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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
weird isn't worth $10 million...
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
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.
This "Goatse" kitten is the second ugliest kitten I've ever seen!
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.
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.
I'm a behavioral scientist. An experimentalist. When working with behaving subjects one of the things that's harder than anything else is to understand the experiment that you performed. This was brought home during a lecture I saw being given by a very senior faculty member who was describing an experiment that didn't seem to have gone very well at all. After reviewing the not very encouraging and somewhat confusing results, he said, "it took us quite some time to realize that although we had designed and performed this experiment in good faith, the experiment we ACTUALLY had done was quite different than what we intended." The difference was one of how the subjects had interpreted the non-verbal instructions. Viewing the results in the new radically different light made far more sense. Sometimes, it's the experimenter who is the one being deceived!
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
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
[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?
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...
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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?
Just wait until the New GM (Powered By Your Tax Dollars) comes out with its own ads threatening to beat you to death with a tire iron unless you buy one of their cars. It's a whole new wave of marketing!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
I don't even need to see the emails. I work in the email security industry, and every problem I've seen - without exception - that involved an otherwise legit and respectable company that got in trouble because of email marketing practices was a combination of two things:
1) A definition of "opt-in" that doesn't come very near to "informed consent" - where informed consent is considered an industry BCP.
2) Some genius in marketing further gumming up the works by sending something spammy, or just stupid.
In most cases, condition 1 is also caused by condition 2. There are more than a few marketers who see absolutely nothing wrong with e-pending, or even "list rental" of "guaranteed 100% opt-in lists."
This doesn't mean she isn't an idiot. At a minimum, she doesn't sound very computer-savvy, but this still needs to be laid squarely at the feet of Toyota and its marketing firm.
For any of you who may be marketers, let me clue you in. Anyone offering to sell/rent you a list is a spammer and is setting you up to be a spammer. No one on that gave explicit and informed consent to receive marketing email from _your_ company, which means that a large percentage of the people on that list will (quite rightly) consider you to be a spammer if they get mail from you. Also, there is no such thing as a "100% opt-in list" with the exception of a list you built yourself from people who gave explicit and informed consent to receive marketing email from you. Even then, that list will only remain 100% opt-in if you maintain it regularly. That means, at a minimum, frequently removing bouncing addresses and never, ever adding them back later should they start working.
In line with that last part, never re-test bad addresses in the future to see if they work. If they do work, it's a virtual certainty that the address has changed hands. If you then send mail there, it's spam.
And finally, beware of "partner lists" whether receiving or producing them. When people give consent, they are usually giving consent to receive mail from your firm only, not your partners (think hard about informed consent). If a partner business gives you a list of its contacts, the same thing applies. No one on that list gave informed consent to get mail from *you* - and no, a couple pages of lawyer-talk in a small font does not count as informed consent, even it explicitly states that you'll write their email address on the bathroom wall.
Following these common-sense best practices will keep marketers from running afoul of people like me, who write spam filters for a living.
Disclaimer: all opinions expressed herein are solely mine, and not those of my employer.
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
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.
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 >
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).
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.
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.
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.
Those who are blissfully unaware that the list is recursive are doomed to repeat it.
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
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.
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.