instead of the hot coffee she ordered.
Erm, are you retarded or something?
A lot of people are, in fact, randomly stalked, unless by 'a link' you mean 'happened to walk by their stalker one day on the street'.
Maybe they possibly talked to their stalker once while ordering coffee or something. Most of stalking victims would not even classify their stalker as an 'acquaintance'.
If you think all stalking victims know their stalker, or have any sort of 'link', you are very very mistaken.
Now, there is the 'bad breakup' stalkers, and other 'rejected' stalkers, who used to be close to their victim but are not anymore, but they're in the minority.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Because the world is full of people who are willing to risk going to trial in exchange for $0. Simply banning lawsuits would have a quite similar effect.
I wasn't disputing that.
I mean, she probably didn't uncheck the box. How often do you see a pre-checked checkbox on a paper form? Right, on those junk mail order forms:
[x] YES! Send me my FREE gift with my order*!
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Right... but all of that is contingent upon the first sentence:
The way you normally hear this story is all about the labels.
The point is that the normal story is not the true story, and that once you hear the full story, it
seems a lot more reasonable.
Make sense?
That depends. I am currently getting a steady stream of 'updates' about a particular organism that is also supposedly out there trying to get me. The authors of this communication are undoubtedly attempting to use fear to get the desired response out of me.
However, updates about the H1N1 virus are not direct threats against your person. In fact, updates about the H1N1 virus could easily be interpreted as a protection mechanism to keep you safe from the H1N1 virus. At the very least, you could argue that the updates are from an entity that has absolutely no relationship -- other than reporting status -- with the entity that is "out to get [you]" The same cannot be said of Toyota and this woman.
Stalking or Flu awareness? Depends on the intent, I'd say, not the fear.
Yeah, pretty much.
If I'm wrong, then we'd better put a stop to this whole 'Terror Level Brown' thing, too. Because that's all about inducing behavior through fear as well.
I've got to agree with you there. I'd say there is also a component of signal-to-noise as well -- if we are always living in a state of fear, then how will we know the difference when there really is something to fear? But that's a different argument for a different thread. </offtopic>
Since Toyota clearly never intended for someone to actually come within a reasonable distance of anyone, the 'stalking' was as fake as the person.
I think you'd have a hard time getting that argument to fly with a judge. Warning: something remarkably similar -- but yet entirely removed from, since IANAL -- to legal opinion ahead. If that argument were to have legal standing, then every stalker in the country could get off the hook by simply arguing that they never actually intended to harm anyone...they were merely pulling a prank for laughs.
This puts us down to basic harassment, and lets face it, advertisers have gotten away with that crime for far too long to do much about it now.
There is a world of difference between minor annoyances -- and let's face it, the occasional phone call during dinner, or even 800 spam messages in your inbox, are worlds apart from threatening phone calls -- real, or not -- at all hours of the day. Creating an environment in which a reasonable person would be in fear for their safety is a far, far cry from the "basic harassment" that we expect from advertisers.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Or what component of it makes it that way?
Flu inoculation advertisements are a warning and an offer to help. "Hey, there is a deadly threat that you should be aware of. I have a product that can help minimize that threat." In Toyota's "marketing campaign", they were directly threatening this woman -- even if they really had no intention of causing any actual harm. A more appropriate analogy would be, "Hey, I've got a product that will make you immune to H1N1. If you don't buy it from me, I'll deliberately infect you with the virus."
Got it now?
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
When police were contacted they said "Sorry, can't do anything, the threats are online". Nothing happened.
I bet that they probably would be singing an entirely different song if the threats were against a prominent political figure -- say the president -- rather than Joe Schmoe.
Anyway...Having married a former police dispatcher, I can tell you that the response you get from the police department can vary greatly depending upon whom you talk to. Some dispatchers won't even forward the call to an officer if they don't think it's important; another dispatcher might. Some officers might give you the brush-off; others might at least talk with the other party. In any case, I would think -- not being employed in the legal industry -- that the proper way to handle someone making stupid threats on a web forum would be to contact a judge to get a Cease & Desist letter.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
So it's ok to frighten and harass people, as long as they're imbeciles?
Not only is it OK... it should be mandatory!
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Oh cool a McDonald's coffee argument.
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.
A temperature which apparently the vast majority of McD coffee drinkers apparently liked or did not mind.
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.
How many people were not burned? How many were burned by Starbucks? I've been burned twice this year, losing taste sensation for a whole hour.
Certain things in life are dangerous, hot coffee being one of them. Being the victim of an accident does not entitle you to a payout. Enjoy your coffee cold when you get to work, courtesy of our tort system.
You could say that Toyota doesn't always have the best... Handling...
You can sent them email at:
http://toyota.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/toyota.cfg/php/enduser/ask_intercept.php
You might want to tell them that you are opting out of any of their marketing campaigns.
What were they thinking?
RLH
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 $11,000 of medical bills. Hmmm.
Maybe Mcdonalds wouldn't need warning signs if documents obtained from Mcdonalds didn't establish that more than 700 people were burned to various degrees by Mcdonalds coffee between 1982 - 1992.
The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever.
Please explain how one burn per 24,000,000 cups is 'unreasonable dangerous'.
Maybe you need to come up with a better example of a lack of "common sense" in US courts
'Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants' does fine, thank you.
Test Harness:
function testRant($_EVIL_RANT) {
if($_EVIL_RANT) echo "Rant is Evil";
else echo "No evil Here";
}
>testRant("true");
Rant is Evil
>testRant("false");
Rant is Evil
Rats. There appears to be a bug. First to find it gets to sue someone.
Ok, now it makes sense. And now I feel stupid.
That didn't come across as wrapped in that way at first, but like one of those illusions that pops out when someone traces the image with a finger, I can't believe myself for not seeing it.
So, we were both making the same point. I was just facing the wrong direction while making it or something ;P
My apologies for the pointless rant.
Now she just makes them make lukewarm coffee like everyone else.
What is it about "causes 3rd degree burns within seconds" that you don't understand? There is a LOT of room between 190-degree-put-you-in-the-hospital hot and lukewarm.
You need to make up your mind.
Um, no. My point is that coffee can be dangerously hot (so hot you can't drink it) AND that you might not know how dengerous it is until it spills in your lap.
What about those of us who want them hot?
I'm still waiting for your explanation of why anyone would want coffee so hot that contact with it will put them in the hospital. I'm all for a hot cup of coffee, but I think 190 degrees is taking this a bit too far.
And it's not as though coffee never spills. McDonalds knew their coffee was dangerous, and they knew that it was likely to spill from time to time. They could have avoided the danger easily, but instead they opted not to to make a few extra cents.
caritj.org
no hard feelings. i was a bit confused too. glad we're all facing the same direction now.
... Further, all the good lawyers would be on salary or retainer for large companies; few would be willing to work for a chance to get paid a reasonable hourly rate.
Actually, this sounds like a great idea to me. They get "rewarded" if the client wins the case, usually in the form of a percentage of the take, er... award. But what's the penalty for failure? All we're doing is encouraging the lousy lawyers to take as many cases as possible at someone else's expense, and then allow them to flake if they decide they can't win, or the award won't be high enough. I say, if you don't win the case, they don't get diddly. In fact, they get to pay the other side's legal fees. Either work for hire at an hourly rate, or choose the battles you really really think you can win and go for the higher payoff.
Is this the ad she got fooled by?
http://joshmoles.com/2008/04/06/toyota-prank-results/
If so, she got an email and agreed to get more emails and is probably so stupid she doesn't remember it.... I'd pretend to be stupid for 10 MILLION DOLLARS!
I think the point is that it's impossible to avoid frightening imbeciles. What matters what a reasonable or average person would think of these e-mails. Not what a paranoid schizophrenic thinks of them.
What astounds me is how terrible Toyota is at "stalking." Seriously, an email saying "Hey Amanda Old Friend, I need to crash at your place while this crap blows over" is a pretty pathetic attempt at threatening someone with bodily harm. I had much scarier responses to "roommate wanted" ads in college.
Those who are blissfully unaware that the list is recursive are doomed to repeat it.
I'd argue that in most states, a 911 operator would think a drunk driver out on the road IS a life-threatening emergency. Here in Illinois, a downed power line across a non-busy road in a thunderstorm is important enough for them to be civil. Even if you don't see someone dumb enough to step on the wire doesn't mean it's not life threatening.
And groups that work with burn victims have urged the restaurant industry to serve coffee at a lower temperature, especially to customers who are in vehicles are are unable to stand up and brush spilled coffee off of themselves. The reason the victim in the McDonalds case was burned so severely is the coffee soaked in to her clothes and pooled in her seat.
You're right, she was responsible for spilling the coffee, and shares the blame for her injuries. But the spill was not the main cause of her injuries; the temperature of the coffee was. That's why the jury found she was 20% responsible for the burns she suffered to her thighs, buttocks, and groin.
I've often been served food in restaurants on plates that were hot enough to cause severe burns, and never has the server failed to warn me. It's a courtesy, as well as a moral and legal obligation to warn a customer of an unexpected hazard with your product. And sitting at a table is very different than being belted in to a car seat and unable to remove the hot coffee after the spill.
The jury felt the warning on the McDonalds cup was neither large enough nor sufficient to warn of the potential danger, and that's why they found in her favour.
I don't care why you're posting AC
In the world of PR, perception > reality.
Maybe, but terrifying sure is.
Disagree.
Now it is impossible to tell whether she really was "terrified" or not as the sole purpose of the "lottery" (court case) is to win money.
So the justice will not be served - it cannot be served.
However, if the penalty were just (say, 10'000) she would much less likely sue just for the money.
1) most of the time people suing corporations are lazy people that want to get rich
In my case, I've just been too lazy to sue corporations. This puts me squarely at the bottom of your classification I take it. You must really despise me right now.
I feel there is a much larger, larger issue at hand that needs to be brought up. Toyota sucks.
I'm happy to live in a country where you can actually expect the police to work for you, not against you.
Allow me to sum this up with a car analogy... Oh, wait a second...
Lately I'm beginning to think toyota is the new GM. They still offer that behometh sequoia thing and the tundra? The ES350 looks about as staid as an old buick and they screwed up something as simple as floormats sticking the accelerator down. Yeah, I wanna toyota.
Yeah because having a stalker enter your home is better... The parent poster made a valid point. I'd let police rummage through my crap any day to help save my life over a potential killer.
"Yeah, you need $10 million to cover that" - Tell me then, how do you punish a company except by a fiscal penalty?
How about we take $10 million from the company, give some reasonable amount (which is definitely not $10 million) as a compensation to the victim, and put the rest to good use related to subject at hand (dunno which one that would be for this particular case, but I'm sure something can be thought of; if nothing works out, you can always throw it in some food bank or something).
From: marketing@toyota.com
Subject: I'ma get joo!
Dear subscriber,
We know where you live. We are coming with our ALL NEW TOYOTA MATRIX WITH SEATING FOR 5, FULLY LOADED, LEATHER INTERIOR to take your children away in our FIVE STAR SAFETY TESTED FAMILY SEDAN!
Don't try to run, we'll still find you with our GPS NAVIGATION SYSTEM!
Stalkingly yours,
Joe
Please click here to remove yourself from these Toyota promotional messages
And groups that work with burn victims have urged the restaurant industry to serve coffee at a lower temperature,
And market research shows customers want it HOT. ::shrug::
You're right, she was responsible for spilling the coffee, and shares the blame for her injuries.
"Shares the blame". No, she IS to blame.
But the spill was not the main cause of her injuries; the temperature of the coffee was.
If she never spills it, the temperature is irrelevant. It is the mis-handling that made it cause injury.
I've often been served food in restaurants on plates that were hot enough to cause severe burns, and never has the server failed to warn me. It's a courtesy, as well as a moral and legal obligation to warn a customer of an unexpected hazard with your product.
1) McDonalds DID have a warning on the cup.
2) Every idiot knows coffee is hot. But plates are not necessarily hot. It's a bad analogy.
And sitting at a table is very different than being belted in to a car seat and unable to remove the hot coffee after the spill.
She was in a PARKED CAR. Who the hell keeps their seatbelts on while parked? In any case, that's not McDonalds fault.
The jury felt the warning on the McDonalds cup was neither large enough nor sufficient to warn of the potential danger, and that's why they found in her favour.
No, the jury was emotionally swayed by pictures of the ...ladies... injuries. They let their feelings overrule their logic.
One Cup of Boiling hot water please!
Here you go!
OMG I spilled it on myself and it burnt me!!!! This BOILING HOT WATER that I ordered is dangerous! I'm suing you!!!!!!
If I dump boiling water on myself at home can I sue the kettle manufacturer too? Because to me it sounds like the same thing.
1. You order a product that may be dangerous if you're not careful with it.
2. You are not careful with the product
3. PROFIT
I'd say under those circumstanes, they wouldn't pay for a loss either and those who do deserve compensation would get something a bit more realistic with the remainder going to charity.
If that would still lower the number of lawsuits then I would say most lawsuits are sham and only initiated be someone to get rich. Which I think is true tbh.
I've had a quick scan through the comments and couldn't find any jokes about the Toyota Matrix using its passengers as human batteries for environmentally-friendly power... or about how the automatic traction control system gained sentience and has now started a war against mankind... or about how this lady should've taken the blue pill instead if she just wanted to live her normal boring content life...
What is Slashdot coming to... I thought it was news for nerds?
If the damages are paid in stock at market value instead of cash, the whole thing is no different than if they had simply paid cash and then the prevailing plaintiffs bought that stock. Alternatively, in practice, wouldn't the plaintiffs most likely end up selling the stock in fairly short order anyway, to get the cash?
In the end, a cash judgment still takes money away from the shareholders. The company has less money available to pay dividends or grow the business.
While we're dreaming, I'm going to go one step further.
In my ideal world advertising cannot consist of anything but verifiable facts. You can show pictures/video of your product (and only your product - no smiling people with happy/annoying music or stuff like that), you must use a neutral background and only present verifiable facts and information.
All the other crap is driving me nuts. I am convinced that the extraordinary amounts of advertising in all its weird forms is having a large impact on people, i.e. higher stress levels and/or similar.
"Yeah, you need $10 million to cover that" - Tell me then, how do you punish a company except by a fiscal penalty?
What's this got to do with the IRS ?
On the one hand, $10 million isn't something to sneeze at, even for a company with $200 billion in yearly revenue.
It's one-twenty thousandth of their revenue. It would be the equivalent of a person earning $40,000 per year getting penalized two dollars. So while it's not a trivial amount in itself, it's not exactly a painful price to pay. Mind you, that's not to say I think she should ask for more; other recipients may choose to attack 'em, which would run the costs up to a noticeable hit. Also, while I think the emails were way out of line, they weren't unimaginably evil--IMO they were just a very stupid misjudgment. Nobody should get nailed to the wall, although one hopes the marketeer that approved the campaign will get a nasty lecture.
That $10 million represents a lot of lower level employee's worth of salary which might lead to lots of average Joes getting layed off (face it, it won't be the execs. that feel the hurt).
Nobody'd get (ahem) laid off from the sting of the bill; Toyota has more than $30B cash in hand.
Maybe, but terrifying sure is. Victims of stalking find that they are incapable of doing day-to-day things. The lady had a legitimate fear, she told her friends, then she later was ridiculed for those fears. This is all the fault of Toyota.
I for one hope that she wins the whole $10 million. Maybe only that way will dumb-ass marketers start *thinking* about what they do!
How is terrifying worth $10 million? Even if she is too scared to work a single day for the rest of her life, she wouldn't have lost that much money. Or even half of it.
If she's around 30 years old (with around 35 years left to work) and earns about $6k a month (sounds reasonable to me, I have no idea how much you make in the US), that equals around $2.5 million. No way in hell is whatever terror she suffered during those two months worth three times the wage she's going to earn for the rest of her life.
I've never understood how the "damages" you can sue for in the US doesn't have to reflect the real damages you suffer in any way.
The woman in the famous coffee case wasn't just burned. Her vagina was scalded off. Gone. She had to have several skin grafts over several years before she could control her urination.
Also, as you state, the coffee should be hot enough in the pot so that it cools down to about 140 when poured. The problem with McDonalds coffee at that particular location was that it was still brewing temperature after being poured.
And, just for the record, you're quoting a judge from a different case, one that was reviewed by the judge who ruled in the McDonalds case and found to be irrelevant.
It's like you're doing freelance astroturfing for McDonalds or something.
lawyers who take this cases typically don't get anything if they lose, and if the judge thinks a case is frivolous, they can order the other side's legal fees to be paid, but in no way should this be assessed to loser of a legitimate case.
The campaign of the corporate controlled media to make people sympathetic with the idea of protecting corporations for accountability has been tragically successful.
Play Command HQ online
flamebait? really?
I'm willing to bet $10 million that no one is going to get laid off over this.
When a company starts to have unexpected costs here and there, 10 million at a time, it adds up to real money after a while and can end up having some real life consequences.
Then before you know it, some exec will run a PowerPoint presentation going "Well, last year we had to pay out 65 millions to various litigious annoying people, but if we close this plant here and relocate it to this Chinese work camp, our profit will still be up by 13.8% which is above predictions for the sector. So I suggest we all give ourselves a raise".
Remember, you read it here first.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
I'd frankly *love* seeing her win over ambiguities in the opt-in framework, i.e. no email tag line offering an opt back out link. I don't think her suffering is necessarily worth $10M, but punitive damages could easily go higher, given Toyota's finances.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
You can shoot the stalker, you most likely won't be able to shoot the police without someone noticing.
Stupid is as stupid dies.
I have always disliked getting coffee in a styrofoam cup that is way too hot to drink. I always drink my coffee black, so nothing is added to cool it down. The styrofoam cups at fast food places keep the coffee way too hot, much longer than a ceramic coffee cup would have. If the coffee at an ordinary restaurant is too hot, it will quickly cool off somewhat in the ceramic cup and saucer they use.
I do not like having to sit around, for a few minutes, waiting for the coffee to cool down before I can drink it. After several minutes, I usually get impatient and start cautiously trying to sip the still way too hot coffee. The next day, I have usually discovered that my tongue was sore from having been burned by the super hot coffee. After a couple of days, the soreness of portions of my tongue and roof of my mouth, goes away.
Usually, the way too hot coffee from fast food places smells disgusting. Instead of having that wonderful rich coffee aroma, it usually has that strong disgusting overcooked, burnt smell, typical of coffee made several hours ago, but constantly kept hot for several hours. When I finally get around to cautiously taking my first sip, I usually discover that it tastes even worse than it smells, so I throw it away. People who use cream or sugar, might have possibly have been able to make it taste minimally acceptable.
If fast food place can not provide fresh good smelling and good tasting coffee, I wish they would just not even offer it on the menu.
Well, if I ever want to stalk someone for real I will send them some survey or something with a link to an obscure terms and conditions document where they "opt in". Nobody can complain then.
Sadly the 'death threat' I received via email wasn't some kind of advertisement and merely an attempt to scam me out of money:
Oddly enough that email cheered me up when I received it.
I've actually found out details of what the campaign involved.
It is designed as a prank to pull on someone else. What happens is you gave the email of someone you want to prank and it sent them a fake personality where they'd fill out their personal details and give consent to receive further emails.
You were then sent a schedule (or one was presented before you agreed to prank them) of exactly what they would receive.
This is not nearly as sinister as the money grabbing woman filing the lawsuit made out to be. Not only does it require someone you know to initially set up the prank, it describes the nature of the prank to whoever sets it up and, through the fake survey, it ensures that you have to actively take action for it to start and you are unlikely to be targetted by strangers.
If you sue anyone, sue the friend who not only started the prank, but didn't tell you about it when you were apparently being so traumatised.
Are you mad? 50C coffee is barely lukewarm and is disgusting to drink. Just as the wiki page says true coffee lovers drink it immediatly at 90C+.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
People like you is the reason why your country is sliding towards idiocracy. Don't eat the Ipod Shuffle (c), indeed.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Considering that McDonalds' own witness explained that it was to stop customers from using the refill option, I'm not sure "liked it or did not mind" is descriptive.
If a customer doesn't even want an extra they already paid for, you're doing something wrong.
Brewing coffee at a high temperature is different that drinking it at that temperature. When I make coffee at home, I pour it into a ceramic coffee cup and the thermal mass of coffee cup, quickly absorbs just the right amount of heat. That is not true of a styrofoam cup which has very little thermal mass to initially absorb the excess heat. To make things worse the styrofoam is a very good insulator. Most people at home or in ordinary restaurants drink their coffee from ceramic coffee cups which quickly reduce the coffee to less than scalding hot. The combination of extra hot coffee and styrofoam cups, is what is so bad.
If someone drinks their coffee black like me, there is no cream or milk or other ingredients added to dilute the heat. Scalding hot coffee in a styrofoam cup, remains too hot to drink for many minutes afterwards.
I do not enjoy struggling to sip scalding hot coffee which burns my tongue. I also do not like having sore burned spots on my tongue and on the roof of my mouth, for the next couple of days. That sometimes happens, if I am not careful, even with coffee that is only slightly too hot.
Coffee does need to be hot to taste good, but I have never noticed any improved taste from it being scalding hot. My personal experience is not consistent, with what your source says. Good fresh brewed coffee only needs to be hot, not scalding hot.
Coffee only tastes good if is has been freshly brewed, not too long before serving it. The scalding hot coffee that I have had at fast food places, frequently is that terrible smelling and terrible tasting, overcooked old coffee. It sometimes smells like it has been cooked several hours earlier and kept very hot all that time. Instead of that wonderful, rich fresh fresh brewed natural coffee bean smell, it frequently has that sickeningly overpowering, disgusting strong burnt smell and taste.
Good water is also important for good coffee. Where I live, the water tastes good, but bad tasting water can make bad tasting coffee. People such as myself who drink their coffee black, probably notice the actual taste of the coffee much more than people who add milk and sugar.
They (used to) sell coffee at the exact same temperature as every other coffee outlet. Thankfully the other coffee places didn't cave in and start selling luke warm coffee out of fear. Coffee is hot.. it is scalding hot. That's the way it is served.
America is full of god damn pussies who can't handle the slight possibility that they might get hurt or have to take responsibility for their own clumsiness.
Oh, and most of you retards wouldn't know good coffee if it was spilt on your groin.
How we know is more important than what we know.
P.S., Upon re-reading, fredklein's post, I see that I misunderstood part of what his source said. I somehow missed the part where he did mention the cooling effect of the cup, and that being why they suggest the coffee starting out so hot. However, fast food places usually use styrofoam cups, which have very little thermal mass and are good insulators. So, I do not see that quote as being relevant to how things are typically done at fast food places. If anything, the lack of thermal mass in their cups, should be a reason for not keeping the coffee so hot.
Sorry, about not reading what you said carefully enough.
The scalding hot coffee that I have sometimes been served at fast food places, has sometimes been much hotter that what I end up with in a coffee cup at home, or in an ordinary restaurant.
Totally agreed.
Giving it to the person complaining just seems wrong, and makes the US legal system look like a joke. They should get whatever expenses they incurred * 2. The rest goes to a charity that will help many people, not just one.
It would make the accuser look less greedy too.
This possibly the stupidest advertising campaign I have ever heard of. How does this build confidence in the Toyota brand? How does this treat the customer in a respectful manner? How does this make people buy Toyota Matrix cars? The very unprofessional and careless people responsible for this at Saatchi & Saatchi and the people at Toyota who signed the approval should be fired immediately. Yes, this woman was probably not really in real distress, but maybe she should have the money just to make sure this kind of advertising never happens again. Unless, of course, further evidence reveals that it was clearly stated, or plainly understood from the very beginning, that this campaign was a joke.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
And just how do they manage that without scalding themselves? Water has a high heat capacity, of 4.19 kJ/kg... or J/g. which means if you take a 10ml sip of coffee, you're dealing with ~41.9 joules of heat (per degree above body temperature) that you need to dissipate. If body temperature is assumed to be 37, then that leaves 53*41.9, or 2.22 kilojoules of heat you need to dissipate in the relatively small surface area of contact. That's gonna hurt, if not scald, so I highly doubt that's true.
Evolution - Est. 4500000000 B.C. Don't piss in the gene pool.
Without motivating litigants and lawyers with potential rewards, the powerful would be much freer to abuse the weak.
If I had mod points, I would mod you up.
Sorry, the court case, which heard all the details, found her 20% to blame. So your opinion is just irrelevant and invalid. You can't just say ""Shares the blame". No, she IS to blame." as if you're some higher force of knowledge and wisdom.
McDonalds sold a product for consumption within a car that was horrendously unsafe for said scenario by being too hot for that scenario. The situation could have also been changed by having a cap that reduces spillages (and contains aromas as a side-benefit), and a sturdier container that didn't deform under mild pressure. There is an argument that they couldn't have anticipated this situation, but they had 700 accidents recorded over ten years, so ...
1) The government running a company, incidentally, is not without precedent, especially during bankruptcy. The federal government does assume caretaker responsibility of some business, the most famous example being when it found itself running a brothel in Nevada for about a year.
Government pussies.
Plug in the kitten to the power outlet, it might react ;)
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Whether she should or should not get money is up to the courts, of course.
Fictitious scenario:
- person A opts-in to "prank" campaign and provides e-mail address of person B
- person B receives an e-mail from person A telling them of a survey
- person B completes the survey based on a trust-relationship with person A (otherwise, they'd probably just delete the e-mail)
Questions:
If the survey page was overtly deceptive as to it's intent (e.g. a "personality" survey for a car advertisement campaign), is it at all reasonable to assume that person B will become a FOCUSED target of an advertisement campaign? Furthermore, has person B provided informed consent - that is, did this person have full knowledge of the intended use of her personal information (e-mail address and any other information that may have been provided)?
The final question is: who is responsible? In my mind it's person A, the "friend" in the original story, because this person provided full informed consent AND was the reason that person B became involved at all. Without their direct action, person B would not have been involved.
Then again, seeing Ford+Advertising Company on the hook for a stupid marketing campaign wouldn't be terrible either.
Just my 2 cents.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
It's scalding hot so that the process of serving it means it is the right temperature when it is drunk. This includes factors like a MUG that absorbs some of the heat to get the coffee down to drinking temperature.
When it is still scalding hot at drinking time due to using insulating polystyrene cups amongst other factors such as McDonalds keeping the coffee too hot after brewing it, there's a problem.
I take you want your genitals scalded off by a minor accident caused by an everyday action?
In addition in normal coffee outsets people take the coffee and sit at a table. In a McDonalds there is a reasonable expectation that the coffee will be taken out, as it was in this case:
"ordered a 49 cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it"
How are McDonalds not at fault here? They served scalding coffee through the DRIVE-THROUGH, expecting the customer to take the lid off to add the milk and sugar. This is going to be done in the car seat. The lid is on too tightly, increasing risk of spills. Clearly McDonalds should have served the coffee with requested milk and sugar so this couldn't happen.
Go on, do it.
All over your groin so you need two years of surgery, skin grafts on your penis, probably no sex ever again in your life.
All for a measly few hundred thousand dollars.
All because McDonalds thought that serving scalding hot coffee to people in cars (it was a drive-through) where they had to add the milk and sugar themselves (thus taking the lid off, which causes spills if you've ever done that with a coffee cup lid in such a place, it's difficult even on a steady table) was an acceptable practice.
Stop being a mouthpiece for McDonalds and accept that they were in the wrong, they were punished for it, they adjusted their working practices, and things are better now.
I can't imagine anything more terrifying than thinking that douchebag English "football hooligan" was coming to visit... even if I did know him.
--I for one hope that she wins the whole $10 million. Maybe only that way will dumb-ass marketers start *thinking* about what they do!--
Me too, but I doubt if even that would work :(
--I suspect (but do not know) that once we see the actual emails there's no way on earth anyone with an IQ above retarded would believe it was real. Have you ever seen one of these campaigns?--
I've said it before but I will say it again. 50% of the population is below average.
--Please explain how one burn per 24,000,000 cups is 'unreasonable dangerous'.--
I'm not so sure. I used to have the same attitude about it as you did. Using numbers and statistics doesn't really matter with one specific case where the coffee may have been hotter than what is normally served for some reason. I think I would read the case history. It's public record and I'm sure you can look at it, but I think there was more to that particular case than user error.
I suspect it was a cultural difference between Japan and the US that caused this to start with. Maybe what would be considered stalking here flew under the radar over there and would be consider something entirely different?
This has happened before with the multinational corps. That is for sure.
McDonalds sold a product for consumption within a car that was horrendously unsafe for said scenario by being too hot for that scenario.
THis is completely untrue. Did you miss the part where, for every idiot that burned themselves, 23,999,999 didn't?? How does one burn for every 24 million cups sold equal "horrendously unsafe"??!?
Brewing coffee at a high temperature is different that drinking it at that temperature.
Do some research. Coffee is supposed to be brewed at 200, held at 185, as per the National Coffee Association.
Using numbers and statistics doesn't really matter with one specific case where the coffee may have been hotter than what is normally served for some reason.
That particular cup was no hotter than any other cup they served.
I think I would read the case history. It's public record and I'm sure you can look at it, but I think there was more to that particular case than user error.
From WIkipedia:
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49 cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She 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.
Read that again: "She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her".
What about that isn't "user error"?
You can't just say ""Shares the blame". No, she IS to blame." as if you're some higher force of knowledge and wisdom.
Believe me, it's not just him. This was a widely talked about court case back when it happened. The vast majority of people I talked with thought it was a ridiculous case and she was to blame for the spill.
Another important case was a Domino's pizza delivery driver who got in an accident because he was hurrying to meet the 30 minute time limit. The ensuing court case caused Domino's to get rid of the 30 minute guarantee, and people were pissed.
but they had 700 accidents recorded over ten years, so ...
Which works out to something like 1 in 24,000,000... And of those 700 recorded accidents, what was the average level of severity?
If you really blame McDonalds for this out of true concern for people (and not, say, eagerness to get money from a big corporation) you'd be doing a lot more good tackling the evil bathtub manufacturers, whose products injure 43000 children each year in the US alone... and a bunch of adults too.
Your bet has been excepted signed: Toyota HR manager
Uhm, so *cough you're not getting a Toyota, then? Just checking...
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Last I heard that particular store had been cited REPEATEDLY for violations regarding their coffee. They were intentionally cranking the heat up beyond what is normally acceptable in order to squeeze an extra few pennies out of their coffee filters. They got slapped upside the head in the lawsuit because the violations they were repeatedly cited for finally caused an injury. Now...you can argue until you are blue in the face about all the other stupid details, but at the end of the day it boiled down to "We fucking told you to knock that shit off and you didn't, now we are going to slap you upside the head in the hopes you will finally get it through your thick skulls".
Also...205F is just a hair below boiling. Now...I would just love to watch you immediately drink a nice cup of boiling water to prove your point. I see that Coffee Association quote thrown out word for word all over the internet, but I have not been able to find a true source for it.
As it stands now, this case gets paraded about quite a bit as an example of why we should defend big companies from anything bad happening to them. They have made this case the poster child for their cause because of how easy it is to blame the victim. By all means, continue to perpetuate the notion that companies should be protected from shitty behavior. Maybe next time we can be discussing how a company actually sent a REAL stalker to people's homes as part of a marketing campaign. Maybe we can even discuss a homeowner shooting that stalker and then being sent to jail because they had opted in! Give these idiot assholes an inch and they will take a mile, and they will take it FAR faster than the average citizens that can't afford hordes of lawyers, lobbyists, and buying judges.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
We shouldn't break the company. What we should do is fire all corporate executives (Everyone who legally empowered to agree to contracts.), and the board of directors, cancel all stock and leave it operated by the government for a while. (1) They will run it basically as before, and also do a housecleaning to find illegal behaviors that have become ingrained in
One nice refinement is to declare the former executives (especially those who should have had oversight of the problematic area) to be not fit and proper people to be executive officers or on the board of any corporation (either temporarily or permanently, depending on case details). This kicks them out of the corporate aristocracy, and so serves as a mighty warning to others.
And it's not like it prevents them from earning a living. They can still sweep streets or clean windows.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
You said: I do not enjoy struggling to sip scalding hot coffee which burns my tongue. Then please, don't!
You left out the rest like 16% 3rd degree burns, but oh well you must be a manager at McDonald's or something?
And if you think 16% is a small number, I suggest you light a match under your finger and see how long you can hold it.
Hey, I spilled coffee like that before and yeah it burned, but not to that level. It would have to be almost boiling to do that.
Burn info here:
http://www.hmc.psu.edu/healthinfo/b/burns3.htm
Yeah, that's what the media did, took out a small snippet and left out the rest of the story.
So the real deal is this is was partly her fault and partly(mostly) McDonald's. After all elderly people are people too and should be accommodated. They chose not to design a different cup, but put up a sign. Either way the lawsuit was probably figured in as a risk worth taking. $2.7 million was a bargain for them if a better cup for elderly people cost them just 0.02 cents to produce.
That's my issue with using only numbers to solve a problem like this.
I for one am appalled that anyone even drinks that brown water that McDonalds claims is 'coffee'.
Reply to That ||
So you punish the corporate executives and the general shareholders who, without inside information, had no capability to learn that the company was violating the law? Don't they take enough of a hit when the scandal emerges?
I'm a general shareholder of a lot of companies. Most of my retirement is based on it. While I try to invest (and hence limit my potential returns) by picking companies whose public policies I support, I have no ability to execute contracts or make policy decisions at any of them, including the one I work for.
How about your death penalty focus on the executives who either had a duty to know, or can be shown to have known about the crime, and then charge and punish them directly? Then prevent someone who used a company to cause a crime from receiving any financial benefit from that company again - all stocks, deferred earnings, and pension can be siphoned into a victim's fund or donated to charity.
If that means there aren't enough executives left to run the company, then the government can temporarily fill the gap. But this way the only people convicted of a crime are those that, you know, committed or abetted it.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
If that argument were to have legal standing, then every stalker in the country could get off the hook by simply arguing that they never actually intended to harm anyone...they were merely pulling a prank for laughs.
They would need to back that up with some evidence, though, to make that into an affirmative defense. Toyota can do this, since they have friend who signed her up.
Creating an environment in which a reasonable person would be in fear for their safety is a far, far cry from the "basic harassment" that we expect from advertisers.
It doesn't seem that we agree on whether or not the 'reasonable person' standard was met.
They sold scalding coffee to customers via the drive-through kiosk. The customers then added their own milk and sugar afterwards, which required pulling off the lid - you know, those awkward lids you get on styrofoam cups of coffee.
You don't need to be Einstein to work out what would eventually happen.
They had previously paid out $500,000 for those accidents, and they hadn't done a single thing to assess how to reduce them.
Stop sucking up to big corporations and excusing them for their mistakes and lack of foresight.
So they sold 24 million cups of coffee to people in cars via the drive-through counter, as with this case? The accident wouldn't have happened if the milk and sugar was added beforehand, and all those posts here talk about how the milk and sugar addition reduces the temperature for consumption. Yet to add the milk/sugar, she had to remove the lid on the coffee, which caused the accident. It was bound to happen sooner or later. The case seems perfectly reasonable, there was no aspect of "getting rich" about it, unless you think having your genitals scalded off is an acceptable price to get for a few hundred thousand dollars.
Absolutely not...even if I give you permission to contact me by email to send me your psam for what deals you have, that does not give you the right to send me a nasty email sounding like a stalker, where you can say pretty disturbing things, all in the name of fun...? NO WAY
I hope they get their asses handed to them in court, they need to be held accountable, yet a free speech activist writing about certain stories within the world events, will be told he has to take his story down because it does not shine positively in the name of scientology (or whatever that story was...). Someone was offended by a story telling the truth about this lame brain religion trying to goat people into believing they were visited by aliens, and they get told they are responsible for what they write, yet Toyota gets permission to send you an email, says they will rape your mother and kill your children unless you buy a car, and then at the end remind
you at the end that you subscribed to this....seriously???
I wish you could mod people down for extremely painful grammatical errors.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
People like you is the reason why there is a choice between two political parties - pro big business and liberal vs pro big business and conservative. You are also the reason why corporations are considered a person and therefore have a right to privacy and free speech. And yet, they can't go to jail when they break the laws. If we are sliding toward idiocracy, it is because we are letting corporations (who have no reason for or obligation to morality, besides public outrage when they do something immoral) more and more make our decisions for us and take control of our government. If you will recall, one of the big themes of the movie was "Brawndo" which was used for everything (including watering crops). I don't think it is in the corporate best interest to have educated consumers (a fool and his money are soon parted). Keeping business small forces innovation and forces people to be better rounded in their work experience (if you work for a company of 50 people or less, they cannot specialize so much that you spend day after day doing exactly the same thing. You will be forced to take on varied responsibilities). Also, if there are many companies, there are many choices as to what product you use, which requires the consumer to educate themselves about their choices. I will stop there, though I could probably go on for pages. I will wait for your next one-line response that will add nothing to the conversation beside "No, you are wrong" without actually making any assertions as to why that may be.
3. They don't. I too used to think they did, but they just max it out with compression, and various other audio tech. This means more volume without ever needing to touch the volume knob. There is loss of quality, but I very much doubt they give a shit.
I agree with 2, but they need to cover alcohol as well.
What marketers don't seem to understand is that if you piss me off, I'm not likely to buy your product. Read the comments in this thread, it appears that stalking this woman cost Toyota a few slashdotters, but I don't see on that says this ad might get them to buy one.
Epic stupidity. With corporations all seemingly being run by complete and total idiots, is it any wonder the world's economy is in the shitter?
Free Martian Whores!
Please, accept my sincerest apologies for failing to proof-read a stupid one-liner.
Apology accepted.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
You didn't answer the question. If this was such an unsafe thing to do, why did only one person in 24,000,000 have a problem with it?
How about for abuse of the word 'grammatical'? The part of his sentence you're apparently objecting to is perfectly grammatical.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
The punitive damages were later canceled after appeals. McDonalds never had to pay them.
You left out the rest like 16% 3rd degree burns, but oh well you must be a manager at McDonald's or something?
And As I've pointed out before, the severity of the injuries is irrelevant. If I try to juggle a chainsaw and chop off my leg, that's horrible, too. But it's my fault for not handling the chainsaw correctly. Just because it's a horrible injury doesn't suddenly make it the fault of the chainsaw manufacturer.
And, NO, I don't work for McDonalds. Never have.
So the real deal is this is was partly her fault and partly(mostly) McDonald's.
I disagree. It was Stella's careless handling of the coffee that caused the spill, and the spill caused the injury. Therefore, it was her fault.
Now if (for example) the McDonalds employee failed to properly secure the lid, and it spilled and cause Stella's injuries, then I would agree it was the employees fault. (Not necessarily "McDonalds" fault, unless they failed to properly train the employee.)
Either way the lawsuit was probably figured in as a risk worth taking. $2.7 million was a bargain for them if a better cup for elderly people cost them just 0.02 cents to produce.
Right. Then let's design and build a cup for left-handed people. And a cup for one-handed people. And a cup for clumsy people. And a cup for....
The standard cup was fine. IS fine. Only ONE person in 24 MILLION burned themselves with it. That was 70 people a year. For comparison, look at this: http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html site : "On average, 90 people are killed every year in the U.S. by lightning." yes, that's right- you have a bigger chance of getting killed by lightning than of getting burned by McDonalds coffee.
So, please shut up about the coffee being too hot/dangerous.
Last I heard that particular store had been cited REPEATEDLY for violations regarding their coffee
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.
I see that Coffee Association quote thrown out word for word all over the internet, but I have not been able to find a true source for it.
I'll break the process down for you:
1) Go to Google. ::sheesh::
2) Search for national coffee association
3) Click the first link.
4) In the black bar near the top, click the "All About Coffee" link
5) Scroll down, click the "How to brew coffee" picture link.
6) Scroll down to the "Water temperature During Brewing" section, where you'll find this:
Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction.
7) Scroll a few inches further, and you'll find this: Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!
Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible and, later in the paragraph: If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.
By all means, continue to perpetuate the notion that companies should be protected from shitty behavior.
Yeah, shitty behavior like giving customers what they want- hot coffee.
The question is irrelevant. Since McDonald's sell many times more that 24 million cups of coffee, the risk of someone suffering injury is substantial. They should have done a risk analysis. They didn't. They pay.
Weird is wonderful. It's part of what makes life fun. If you have to pay 10 million to be weird, then it will get alot more gray. This woman's stupidity and greed are one reason why the world often seems like a drudge of gray, rain, fluorescent lights and oppressive boring. Fsck her. Buy a Toyota.
...
Hey, you think 190' is dangerous, then how about we start banning lighters, charcoals? Or even cooked chickens and hamburgers since to killed the bacteria they have to be heated to 170' (only 20' from "3rd degree burns in seconds"!!!
What part of just because they CAN do damage doesn't mean they should be banned do you not understand???
I like my cup of coffee hot because if I am buying at McDonalds, I am driving and picking it up at a drive-thru. I am not going to drinking right away because I am driving. I don't want the coffee to be cold and lukewarm by the time I get to work. Why is that so complicated? And I've never spilled coffee on myself like an idiot. I do just fine with a piping hot cup of coffee.
If we start banning things because of just their "potential" to do harm, we are going to have to get rid of a ton of things.
Many people now have the opinion that whatever it is, the police will only make it worse or ignore you. That may or may not be true depending on the police in question, but nevertheless, some people have that view.
Given a few high profile cases in recent years where the victim or a hero gets painted as the bad guy and suffers under years of investigation, I can understand why people might prefer not to have police involved.
The question is irrelevant.
No,it's not.
Since McDonald's sell many times more that 24 million cups of coffee, the risk of someone suffering injury is substantial.
700 people in 10 years, nationwide.
For comparison, 900 people die by getting hit by lightning in 10 years, nationwide.
500,000+ die in car accidents
2,000,000 die of alchohol related causes in the same time period.
And you're thinking we really need to re-design coffee cups because 700 people got their fingers burned? There's nothing more important to be discussing? Nothing more important to sue over?
Generally speaking, I think advertisements have dropped in quality over the years. The young blood they are bringing in today have the vision and foresight of about 2 ft. past their desk. I'm pretty sure this all sounded good back at the cubicle. "Wouldn't it be funny if.." goes a long way when you're young.
Right now Sony Pictures is doing a similar thing with the fear of 2012. You can join the lottery to one of the few to be saved. If you don't pay attention, you'll miss the little link for the movie page at the bottom. There are even some commercials on TV leading you to the page. http://www.instituteforhumancontinuity.org/
This is an advertising technique similar to LOST's internet campaign.
I would really like to see the emails myself to see if either Toyota was too far out there or if she was too naive. Either could happen. In her favor, I would not expect a company that has been promoting Earth, Nature and Humanity to pull out this kind of garbage.
I understand your point. There are two issues that I see that need addressing: balacing the costs with the benefits, and assumption of risk.
If I use a lighter or charcoal I understand that I am making fire, and fire is dangerously hot. As in, instant serious burns/death if I make a mistake. This is just not true with hot coffee. Yes, you expect it to be hot. In fact, I might even say you expect it to cause some burns if you spill it on yourself. But nearly instant 3rd degree burns, on the other hand, are not such a reasonable expectation.
We also need to ask, what are the costs associated with making a safer product? In the case of lighters and charcoal the answer is "very high." In fact, it might be impossible, in which case you have to look at the costs of eliminating the product altogether. In the case of coffee it costs very very little to sell it at 150 instead of 190 (including the costs to those who, for whatever reason, wanted their coffee that hot). So, when 190-degree-coffee is capable of causing major injuries, we ought to prefer avoiding the massive injuries it occasionally causes to protecting your "right" to buy ridiculously hot coffee. Of course, you're free to ask for it that hot, or get it someplace where you are specifically warned that it's that hot.
I think your meat example is ridiculous, but I'll take it up anyway for the sake of thoroughness: A hot piece of chicken simply does not cause 3rd degree burns if you drop it on yourself. There are a lot of reasons for this, but none of them matter; it is the actual risk that matters. So, we weigh the risk, virtually zero, with the cost of not being able to cook them to a temperature hot enough to kill pathogens, very high. 0 very high, so we keep cooking chicken.
There is nothing innovative about the test I'm applying here. This is just the cost-benefit-analysis courts have been consciously applying since U.S. v. Carroll Towing was decided in 1947. Have charcoal, lighters, or hot meat been banned?
caritj.org
...says the smelly Homeless thief. Read his journal. He took $400 that was not his, that was not given to him, that he did not earn, and did not attempt to find the true owner.
Thus making him a THIEF.
No. Redesign Coffee Sales Policy.
Namely to pre-mix DRIVE THROUGH sales with milk and sugar as per customer requirements. Therefore lid doesn't have to come off the cup, and spillages won't happen.
And it isn't 24 million drive through coffee sales. The majority of coffee sales will be in-store. Extending that to drive through sales without a risk analysis of giving people in a car scalding hot drinks that require complex manipulation (lid off flexible cup held between legs in car seat to add milk and sugar) with risk of spillage was foolish - as I said, you don't need to be Einstein to work out what would eventually happen.
Please name the country.
I understand your point as well, but even with the numbers that the lawyers provided, people getting burned with hot coffee was not a major problem. You say the meat example is bogus, let's go the other way. You know that ecoli and other pathogens are common enough problems that kill thousands of people every year. Many of these deaths can easily be prevented by cooking the meat thoroughly to 170'. However, restaurants still serve rare steaks and do not cook chicken hot enough because it makes them taste like rubber. So the actual risk is very very high and only negative side is taste. So the risk is much, much higher (in both severity and count) than getting someone getting burned with the coffee. Yet, we do not ban restaurants from serving undercooked meat. Why not? Should we? Based on your argument we should.
I'm willing to bet $10 million that no one is going to get laid off over this.
When a company starts to have unexpected costs here and there, 10 million at a time, it adds up to real money after a while and can end up having some real life consequences.
Then before you know it, some exec will run a PowerPoint presentation going "Well, last year we had to pay out 65 millions to various litigious annoying people, but if we close this plant here and relocate it to this Chinese work camp, our profit will still be up by 13.8% which is above predictions for the sector. So I suggest we all give ourselves a raise".
Remember, you read it here first.
The later part of your statement is still true regardless of whether or not they had to pay out 65 million in damages. A company is ALWAYS looking for ways to boost profit margins.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
They were reduced after appeals (I think to arround half a mil) and then they later had a private settlement, so the public does not know how much they ended up paying. That is not the same as not paying them. But, they did not have to pay what the jury decided was just, but that just shows how broken the system is.
Well, you're mostly right. According to my argument we shouldn't allow restaurants to sell undercooked meats without warnings. This is why restaurants in much of the United States now have warnings on their menus about eating raw or undercooked food.
A restaurant that passed along an ecoli or salmonella infection to a customer without warning them of the possibility could almost certainly be sued for negligence.
Of course, there may be a further question here - as there was in the hot coffee case - of whether a reasonable person should know of the dangers of eating a rare steak. If so, then they've assumed the risk by eating it and the restaurant is liability-free. It would seem that this question is coming to be answered in the negative, however (for reasons I don't quite understand).
caritj.org
While I try to invest (and hence limit my potential returns) by picking companies whose public policies I support, I have no ability to execute contracts or make policy decisions at any of them, including the one I work for.
THEN YOU SHOULDN'T FUCKING OWN A COMPANY.
I'm sorry that you've apparently decided that the stock market is an 'investment', that you've decided that the point of the stock market is to watch stocks go up.
But that is not the actual world, where stock ownership is company ownership.
We're already making a damn concession by having corporations as a limited liability company. Without, you would, as an owner, be personally liable if the company couldn't cover their debts, or committed criminal actions and got hit with fines.
Perhaps you should actually treat ownership of a company as the serious business it is, and not as some sort of 'investment' you have no control over. You want to invest in something that requires no work, buy old comic books, which rarely commit felonies. Do not purchase companies or self-directed robots or vicious dogs, all of which might wander off if you don't keep an eye on them and commit felonies.
If you want to own a company, you own a fucking company, and bear responsibility for their actions. Granted, you own a tiny part, so are only a tiny part responsible, but, OTOH, you're losing money proportional to the amount of your ownership.
But this way the only people convicted of a crime are those that, you know, committed or abetted it.
If you purchased stock in a criminal company, you did abet it.
Especially since most of the illegal actions done by companies is to, rather suspiciously, raise the stock price. I wonder who that's benefiting.
You're lucky I'm not calling for a total dissolution of the corporate veil after any felony, which would result in you being legally liable for any fines or lawsuits against the company.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
once talked to an executive of a Finnish (but international) company called Lappset. It builds playground stuff (things children can climb on, etc.) and operates in many countries of Europe, Asia, South-America and also in Mexico and Canada. It doesn't operate in USA. Why?
In USA it's competitors are constantly sued because "A child went head first down this slide and broke a tooth. There was nothing in this product to prevent sliding head first, which might lead to damage in a small percentage of cases. As such, we sue you for $10 million for these damages." kind of attitude is so common.
The company doesn't go to USA because they would need more lawyers than marketing people and instead choose to stay in countries where the justice system is at least somewhat sane. I really don't think this is the preferred situation.
Indeed. I'm AMAZED at the high cost of medical insurance, and car insurance as well, in the US and UK. And I've been told that most of that is due to the humongous cost in lawsuits, lawyering and such.
:P
Just for comparison: my car insurance (for a U$ 5000 car) is U$ 500 yearly, for the maximum coverage possible. I saw on Top Gear the cost for a similarly priced car in the UK was in the hundreds of pounds monthly, and my mother pays U$ 800 monthly for hers in Canada (also valued at about U$ 5000, and the same coverage).
Everything but services and food is way more expensive here (Uruguay) than in the US or UK, however, so no, I don't have a cost advantage on you
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Right, but Toyota is saying she gave them informed consent. Failing to uncheck a box does not qualify for that, so that's not what happened here.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Namely to pre-mix DRIVE THROUGH sales with milk and sugar as per customer requirements.
Sure. Takes longer, slows down sales. People get frustrated, so elsewhere, McDonalds loses more sales. People not satisfied with the amount of milk/sugar they get, bitch at the employees.
Sounds like a real good idea. [/sarcasm]
I have an alternative. How about we teach people to be careful with cups of hot liquid? I mean, 23,999,999 manage to do it without being taught, so hard hard could it be to teach the 24,000,000th person, too??
hot drinks that require complex manipulation
Most adults don't find 'put cup in secure place before attempting to remove lid' to be "complex manipulation". I guess you do.
You're not supposed to put a disclaimer on a link to a shock site! That defeats the whole point*!
*disclaimer: This is not a shock site.**
**disclaimer: Or is it?
I can tell you've never worked in food service. You can only hear "This coffee isn't hot!!! I PAID FOR HOT COFFEE!!!!" so many times before you turn a knob you shouldn't turn.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
It's become trite by now to have to make this point anytime the word "lawsuit" comes up, but you should actually read the details of the McDonald's case. The person who sued was severely injured by coffee that was much hotter than any reasonable person would expect, and packaged in a cup that popped open much more easily than any reasonable person would expect. It was absolutely a case of criminal negligence on the part of McDonald's, and the temperature of the coffee is only one relevant detail underscoring that. I would think that the "may be hot" disclaimers are likely insulting to the victim in that case more than anything.
911) I'm sorry, unless there is a man in your presence who has made a credible threat against you or physically assaulted you, we can't do anything. Have a nice day.
--Jeremy
You should try calling the police sometime. They may have determined over the phone that she didn't need an immediate emergency response, but it's more than likely that she would have gotten to speak to someone who would have looked into it.
I've had dealings with five different police/sheriff's departments around here, and I've never seen anyone get the brush-off in the way that you mention. Police may be busy, but they don't just forget about it when they're told about someone being concerned for their safety either.
Putting moderation advice in your
I bet the majority of people who played Sony rootkit CD's didn't have their CD player stop working. Maybe we should have let that go. And the majority of people who buy Netbooks don't miss Linux on them. Maybe we should let that go. And I bet we could find a lot of other things a Slashdotter would care about that we could just let go. But it's a lot easier to let it go if it's something you don't care about personally. And that's before we even discuss whether or not sane people burn themselves to the point they can't taste anything and thinks that's okay.
Totally agreed.
Giving it to the person complaining just seems wrong, and makes the US legal system look like a joke. They should get whatever expenses they incurred * 2. The rest goes to a charity that will help many people, not just one.
It would make the accuser look less greedy too.
Yes, to be honest: it looks like a joke. And other countries, sadly enough, seem to adopt it.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
I'm happy to live in a country where you can actually expect the police to work for you, not against you.
So you live in Belgium or the Netherlands, I see? Yes, I see your point, but it won't be long before the police get only outside for the ticket-issuing-quotas. The rest can be done by Their Website.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
I'd mod up you up, but you're already at +5.
My local PD even has a "vacation" service, where they'll drive by your house while you're away and make sure everything looks sound.
BTW - For those so paranoid that they think the cops are going to rob them, what do you do about your paper and mail? You can't tell the delivery boy or post office, or they might rob you, and you can't ask a neighbor to pick up your stuff - either they'll rob you, or robbers will notice that somebody else is picking up your stuff, and you can't leave it sit there while you're gone or somebody will notice and rob you.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Oooh, I like that idea as a lesser punishment.
It works exceptionally well because it allows compensatory damages, which would be newly issued stock that goes to the victim, but it also allows punitive damages/fines of just the government requiring the issuing of the stock and then the government selling it itself.
My idea is sorta the same thing, except the government issues an infinite amount of new stock, mathematically devaluing all existing stock to zero.
Of course, we could throw in your idea, too, with criminal actions. I.e., if a company is being destroyed because it decided to kill or maim someone for profit, we should give the victim (or their estate) like 5% of the new stock. (Whatever level of compensation makes sense.)
We could even give it to them at the start of of the government running it, let them sell that 5% off when it's the only stock on the market, and possibly worth more.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Actually the act of sipping coffee is as much about sucking in air and coffee together, with the essential oils released at high temperature allowing the stimulation of both smell and taste. It's also why you take small sips when the coffee is fresh. 90C may be on the high side, but 80-85C is definitely in the right range. 50C is downright nasty, and also a full 10C below most (if not all) local health dept requirements that all food be kept above 140F or below 40F at all times (sorry for the mixed units, I know HD rules in F and am too lazy to convert).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The United States of America.
Since you thought Obama ousted Bush, then cried "well I can't be expected to know about America", I hope you'll do us the service of shutting up about your fantasies about our police. You know nothing about them, and we have enough of them that individuals who make poor choices which are regurgitated by the media can make us look a lot worse than we actually are.
Go flip through an Orwell book and masturbate to how urbane you are. Even SlashDot sees through you.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
--Now if (for example) the McDonalds employee failed to properly secure the lid, and it spilled and cause Stella's injuries, then I would agree it was the employees fault. (Not necessarily "McDonalds" fault, unless they failed to properly train the employee.)--
Wrong, no one is going to sue the employee. The owners are responsible to some extent for what their employees do on the clock.
--That was 70 people a year.--
Wrong, the number is irrelevant. Who was most at fault is what matters. Now you can argue the jury made a bad decision. Maybe so. 16% is considered quite a lot of third degree damage. How would a cup of coffee do that unless it was very large and hot and probably more than she could drink. That high of a number in 3rd degree burns does not make sense either
The automobile kills like crazy. So.
--The standard cup was fine--
What exactly is that in ounces, liters, or whatever? As I understand it the cup was also a very large one, and there are other details there that have been discussed here before.
So it's ok to frighten and harass people, as long as they're imbeciles?
Yes. In fact, some people will pay good money to be frightened.
Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175 degrees is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink."
Spilling coffee on yourself should not cause burns that quickly or burns that require skin grafts. That is just f'ing stupid.
You seem to be saying that any sufficiently "rare" problem regardless of cause is insignificant. Oh, what you left out was "at least" 700, and "had settled out of court". You also make the incredible assumption that the temperatures across all of those cups were consistent and that those 700 burn cases were not clustered at the high end of the temperatures. Which of course is why their attempted defense using that stupid line of reasoning fell on its face (well, that telling jurors that graphic images of the damaged skin was 'statistically insignificant'). This is the same company that refuses to stop using trans-fat oil here because "they want to provide a consistent flavor experience". Yet, they stopped using them in all of the countries that banned the use. Here is a hint, the non trans-fat oils must be replaced 2-3x more often than the trans-fat containing oils so it increases cost. So as a cost savings measure they knowingly use more hazardous ingredients because no one is stopping them.
As previously pointed out the punitive damages didn't come from the woman in question, they came from the jury pissed off at how McDonalds behaved during the ordeal. So...the people that got all the information, that sat there and directly witnessed all of the proceedings believed that McDonalds was behaving very poorly. Of course, all the armchair quarterbacks are willing to villify the old lady.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Wrong, no one is going to sue the employee.
Of course not. The employee doesn't have millions of dollars.
The owners are responsible to some extent for what their employees do on the clock.
Like I said, if McDonalds had trained the employee incorrectly, or incompletely, then I might agree with suing them.
16% is considered quite a lot of third degree damage.
From http://stellaawards.com/stella.html :
"Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was)..."
Interesting how you use the higher of the two numbers...
Wrong, the number is irrelevant.
No, it is not. Not when you are trying to prove "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". If these things were true, many more people would have hurt themselves on the "defective, unreasonably dangerous" coffee.
The low numbers prove it was NOT unreasonably dangerous.
They may have just fubared their legalese? Here is another curious find.
http://hnn.us/blogs/archives/4/2004/1/
But I have a better link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175 degrees is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink."
"Aromas" only come into play when the cup is opened for drinking. In other words, usually after the driver has reached their destination. For the coffee to be that temp at that time, it needs to be hotter to begin with... like, about 185F, the temp McDonalds had it at.
And, once again, the national coffee association says 185. Bunn says 185. Your source says 175. That's only 10 degrees difference.
Oh, what you left out was "at least" 700, and "had settled out of court".
No- "The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year."
You also make the incredible assumption that the temperatures across all of those cups were consistent ...
"they want to provide a consistent flavor experience".
Um, yeah.
As previously pointed out the punitive damages didn't come from the woman in question, they came from the jury pissed off at how McDonalds behaved during the ordeal.
The jury was not 'pissed off', they were emotionally swayed by pity.
So...the people that got all the information, that sat there and directly witnessed all of the proceedings believed that McDonalds was behaving very poorly.
I've been on juries, and both were mostly filled with idiots. They didn't think logically, they 'thought' emotionally. "Wouldn't you want a lot of money if you were hit by a car?" is a direct quote from one such juror to me. I replied: "Not if it was my fault I was in the middle of the road in the middle of the block, not paying attention, as the guy admitted on the stand".
In another case, one juror refused to say 'guilty' despite the 7 audio- and video-tapes of the accused dealing drugs. Why? "It'll be his third strike, and I don't want him going to jail for life."
So don't go on about how "well,the jury found...". Because most jurors are idiots , easily swayed by emotion and prejudice.
You are full of crap. NO BODY drinks coffee at 25 degrees Fahrenheit off boiling.
I have posted several cites to back my claims.
But at 180 to 190 degrees it is physically impossible to drink without burning yourself,
Again, I have cites. McDonalds serves it at this temperature TO THIS DAY. Other restaurants serve it at that temp. The national Coffee Association says to serve it at that temp. I have posted at least one link to a Home coffee maker that keeps it at that temp.
You can say I'm "full of crap" if you wish. That's a personal opinion of yours. But if you wish to say these other people/companies/etc are full of crap, you'll need to provide evidence.
As to the "optimal drinking temperature" if the essential oils evaporate at ~155 degrees, then those oils will be evaporating quickly from the pot at temperature above that.
I just replied to someone else in this thread who quoted "Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175 degrees is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink.""
175, 155? Would you people please make up your mind? In either case, the coffee needs to be brewed and held hotter than those temps.
By this argument you better not vote either.
I mean SydShamino doesn't exactly have control over US foreign policy if he voted Republican and Obama got in right?
But he should just lie back and accept that he's responsible for America's military presence in Afghanistan because he's an American citizen that voted.
What you are suggesting would completely destroy the fabric of all Western Nation retirement funds. There aren't enough comics in the world to supply the demand of those looking to make enough money to retire and still be able to eat.
[citation needed]
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
There is no shortage of information out there that shows McDonald's screwed this one up. I think you are being easily swayed by emotion and prejudice. The medical testimony talked about how a reduction of temperature reduced the risk of serious burns exponentially.
No amount of subjective bullshit about "coffee is best at 185+ degrees" compares with the objective assessment of evidence that says "at 185+ degrees it can cause third degree burns in 2-7 seconds". Further, for it to do the damage it did to her there is still a good chance that they served it above that "quality assurance range". As I pointed out, McDonald's, as pretty much every fast food chain, has a very interesting view of "quality assurance". The people that work at McDonald's aren't typically the high performers, and even when dealing with the younger spectrum of that is the job available at that age, you still are forced to faced with the average maturity level. If this was some fine dining establishment with gourmet coffe then I could maybe accept your arguments about the temperature of coffee. That isn't the case, this is a fast food joint with coffee that is going to taste like ass at any temperature, being served in flimsy cups with cheap lids, to people who are more than likely mobile.
So...why didn't they follow the advice that it should be served in a warmed mug too? I mean...heated liquid in styrofoam cups...mmm mmm good stuff there.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
I mean SydShamino doesn't exactly have control over US foreign policy if he voted Republican and Obama got in right?
So by your logic, he should be immune to any foreign policy decisions made?
Your logic is exactly backwards. You can conclude it is unfair we're forced to 'own stock' in the US, but we do, in fact, have to suffer with whatever leaders we've actually picked, and live with the consequences of their action.
Exactly like a stockholder has to live with the board he voted in, and the CEO they picked, and any illegal actions they did, regardless of the fact his vote couldn't have possibly changed thing.
Except, of course, he doesn't...if a stockholder doesn't like new management, and thinks they will harm the stock price or commit felonies, he can trivially sell his stock before that happens, whereas it's not so easy to change countries.
What you are suggesting would completely destroy the fabric of all Western Nation retirement funds.
Erm...no it wouldn't. Not unless you're suggesting that all corporations are criminal enterprises. A novel suggestion, but it probably goes too far.
I'm failing to see a difference, from the investor POV, between fiscal malfeasance that destroys the company, and criminal malfeasance that harms other people and gets the company taken away from the stockholders. Both of them require roughly the same level of oversight within the company, but we have the first one (Because it harms the stockholders) and we don't have the second (Because, right now, it doesn't harm them.)
If you can't pay attention to the fucking companies you're investing in, if you can't make sure that they're reasonable protected from being operated by criminals, either criminals who are going to steal the company blind or criminals who are going to commit crimes for the company, you shouldn't be investing in stocks.
And if you make the wrong choice anyway, that's why stocks are risky.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
At last! After years, nay - decades, of trying, I finally got my own personal stalker. You are very endearing, stonecypher, if a tad predictable.
Yes, the media, along with the knaves at your supreme court sure do make it seem so.
Ouch, stonecypher, that hurt! Are you accusing me of infidelity? I really thought we had a good thing going, especially since you've been piling on the attention. I could never choose Orwell over you, sweetie.
Serve it in insulated cups with lids which will allow milk\sugar in without having to be removed.
It's up to you if you think it will be cheaper to sell a safer (but fractionally more expensive) product, or settle claims for inevitable injuries when your less safe product hurts someone.
FGD 135
brewed at 200, held at 185, drunk at?
I'd guess that I probably drink my coffee at 120-130 - and hotter and I can't actually taste it for my tongue being taken up with screaming 'hot hot hot!'
And let's not forget that the national coffee association are talking about ideal circumstances, not the production of coffee made with cheap beans & little care, to be served in a cardboard or styrofoam cup and intended to be consumed in a (probably moving) vehicle.
FGD 135
There is no shortage of information out there that shows McDonald's screwed this one up.
Please, mention some of this 'information'. Specific pieces, not a link to an article.
No amount of subjective bullshit about "coffee is best at 185+ degrees" compares with the objective assessment of evidence that says "at 185+ degrees it can cause third degree burns in 2-7 seconds".
And no amount of "hot coffee is so very, extremely, positively, exceptionally dangerous!!1!11!!" compares to the fact that only 0.0000004166% of people actually burned themselves.
So...why didn't they follow the advice that it should be served in a warmed mug too? I mean...heated liquid in styrofoam cups...mmm mmm good stuff there.
They sell Millions of cups a year. How many cups of coffee have you sold? Why should we consider you the expert??
Oh, a few interesting things from the article YOU linked to:
-She suffered burned "over 6 percent of her body", not 16%, as has been mentioned here.
-Of the 700 claims of burns, only "Some claims"
involved third-degree burns. Practically speaking that means a minority, other wise it'd be phrased as "most claims..."
- "Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees." There goes you're "it was hotter than that" theory.
Exactly. But they say it qualifies for it, and if you're going to dispute their statement, you'll have to do so in court, which is expensive for you, but not for them.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
You do have a good point- So I stand corrected. (Note: 90 C = 194F... which is WAY above the 140F limit you specify... so I'd probably say anywhere from 70-80 is reasonable, depending on where you get your morning boost, and what time it was brewed. That's also basically a few seconds of "ow... hothothot!!" if you spill, without any majorly severe burns) Thank you. :)
Evolution - Est. 4500000000 B.C. Don't piss in the gene pool.
1. Bullets are dangerous, yet only a tiny fraction of them ever wind up penetrating a human body and causing damage. This constant assertion that the number of burns vs the number of cups sold has anything to do with this is totally irrelevant. So because most bullets never kill anyone, I can go shoot someone and argue in court that what I did wasn't negligent or reckless because most bullets don't kill anyone so I shouldn't have to act as if they are dangerous? That is mindbogglingly stupid and pointless.
2. The page YOU linked said it should be served in a warmed mug. You are now attacking me for using the same source that YOU used to defend McDs? You are starting to sound like an astroturfer.
3. I never once said what percentage of her body, so please take that up with whoever misquoted that. I only referred to the severity of the damage.
4. Some bullets only wound, not all kill, so clearly I shouldn't be held responsible for my actions that caused a bullet to kill. This is still stupid.
5. Police actively enforce the rule that murder is illegal, but it still happens. Some QA manager for McDonald's testifying that they actively enforce that temperature is completely and totally irrelevant to the actual events that happened that day. I suppose you believe all the silly shit politicians say too. Clearly because they said it it must be true in every case every day everywhere! I also suspect that you have never actually worked in a fast food place or you would know exactly how much total horseshit that line was. I bet they have even more strict QA on their food preparation, but I have witnessed a Grimmace pencil topper being melted to slag in the fry vats. I bet they have strict safety standards, yet I have watched people throw a ice cube into the fry vats to make it pop and splatter and sting people for laughs. So...if an employee was blinded because someone threw ice in and it burned there eye your argument would be that their safety guy testified that they don't allow that so it couldn't have happened?
You are entering this based on the assumption that McDonald's should be held innocent based on their behavior as a composite of everything they have done rather than as the actions of that day. So because I have not done anything wrong every other day of my life, except that one day, I should be innocent. Now...I can't really fault you for trying, defense lawyers try that shit all the time, and they try that very same reasoning in murder cases, and it usually falls flat on it face.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
So your point is we should put warning labels on alcohol containers indicating that it can make you drunk and warning labels on cell phones indicating that they should not be used while driving?
*their eye. Not sure how I missed that.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
To me it comes down to what can be reasonable expected of the product purchased. The average slashdotter does not need a warning label to tell him or her that coffee is hot, as that is customary. The GGP flaunted the fact that it can cause 3rd degree burns as if that weren't true of similar products, which it is.
The rootkit on the audio CD, on the other hand, was truly a novel, bad idea. That one deserved a warning label.
Similarly, faux stocking emails from advertising firms are a novel, bad idea. These should include a big disclaimer, if they are legal at all. This case is way off in wtf-land.
1. Bullets are dangerous, yet only a tiny fraction of them ever wind up penetrating a human body and causing damage. This constant assertion that the number of burns vs the number of cups sold has anything to do with this is totally irrelevant. So because most bullets never kill anyone, I can go shoot someone and argue in court that what I did wasn't negligent or reckless because most bullets don't kill anyone so I shouldn't have to act as if they are dangerous? That is mindbogglingly stupid and pointless.
And the award for 'worst analogy of the year' goes to....
Sharp knives can be dangerous if mishandled. They can cause severe injuries. But it's not illegal/dangerous/negligent to sell knifes that are sharp.
Fast cars can be dangerous if mishandled. They can cause severe injuries. But it's not illegal/dangerous/negligent to sell cars that are fast.
Hot coffee can be dangerous. It can cause severe injuries if mishandled. But it's not illegal/dangerous/negligent to sell coffee that is hot.
You are entering this based on the assumption that McDonald's should be held innocent based on their behavior as a composite of everything they have done rather than as the actions of that day.
No. I am arguing that what they did that day (and all the other days) was not 'negligent', nor 'dangerous'. This is clearly shown by the statistically negligible number of injuries they end up with.
So because I have not done anything wrong every other day of my life, except that one day, I should be innocent.
More like, if you mow your lawn safely 23,999,999 times, and on the 24,000,00th time, a freak accident happens- say a rock comes out the mower and dents your neighbors car- you're not "negligent" in the way you mow.
Wow, maybe some day you'll be fortunate enough to see (in a non-McDonald's restaurant) a ceramic cup of hot coffee slip from your mother's hand. I'm sure you'll sit there in perfect understanding as you watch her cunt go up in flames and agree that the damage is all her own goddamned fault.
It would be, if she dropped it. Who's fault would you suggest her dropping it is?
Before The Netherlands, now Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Police Force is nicknamed "Asia's Finest" and I mostly agree with that.
I have had a few police contacts so far and all were positive experiences from the side of the police. That is not to say I enjoyed it of course, but the not enjoying part was not because of the police but the reasons I needed them.
...which way you try to slice it, this was in really bad taste.
Even if the agreement somehow allows them to legally wriggle out of this, what kind of schmuck dreams up a "marketing" campaign like this? You'd have to be really far over the cuckoo's nest when, in the brainstorming process for adverts about a new car model, simulating a stalker comes to mind. I forsee shoe companies promoting new lineups by sending out realistic-seeming notices from food companies, or the FDA, that something the person bought may have been contaminated with potentially lethal doses of botulinum...
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo
Except if it was so terrifying, why did she do everything but call the police, who have the powers to actually investigate things like this and would have probably figured out in about 5 minutes who sent the emails?
Because she's a moron. I'd be willing to bet she comes from a background of low income and poor education. Just like the majority of other Americans.
Children in certain subcultures are taught to fear the police, not to turn to them for help. This is partly because the people around them are stupid, partly because the people around them are often involved in criminal activity, and partly because the police sometimes abuse their authority. Regardless, the result is that when those children grow up to become adults, it doesn't even occur to them that the police would be the appropriate people to call in a situation like this.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Your mowing example is a PERFECT example. In many of the other cases they settled out of court. They said "Yeah, sorry, we should have been more careful, let us pay for that". If you dent your neighbor's car you should say "Yeah, sorry, I should have checked for rocks, let me pay for that". When you try to actively dodge that, and you try to come up with a bunch of nonsense to show how it really isn't your fault, and that they should have parked in their garage instead, and that all of the other times it never hurt their car, and yada yada yada, you kinda fuck yourself. If you dented your neighbors car while mowing, you can bet your ass a court would make you pay for it, and if you walk in trying to tap dance your way out of it they would likely up the fine for you being a dick about the situation. This is exactly what happened, and they ultimately got slapped for being dicks.
I agree to say McDonalds as an organization is 'negligent' for serving hot coffee is a pretty big stretch. However, based on their other behaviors and statements I am sure the largest piece is the profit motivation of squeezing every little cent out of a filter and not serving 'good coffee'. Seriously...have you actually eaten at a McDonalds? The very idea that they have 'Quality Assurance' is fucking hilarious. Based on what happened to the woman I have a REAL hard time believing it wasn't unreasonably hot. They should have said "oops, we fucked up, let us make this right". If NOTHING else, call it karma. When you share in the responsibility in an event (especially one that caused that kind of massive damage...fucking skin grafts?!) you should be a good neighbor and not a douche bag. I see it as a monumental failure of their business in that somewhere some manager in that chain should have said 'Are you fucking stupid? We are going to fight a court battle over this? We are going to be in the news looking like assholes and spending 10x the amount she wanted for medical bills?!' Because that didn't happen, because they had a whole chain of idiot assholes running the show, they got slapped with megafine. Piss poor business and it got them piss poor results. NOW they engage the media to get a bunch of corporatist apologists to come in and whine about how THEY were abused in this situation.
The woman never asked for that money, she asked for help with the medical bills to cover the fact that the coffee burnt her so bad that she spent a week+ in the hospital and had to have skin grafts. That isn't just "ouch, that burned" hot coffee. The JURY is who slapped them for trying to weasel their way out of that incident.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Your mowing example is a PERFECT example. In many of the other cases they settled out of court. They said "Yeah, sorry, we should have been more careful, let us pay for that".
No, it's more like they say "Shit. We didn't do anything wrong, but it'll cost more to hire a lawyer then just pay a few bucks. Here's a check."
(Yes, I know McDonalds already has lawyers.)
If you dent your neighbor's car you should say "Yeah, sorry, I should have checked for rocks, let me pay for that".
McDonalds DID offer her cash. It just wasn't enough. She wanted $20,000 to cover her $11,000 of medical bills. Then, her demand rose to $90,000, and then $300,000.
If you dented your neighbors car while mowing, you can bet your ass a court would make you pay for it,
Maybe. But Would they make me pay $200 for $110 in damage? And would they consider me "negligent" int the way I mow??
I agree to say McDonalds as an organization is 'negligent' for serving hot coffee is a pretty big stretch.
That was the entire basis of her lawsuit.
I am sure the largest piece is the profit motivation of squeezing every little cent out of a filter and not serving 'good coffee'.
McDOnalds brewign and holding temps are right in line with the National Coffee Association. Why does the NCA exist? To help sell more coffee. If anything they would give directions that resulted in more coffee sold, not "squeezing every little cent out of a filter and not serving 'good coffee'"
Based on what happened to the woman I have a REAL hard time believing it wasn't unreasonably hot.
So, you'll base your opinion on one lady who got burned, and not all the other cites, from Industry Associations, other restaurants, coffee maker companies, and judges.
I'm sorry, but this shows a lack of logical thinking.
she asked for help with the medical bills to cover the fact that the coffee burnt her so bad that she spent a week+ in the hospital and had to have skin grafts.
SHE is the one who mis-handled the coffee, resulting in her burns. SHE is directly responsible for her injuries. Why should McDOnalds "help" her??
If I was juggling a chainsaw and it chopped my leg off, should the chainsaw manufacturer pay me?
If I was juggling knives and chopped my finger off, should Ginsu pay me??
If I was [mis-handling a product] and [injured myself], should [product manufacturer or retailer] pay me???
'Yes' or 'No' answers to those three questions, please.
He was saying that the bet would be run, except if signed by the Toyota HR manager. Duh!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
n my case, I've just been too lazy to sue corporations. This puts me squarely at the bottom of your classification I take it. You must really despise me right now.
Not sure I follow the logic.
This is my sig.
Takes longer, slows down sales. People get frustrated, so elsewhere, McDonalds loses more sales.
No they don't. Everyone has to play by the same rules.
People not satisfied with the amount of milk/sugar they get, bitch at the employees.
So they should find a better way. Opportunity to get a competitive edge and increase product differentiation.
I have an alternative. How about we teach people to be careful with cups of hot liquid?
Much harder than changing the delivery process. How would you even begin?
I mean, 23,999,999 manage to do it without being taught, so hard hard could it be to teach the 24,000,000th person, too??
You're assuming that the world is divided into those who spill their coffee and those who don't. Actually, none of us spill our coffee most the time, but it could happen to anyone. Imagine you just start to take the lid off your coffee and the idiot in the drivers seat decides to accelerate away. OK, blame the driver, but it won't make your scolded crotch feel any better.
'put cup in secure place before attempting to remove lid'
Where would that be, I wonder?
What I am saying is that there are situations, that no matter what you do, you have no control. There are always going to be people you trust that screw you over and you shouldn't be held responsible. The people doing the crime and the actual damage should bear the burden of the crime not the victims.
Say I buy comic books for my retirement portfolio, or art, or some other tangible object and do my due diligence, research it to make sure it's the real thing, see the certificate of authenticity, research to make sure it's not stolen, etc, etc. I can still get screwed by a good forger that fools all the experts.
The same can happen with a company. I can do all my research and due diligence and make sure that the officers of the company are stand up people, I shouldn't be held responsible if they fool everyone and not just me.
You are punishing the victim of the crime when you punish everyone who owns stock of the company in this case.
No, what I'm saying is that people don't somehow deserve some magical way to make money without risk or work, even for their 'retirement'.
You want to save risklessly for your retirement, put your money either into a FDIC insured bank, or buy government bonds, both of which will be good as long as the government continues to operate. (And if the government fails, money isn't going to be worth a lot anyway, so you'll only lose your money if it doesn't matter.)
But, of course, you'll get a relatively low rate of return.
You want something with more risk, and hence producing more profit and requiring more work, invest in the stock market. Or gold, or property, or comic books, or whatever.
Don't bitch at me that I'm suggesting adding slightly more risk to stock. I'm not suggesting we do it secretly, so, logically, such increased risk would lead to increased profits.
In fact, I have several schemes that would, incidentally, reduce the risk of stock ownership, like not allowing day trading or in fact any ownership short of a year. But those aren't really relevant here.
The thing that is relevant is the only group of people in charge of a company in any legal or practical sense is the stockholders, and hence the only thing that could possible discourage a company from illegal actions is, in fact, those actions posing a threat to the stockholders.
Lesser crimes result in fines, which would result in, say, a 5% drop in stock prices. Larger crimes would result in larger fines and thus larger drops.
Large enough crimes should logically result in people losing 100% of the stock prices as the company ends up with all assets forfeited. So what I'm proposing already happens, or it would if our courts had the balls to actually fine large corporations.
But doing it that way results in the company dying and being broken apart in bankrupcy court, which is not in the best interest of society, so instead we should just do what I said.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
"Don't bitch at me that I'm suggesting adding slightly more risk to stock. I'm not suggesting we do it secretly, so, logically, such increased risk would lead to increased profits."
When did simple debate devolve into bitching? Just because I disagree with your thoughts on the matter doesn't mean that I'm attacking you in any way.
I could go with your way of thinking under certain circumstances.
First mandate that pension plans offered by any employer have an option that includes the ability to not possess stock. If you look at many workplaces you will find that these options simply don't exist.
Second, make retirement planning required education in the public school system.
Currently, I'd guess that more than 80% of people with retirement investments out there have no clue what companies they are invested in at the moment. While I agree with you that this is definitely their own fault, I think that before we change the system in the way you've mentioned we should make sure more people are prepared.
First mandate that pension plans offered by any employer have an option that includes the ability to not possess stock. If you look at many workplaces you will find that these options simply don't exist.
Or just have the new stock put equally into the pension plan.
The problem there is idiotic pension plans that vary based on stock prices.
This is because, as the super rich have sucked more and profits out the system, slowing the growth of wages but not inflation, society has become more and more dependent on risky investments to actually plan for their future. Instead of keeping the money in CDs, or at the most risky, in bonds. People used to be able to save, in safe investments at 3%, for the future. Now they have to, if they want to retire comfortable, save at 7% in various dubious things.
Ask all the people retiring now who were planning on selling their house, their 'investment', and moving to smaller place and living off the profit. Oh, wait, those people aren't retiring now.
This is not my fault, and objecting to what I'm suggesting on the ground that people might have made stupidly risky investments in companies without knowing what they're doing is not really a good objection.
While I agree with you that this is definitely their own fault, I think that before we change the system in the way you've mentioned we should make sure more people are prepared.
You are a lot more cynical than me, apparently think some significant portion of companies would be taken down using this concept.
Companies do not generally commit felonies. Large companies almost never. Even here, if it was 'stalking', (Actually, it was some sort of harassment, and I doubt it would be any sort of felony.), it wasn't Toyota, it was some ad company they hired who had the criminally stupid idea to send vague unlabeled email.
Essentially, if some executive at the company didn't currently go to jail for it, or at least should have gone to jail, it wouldn't be what I'm talking about. (And even then, it would have to be a crime for the company, not against it. Stealing from a company obviously should not result in any sanctions against said company.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
TFA contains descriptions of the emails.
$ make available
No, but people in genuine fear of their life probably wouldn't even think about that, would they