>You *can't* switch to another set of domain servers. To permit alternate TLDs (as has already been attempted without success) would lead to a partitioned Internet.
Exactly. That's the whole point..com, etc become valueless. Crazy customers that spent $1000 a few years ago to buy a long term registration will go insane with anger. Verisign would be forced to fix their policy or die.
>To all you damn Libertarians that thing private commerce and capitalism is important for the proper functioning of ANYTHING, wake up and take a look around. Some things NEED to be regulated by the government; some times efficency is NOT as important as accountability. This is one of them (as a Californian, energy regulation is another!).
You're still wrong.
In a libertarian society, we'd have switched to another set of domain servers. People with com/net/org registrations would get VERY angry with Verisign when their paid-for domains become worthless.
Instead we live in an overly regulated society were it would take an army of men to get the government to start using alternative servers.
That being said, a fully closed/open standard does not make any difference to piracy.
For example, DirecTV uses a completely proprietary system, *VERY* closed, yet there's not been a day for many years it hasn't been widely, openly, hacked.
DishNetwork, however, uses the open, popular DVB standard for transmission (yes, use a circular LNB and you'll receive all the previews on your DVB receiver -- I have). The only part of their system that *isn't* open is the CAM (smartcard), obviously. Although, all the specs for that are available if you look around. However, in my experience, their system is MUCH less pirated than DirecTV. And I mean *MUCH* less pirated. There's probably 1/30th as many DishNet pirates as there are DirecTV pirates (coming from my experience of turning away pirate customers at my new satellite store -- I wish Canadian laws would go back to the way they were).
The difference between a free society and a dictatorship is that in a free society you have the freedom to break a law and pay for it. In a dictatorship, you're never given the chance to get that far.
>In case you haven't seen it yet, they have low-end machines that are comparable, already running Linux, for about $200.
Trust me, that doesn't compare...
- Via C3 Samuel-2 GigaPro 800 Mhz Processor Not bad for some stuff, but not a P3 733, that's for sure.
- 128 MB SDRAM Well, this is more than the XBOX, so it wins there. But that doesn't speed it up enough...
- 30 GB Hard drive Again, more than the XBOX, but doesn't make a difference to linux installation...
- 52x CDROM It isn't a DVD-ROM, so crappier than the Xbox
- 56k Modem Hmmmm... Well, it's better than Xbox for this, but I can think of better ways to spend $6.
I'll sell you as many systems as I can get my hands on parts for $269.99 CDN (same price) that have similar specs (less HDD space). That isn't such a hot deal... Mine have a Duron 1.3 Ghz CPU also.. I'll throw on a linux distro if you really want one.:-)
For once, I guess it's "HOORAY FOR PC CHIPS!"...:-S
>It's pretty much a given that it was just too hot. Too hot to drink, too hot to hold properly.
I've never disagreed with that, except to say that all coffee is hot coffee, and that coffee *is* best served hot.
What I disagree with is why she sued. She never injured herself in the proper usage of the product. You (again, outside the US) can't sue for misusing the product, and you can't sue for the "possiblity" of something happening. That "bad thing" needs to just happen.
For example, people with firestone tires, they couldn't sue UNTIL the tire exploded, even if they had the bad tire on their car. They couldn't even sue if they used the tire on a swingset and the tire burst, throwing the user to their possible death. Sure, the tire wasn't expected to blow apart, but that doesn't affect the fact it wasn't being used properly.
It scares me as a businessman that if I sell products to Americans that they can try to sue me if they use my products improperly and insure themselves. Fortunately, the worst they'll get away with is preventing me from entering the US (big deal) or selling to the US (could be worse).
So, had this been a case about her getting skin grafts on her mouth, that makes sense.
>If you showed a straight razor to anyone, they would say "yeah you'd have to be super careful with that, you could end up in the hospital for two weeks or die if you make a mistake".
And, you don't think people say the same thing about hot drinks?
Neither will I continue a conversation with someone whose capability for understanding is lower than the coffee lady's.
>Actually, your boss specifically told you to watch out for the spinning blades. The fact that you fell in was an accident, because you were rushing at the end of the day. And hey, didn't you have the choice to refuse to work with the dangerous machine? You can always quit.
Yup, you can. Sounds fine with me. When my dad was coming home burned from a steamfitting job all the time that's what he did.
>That's one of the main arguments presented against laws banning smoking in bars (because the second-hand smoke gives cancer to the waitresses/bartenders). Do you switch sides in that argument?
No, because that argument is specious at best. If you'd care to read my journal, you'd see you've been lied to. The fact is that second hand smoke isn't dangerous, even in the quantities a 9-5 worker would experience. All medical boards, when compared against their predetermined standards of "danger" agree. They simply adjusted their standards to fit this one media-hyped case, and that's not science. The ONLY proven fact is that it improves the health of young children. If you don't believe me, ask the WHO themselves. They'll give you a mistitled report that you can feel free to read for yourself.
>Don't forget, if it's all black and white, you can't say both sides have valid points.
It is. You're quite correct there.
>You say that there's no difference in the eyes of the law between the woman who accidentally spilled her coffee and sued because it was unusually hot and dangerous, and a woman who intentionally held a cup of standard-temperature coffee to her skin for 2 minutes. The same amount of damage was done in both cases. We could bring in another woman, who brought her coffe to work, microwaved it for 5 minutes, then tossed the cup up and caught it in the front of her pants. Same damage. Really, this is all the same in the eyes of the court?
In the eyes of the court, it was the person who made the coffee hot that was at fault. McDonald's, if they had the time, should require their coffee drinkers to heat their own coffee to their specifications. Of course, they're a fast food restaurant, not a gourmet restaurant, so they don't.
I don't see any difference in this new argument in yours yet.
>Either way, now let's go the other direction. I'm sure at some point you WOULD say that McDonalds was recklessly endangering their customers. Let me know when you hit the "gray" area.
Simple. The non-grey (Black and White) area is when McDonald's misrepresents a product, or indicates unsafe directions to the user. The coffee clearly wasn't misrepresented as something else, coffee is hot. Hot is hot. Hard to argue that point, I think. Now, if the coffee came with directions indicating to a user that a safe storage spot for coffee was in the lap, that's a problem.
Also, it would be a problem if normal use had caused this injury. Clearly, nobody drinks using a vagina, so that's not normal use. Normal use would be drinking with a mouth and using hands to hold the cup. If her hands, or her mouth were scalded, I've already admitted on SERVERAL occasions, McDonald's would be a fault. But that doesn't happen. Why?
Because people's lips are designed to be sensitive to heat. Your body will not willingly allow you to drink something "too hot". Her body would have sensed the coffee was "too hot" and her brain impulses (the few that were there) would have let her know to let it sit until such time it doesn't sense as "too hot".
>Suppose the McDonalds coffee came pre-sweetened, and their new sweetener in solution allowed the coffee to be heated much hotter than the standard boiling point of water, without evaporating. Suppose they gave her coffee that was 105C. Keep turning the dial, towards autoclave temperatures, where it would burn the lips right off your head if you took a sip immediately.
You see, I've already told you that if she had burned body parts that are used for drinking, It'd be her right to su
>Initially, Stella's family only asked McDonald's for her out-of-pocket expenses, about $2,000
Which is extortion is McDonald's doesn't feel they were at fault. Can't fault them for making their own minds up on this.
>A McDonald's Quality Control manager testified that McDonald's knew of the risk of dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or warn their customers, even though most customers wouldn't be aware of the scalding danger
Yes. I will testify that hot coffee burns people too. I mean, I'm not an idiot, I wouldn't lie on a basic scientific fact.
>He (Stella's Lawyer) asked for $100,000 in compensatory damages including her pain and suffering and triple punitive damages to send a message to McDonald's that their coffee was dangerously hot.
My water heater goes all the way up to "dangerously hot". Can I ask for damages if I pour an entire bath of scalding hot water and bathe in it? Yes. Should I win? No.
>A month later, the judge reduced the jury's punitive award of $2.7 million to only $640,000
That judge clearly has far more common sense than any of the jurors. You know the shit's hit the fan (legally) when a judge sides with a corporation like McDonald's.
>This report indicated that McDonald's still keeps its coffee at 180, still 20 hotter than other restaurants.
So, if this coffee is so dangerous, and there's a proven ground for further lawsuits, shouldn't they be popping up like flies?
If they aren't, can we not assume that if only one person on the planet earth harms themselves this way, that there must be something wrong with that single human being and NOT the product in question? I mean, we have billions and billions served who are not harmed vs. one that is. It simply makes sense to assume the one person did something abnormal. How else is it that no other such lawsuits exist against McDonald's for their hot coffee?
>Third degree burns occur at 185 in just 2 - 5 seconds.
Third degree burns occur within a minute (IIRC) at 165 degrees (the "standard" coffee temperature, according to the ambulance chasers). Up to now I've not heard of a crime where it becomes legal if you take longer performing it. So, assuming my knowledge of law is correct (it very well could be wrong), McDonald's, even if they cooled their coffee is still liable for people who spend longer pouring coffee on their genitalia.
If I were McDonald's, I'd just get insurance out and say "fuck it". They can't win no matter what they do.
>The judge of the trial even said the case "was not a runaway, I was there," and that it was "appropriate to punish and deter".
So, the judge felt this way, yet he decided even a quarter of the jury's punishment was too much. WHAT? That makes no sense.
>I don't see how you can blame stupidity, when it is pretty clear the product was "hotter than other restaurants" and that the risk typically associated with that type of product was greater.
Because the risk IS NOT GREATER. The risk is still present, the only difference is that it takes longer with cooler coffee. The fact is ANYBODY THAT DUMB will still spill coffee into their lap and cause severe burns, wether it takes 10 seconds or 10 minutes.
>What about a restaurant that serves you?
Oh, no problems there. I regularly eat at restaurants like pizza hut that serve their products in a sizzling hot pan. If I were to place this pan in my lap, I should have the right to sue. Am I correct in saying this is what you're telling me? That overly hot products (and pizza hut does serve it's pans hotter than anywhere else) misused by placing them in direct contact with ones crotch are something I can sue for?
When I'm old enough I don't give a crap about my genitals, I'm thinking this is a great way to leave my kids some money. Too bad I have morals that prevent me from taking advantage of sombody like that.
>A case like that should be thrown out instantly because coffee is normally hot enough to cause minor burns.
NO.
Perhaps what people aren't realizing here is that McDonald's legislated "cool" coffee is still hot enough, when misused (like what this lady did), to cause AS MUCH DAMAGE as the other coffee.
How? Let's say this lady tipped the cup up on her private parts. Rather than letting it spill and cool naturally, she chooses to keep the liquid in the cup, with the other end of the cup (and liquid) in contact with her private parts.
Now, instead of it taking seconds to cause such burns, it now takes 2 minutes.
Sure, you'll say "Why would anybody do something that stupid? If she held the cup there that's her own fault!". And that's EXACTLY what I've been saying all along, no? She choose to hold a hot cup to her crotch.
Now, the trial WAS NOT about the lengh of time it took to burn her, it was about the degree of her burns, or so the scum (IMHO) lawyer site makes it out to be.
So, since the fact is that the temperature of the coffee only effects the speed of burning, and NOT the amount necessarialy, any coffee is equally dangerous. So, McDonald's is still liable if this lady takes another cup of the now cooler coffee and pulls the same stunt, just over a longer time period. Now you can see why I get scared when someone's stupidity becomes a valid excuse to sue.
>I'm mostly just surprised at how black and white you seem to think these decisions are.
It's law. Law is black and white. Only in a society repressed by authoritatrian rule does law become grey. It's so much easier to get people in trouble that way.
>I'll suggest putting you to work for awhile in an Industrial Revolution era factory (the machines are perfectly safe as long as you use them correctly! just don't slip on the oil-soaked floor while your hands are an inch away from the spinning blades; that's "misuse" and "carelessness").
Hello! You have been directed by a boss to do those things. That's a totally different situation, unless the Drive Thru clerk told her that she should carry coffee in her crotch.
You do see the difference there, right? The difference between being directed to do a job by a "superior" and doing something on your own free will (and stupidity). It makes all the difference in the world in liability cases.
> But the company discovers that once in every 100,000 shaves, someone will press too hard and angle the blade just such that their jugular might get cut.
The razor you are talking about is already on the market, and companies making it do not get sued.
There's a reason this razor you speak of is called a cut throat. It's because it's an excellent way to cut your throat (should you be stupid enough to take up that challenge).
>Are they liable?
Hmmm, well, from the amount of suits I've heard of about use (or misuse) of cut throats, I'd have to say no.
>A dozen people were on that coffee jury and saw all of the evidence, not one of them dissented.
That many people agreed that OJ Simpson is not a murderer, and that many people agreed that OJ Simpson was liable for murder.
Juries don't seem all that reliable. Probably because rather than being randomly picked, they are hand-picked by the defense, judge, and prosecution.
>Despite "knowing better" and everything, some day you will have a brain fart and forget to look left when you are turning a corner because you were thinking about something else. Despite all of us "knowing better", we as a society or a corporation can KNOW and can predict that someday someone will do that, through almost no fault of their own. They are called accidents.
That already happened (not that exact thing, but not looking and myself hitting another car). Did I sue toyota for their brakes being weak, cheap junk? NO! I screwed up, I knew the limitations of my vehicle, I chose to drive it outisde what the vehicle was designed for.
She knew the limitations of a paper cup (she was 79 years old for crying out loud, I don't know how she couldn't have used a paper cup before in her life), and she knew what damage hot liquids do to the body.
Despite those facts, this idiot decided to place hot coffee in her lap. Her fault, and it doesn't matter if it barely scalded her, or she died. She took risks that were unnecessary, and misused the product.
Why do you support such misuse? Your razor example is wrong anyways, because one would need to misuse this product. For example, using a face razor to shave your pubic area and hurting yourself that way. You include no such misuse. Your example is invalid.
>The world isn't black and white, it's amazing how wrong you can be when you look at a grey wall and scream "it's white"!!
Maybe not to you. To the law, the world is a clear black and white. You either win a trial, or you don't. The only possibly grey area is "still undecided", and that's not really a grey area, that's just indecision. Only when bad laws are pressed into service does law become a grey area, and then we're all repressed citizens under a fascist regime. I say no thanks to that, and the fact that idiots like her can squeeze millions from McDonald's for their own misuse of the product makes me proud to be a non-American.
>With coffee 180+, you spill it on yourself and just scream as your trying to remove the fabric that your skin is grafting itself to.
Well, that's the point.
When coffee is used normally, if it does burn (and 140 degrees is more than enough to burn -- that's what the hot water from your sink is at) the burns don't involve fabric, normally. I suppose if you're wearing gloves, it could, but that's rare, and normally the coffee would spill off the gloves anyways. I can't see any reason to drink coffee with fabric in one's mouth, so the only way a graft of skin to fabric can occurr is when the coffee pools, like it would when one is sitting and crushes a cup in one's crotch. And that requires a feat of stupidity known only to people who are willing to ignore their most basic of senses (like HOT be be careful). You shouldn't get to sue for doing that.
So, you agree, the intended use of coffee is not holding it by one's crotch, right?
Then how can there be any case at all? It doesn't make any sense that if she only received "minor" burns she wouldn't have the right to sue -- if one agrees for major burns she can sue, then it follows that she can sue for minor ones as well. This is just as you can sue for a sprained ankle from a crack in someone's sidewalk, all the way up to an amputated leg. The amount of injury really only determines the compensation, not the ability to win the case.
And that's what's sad. Not the amount of burning, but the fact that she could sue for any at all.
>Perhaps some references about the hot coffee case are in order.
Perhaps you should know that vanfirm is famous (IMHO) for frivilous lawsuits, suing various pill manufacturers for complications arising as a result of taking medication that the user knew full well could cause such complications?
Also, you may wish to know that the flu is often lethal to people in her age bracket. Therefore, anyone sneezing in her general direction should really be sued for attempted murder.
Of course, McDonald's could have avoided this whole problem by refusing to sell their products to old people. Oh, wait, they'd be sued for that also.
A lot of old, forgetful, people do a lot of really stupid things. How many grandmothers have died because they forgot to light the stove? How many have died because they fell asleep with a burning cigarette on their sofa?
Yet we don't sue gas companies or cigarette companies for that. Hurrumph.
I just noticed something interesting about that lawfirm.
Do you agree with the other, similar cases they handle?
For example, this one. The product arava can cause serious complications in certain individuals. These individuals would have been informed of such possibilities of complications prior to taking this drug, if prescribed by a competent physician.
As you can see, the list of contraindications and side effects were made clear from day one. There was no coverup of this info. Any doctors prescribing this medication knew full well the possible adverse reactions. Any patients taking such medications should have been properly informed.
YET THIS COMPANY SUES.
The hypocrisy, it's tiring and old. Using this company as support for your case if like linking to a microsoft security article as a holy grail on security. It's laughable and simply detracts from anything interesting you (or they) have to say.
Actually, it is an acid. I can't think of any drinks off hand that aren't. The only common liquids I know of in a house that are bases are fabric softner and bleach.
Aside from that elementary fact, the facts argued in that case are that a "cooler" coffee would have taken less time to burn. So, she should have had less burns, assuming she could have magically jumped from her car and showered within a minute. However, assuming this magical shower appeared right in front of her car, the hotter coffee burned in seconds, so she wouldn't have had time to jump into this magical shower and stop the burning.
In fact, burning from hot coffee and burning from a light acid, to the casual person, and likely to the person experiencing the pain, aren't really all that different. So the example is perfectly valid, as the results are similar.
That all being said, it's the dumbest case on earth even for those that pour out sympathy because no matter what, hot or sorta-hot, that coffee was going to burn her. There's no avoiding that fact. The law doesn't normally take into account the severity of a crime as to wether one is guilty of it or not, that's only taken into account when sentencing is pronounced. "But officer, I was only doing 10 over, not 50 over, that doesn't really count, does it?"
So, this law now sets a precedent that ANYONE burned with coffee can sue because the company serving the coffee is now assumed to be in the wrong. Period. Now, perhaps they won't need to pay out millions, maybe only a few thousand. But doesn't that sound like a great scam?
That's why misuse of products shouldn't count. You don't put dangerous items near sensitive organs. I don't store my razor on my genitalia. You shouldn't store your coffee there. And if I did store my razor there, and cut my dick off, I should be able to sue, no? Their razors were clearly TOO SHARP. A standard razor should only nick me, no? (Oh God, I hope you don't agree. If you do, the world's gone mad).
Slashdot Mirror
>You *can't* switch to another set of domain servers. To permit alternate TLDs (as has already been attempted without success) would lead to a partitioned Internet.
.com, etc become valueless. Crazy customers that spent $1000 a few years ago to buy a long term registration will go insane with anger. Verisign would be forced to fix their policy or die.
Exactly. That's the whole point.
>To all you damn Libertarians that thing private commerce and capitalism is important for the proper functioning of ANYTHING, wake up and take a look around. Some things NEED to be regulated by the government; some times efficency is NOT as important as accountability. This is one of them (as a Californian, energy regulation is another!).
You're still wrong.
In a libertarian society, we'd have switched to another set of domain servers. People with com/net/org registrations would get VERY angry with Verisign when their paid-for domains become worthless.
Instead we live in an overly regulated society were it would take an army of men to get the government to start using alternative servers.
That being said, a fully closed/open standard does not make any difference to piracy.
For example, DirecTV uses a completely proprietary system, *VERY* closed, yet there's not been a day for many years it hasn't been widely, openly, hacked.
DishNetwork, however, uses the open, popular DVB standard for transmission (yes, use a circular LNB and you'll receive all the previews on your DVB receiver -- I have). The only part of their system that *isn't* open is the CAM (smartcard), obviously. Although, all the specs for that are available if you look around. However, in my experience, their system is MUCH less pirated than DirecTV. And I mean *MUCH* less pirated. There's probably 1/30th as many DishNet pirates as there are DirecTV pirates (coming from my experience of turning away pirate customers at my new satellite store -- I wish Canadian laws would go back to the way they were).
Hey mod, you are showing your ignorance.
Guess what goes in heat...
BITCHES.
You know, female dogs?
Christ, am I the only man left that uses the english language PROPERLY around here?
>It should be heatsync.
That would be Nsync, but with bitches, right?
Make mine a "type baRton".
The difference between a free society and a dictatorship is that in a free society you have the freedom to break a law and pay for it. In a dictatorship, you're never given the chance to get that far.
Perhaps you couldn't tell by the twisted smilie, but I was being facetious. ;-)
>In case you haven't seen it yet, they have low-end machines that are comparable, already running Linux, for about $200.
:-)
:-S
Trust me, that doesn't compare...
- Via C3 Samuel-2 GigaPro 800 Mhz Processor
Not bad for some stuff, but not a P3 733, that's for sure.
- 128 MB SDRAM
Well, this is more than the XBOX, so it wins there. But that doesn't speed it up enough...
- 30 GB Hard drive
Again, more than the XBOX, but doesn't make a difference to linux installation...
- 52x CDROM
It isn't a DVD-ROM, so crappier than the Xbox
- 56k Modem
Hmmmm... Well, it's better than Xbox for this, but I can think of better ways to spend $6.
I'll sell you as many systems as I can get my hands on parts for $269.99 CDN (same price) that have similar specs (less HDD space). That isn't such a hot deal... Mine have a Duron 1.3 Ghz CPU also.. I'll throw on a linux distro if you really want one.
For once, I guess it's "HOORAY FOR PC CHIPS!"...
>you find yourself far less defined by what you own.
mmmmhmmm... So what should I be defined by? I can't think of much that wasn't influenced by others...
>Clearly, it does not take as much resources to develop it, since it doesn't have its own graphical installer, nice config tools, etc.
Thank God!
Oh wait, I'm audience #2?
That would explain why I only ran mandrake for half an hour...
>My favorite mousepad for my optical mouse: an A4 piece of paper.
Outside of europe, trust me, that's far more expensive than a "real" mousepad.
That little tiny thing (with the big ball) was the best mouse I've ever owned. It still works, too.
However, if we're talking any pointing device, nothing beats my logitech TrackMan Marble+. Oh yeah...
>It's pretty much a given that it was just too hot. Too hot to drink, too hot to hold properly.
I've never disagreed with that, except to say that all coffee is hot coffee, and that coffee *is* best served hot.
What I disagree with is why she sued. She never injured herself in the proper usage of the product. You (again, outside the US) can't sue for misusing the product, and you can't sue for the "possiblity" of something happening. That "bad thing" needs to just happen.
For example, people with firestone tires, they couldn't sue UNTIL the tire exploded, even if they had the bad tire on their car. They couldn't even sue if they used the tire on a swingset and the tire burst, throwing the user to their possible death. Sure, the tire wasn't expected to blow apart, but that doesn't affect the fact it wasn't being used properly.
It scares me as a businessman that if I sell products to Americans that they can try to sue me if they use my products improperly and insure themselves. Fortunately, the worst they'll get away with is preventing me from entering the US (big deal) or selling to the US (could be worse).
So, had this been a case about her getting skin grafts on her mouth, that makes sense.
Sking grafts on her vagina, that's misuse.
Catch where I'm going with this?
>If you showed a straight razor to anyone, they would say "yeah you'd have to be super careful with that, you could end up in the hospital for two weeks or die if you make a mistake".
And, you don't think people say the same thing about hot drinks?
Neither will I continue a conversation with someone whose capability for understanding is lower than the coffee lady's.
Goodbye.
>Actually, your boss specifically told you to watch out for the spinning blades. The fact that you fell in was an accident, because you were rushing at the end of the day. And hey, didn't you have the choice to refuse to work with the dangerous machine? You can always quit.
Yup, you can. Sounds fine with me. When my dad was coming home burned from a steamfitting job all the time that's what he did.
>That's one of the main arguments presented against laws banning smoking in bars (because the second-hand smoke gives cancer to the waitresses/bartenders). Do you switch sides in that argument?
No, because that argument is specious at best. If you'd care to read my journal, you'd see you've been lied to. The fact is that second hand smoke isn't dangerous, even in the quantities a 9-5 worker would experience. All medical boards, when compared against their predetermined standards of "danger" agree. They simply adjusted their standards to fit this one media-hyped case, and that's not science. The ONLY proven fact is that it improves the health of young children. If you don't believe me, ask the WHO themselves. They'll give you a mistitled report that you can feel free to read for yourself.
>Don't forget, if it's all black and white, you can't say both sides have valid points.
It is. You're quite correct there.
>You say that there's no difference in the eyes of the law between the woman who accidentally spilled her coffee and sued because it was unusually hot and dangerous, and a woman who intentionally held a cup of standard-temperature coffee to her skin for 2 minutes. The same amount of damage was done in both cases. We could bring in another woman, who brought her coffe to work, microwaved it for 5 minutes, then tossed the cup up and caught it in the front of her pants. Same damage. Really, this is all the same in the eyes of the court?
In the eyes of the court, it was the person who made the coffee hot that was at fault. McDonald's, if they had the time, should require their coffee drinkers to heat their own coffee to their specifications. Of course, they're a fast food restaurant, not a gourmet restaurant, so they don't.
I don't see any difference in this new argument in yours yet.
>Either way, now let's go the other direction. I'm sure at some point you WOULD say that McDonalds was recklessly endangering their customers. Let me know when you hit the "gray" area.
Simple. The non-grey (Black and White) area is when McDonald's misrepresents a product, or indicates unsafe directions to the user. The coffee clearly wasn't misrepresented as something else, coffee is hot. Hot is hot. Hard to argue that point, I think. Now, if the coffee came with directions indicating to a user that a safe storage spot for coffee was in the lap, that's a problem.
Also, it would be a problem if normal use had caused this injury. Clearly, nobody drinks using a vagina, so that's not normal use. Normal use would be drinking with a mouth and using hands to hold the cup. If her hands, or her mouth were scalded, I've already admitted on SERVERAL occasions, McDonald's would be a fault. But that doesn't happen. Why?
Because people's lips are designed to be sensitive to heat. Your body will not willingly allow you to drink something "too hot". Her body would have sensed the coffee was "too hot" and her brain impulses (the few that were there) would have let her know to let it sit until such time it doesn't sense as "too hot".
>Suppose the McDonalds coffee came pre-sweetened, and their new sweetener in solution allowed the coffee to be heated much hotter than the standard boiling point of water, without evaporating. Suppose they gave her coffee that was 105C. Keep turning the dial, towards autoclave temperatures, where it would burn the lips right off your head if you took a sip immediately.
You see, I've already told you that if she had burned body parts that are used for drinking, It'd be her right to su
>Initially, Stella's family only asked McDonald's for her out-of-pocket expenses, about $2,000
Which is extortion is McDonald's doesn't feel they were at fault. Can't fault them for making their own minds up on this.
>A McDonald's Quality Control manager testified that McDonald's knew of the risk of dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or warn their customers, even though most customers wouldn't be aware of the scalding danger
Yes. I will testify that hot coffee burns people too. I mean, I'm not an idiot, I wouldn't lie on a basic scientific fact.
>He (Stella's Lawyer) asked for $100,000 in compensatory damages including her pain and suffering and triple punitive damages to send a message to McDonald's that their coffee was dangerously hot.
My water heater goes all the way up to "dangerously hot". Can I ask for damages if I pour an entire bath of scalding hot water and bathe in it? Yes. Should I win? No.
>A month later, the judge reduced the jury's punitive award of $2.7 million to only $640,000
That judge clearly has far more common sense than any of the jurors. You know the shit's hit the fan (legally) when a judge sides with a corporation like McDonald's.
>This report indicated that McDonald's still keeps its coffee at 180, still 20 hotter than other restaurants.
So, if this coffee is so dangerous, and there's a proven ground for further lawsuits, shouldn't they be popping up like flies?
If they aren't, can we not assume that if only one person on the planet earth harms themselves this way, that there must be something wrong with that single human being and NOT the product in question? I mean, we have billions and billions served who are not harmed vs. one that is. It simply makes sense to assume the one person did something abnormal. How else is it that no other such lawsuits exist against McDonald's for their hot coffee?
>Third degree burns occur at 185 in just 2 - 5 seconds.
Third degree burns occur within a minute (IIRC) at 165 degrees (the "standard" coffee temperature, according to the ambulance chasers). Up to now I've not heard of a crime where it becomes legal if you take longer performing it. So, assuming my knowledge of law is correct (it very well could be wrong), McDonald's, even if they cooled their coffee is still liable for people who spend longer pouring coffee on their genitalia.
If I were McDonald's, I'd just get insurance out and say "fuck it". They can't win no matter what they do.
>The judge of the trial even said the case "was not a runaway, I was there," and that it was "appropriate to punish and deter".
So, the judge felt this way, yet he decided even a quarter of the jury's punishment was too much. WHAT? That makes no sense.
>I don't see how you can blame stupidity, when it is pretty clear the product was "hotter than other restaurants" and that the risk typically associated with that type of product was greater.
Because the risk IS NOT GREATER. The risk is still present, the only difference is that it takes longer with cooler coffee. The fact is ANYBODY THAT DUMB will still spill coffee into their lap and cause severe burns, wether it takes 10 seconds or 10 minutes.
>What about a restaurant that serves you?
Oh, no problems there. I regularly eat at restaurants like pizza hut that serve their products in a sizzling hot pan. If I were to place this pan in my lap, I should have the right to sue. Am I correct in saying this is what you're telling me? That overly hot products (and pizza hut does serve it's pans hotter than anywhere else) misused by placing them in direct contact with ones crotch are something I can sue for?
When I'm old enough I don't give a crap about my genitals, I'm thinking this is a great way to leave my kids some money. Too bad I have morals that prevent me from taking advantage of sombody like that.
>I think it's more than f
>A case like that should be thrown out instantly because coffee is normally hot enough to cause minor burns.
NO.
Perhaps what people aren't realizing here is that McDonald's legislated "cool" coffee is still hot enough, when misused (like what this lady did), to cause AS MUCH DAMAGE as the other coffee.
How? Let's say this lady tipped the cup up on her private parts. Rather than letting it spill and cool naturally, she chooses to keep the liquid in the cup, with the other end of the cup (and liquid) in contact with her private parts.
Now, instead of it taking seconds to cause such burns, it now takes 2 minutes.
Sure, you'll say "Why would anybody do something that stupid? If she held the cup there that's her own fault!". And that's EXACTLY what I've been saying all along, no? She choose to hold a hot cup to her crotch.
Now, the trial WAS NOT about the lengh of time it took to burn her, it was about the degree of her burns, or so the scum (IMHO) lawyer site makes it out to be.
So, since the fact is that the temperature of the coffee only effects the speed of burning, and NOT the amount necessarialy, any coffee is equally dangerous. So, McDonald's is still liable if this lady takes another cup of the now cooler coffee and pulls the same stunt, just over a longer time period. Now you can see why I get scared when someone's stupidity becomes a valid excuse to sue.
>I'm mostly just surprised at how black and white you seem to think these decisions are.
It's law. Law is black and white. Only in a society repressed by authoritatrian rule does law become grey. It's so much easier to get people in trouble that way.
>I'll suggest putting you to work for awhile in an Industrial Revolution era factory (the machines are perfectly safe as long as you use them correctly! just don't slip on the oil-soaked floor while your hands are an inch away from the spinning blades; that's "misuse" and "carelessness").
Hello! You have been directed by a boss to do those things. That's a totally different situation, unless the Drive Thru clerk told her that she should carry coffee in her crotch.
You do see the difference there, right? The difference between being directed to do a job by a "superior" and doing something on your own free will (and stupidity). It makes all the difference in the world in liability cases.
> But the company discovers that once in every 100,000 shaves, someone will press too hard and angle the blade just such that their jugular might get cut.
The razor you are talking about is already on the market, and companies making it do not get sued.
There's a reason this razor you speak of is called a cut throat. It's because it's an excellent way to cut your throat (should you be stupid enough to take up that challenge).
>Are they liable?
Hmmm, well, from the amount of suits I've heard of about use (or misuse) of cut throats, I'd have to say no.
>A dozen people were on that coffee jury and saw all of the evidence, not one of them dissented.
That many people agreed that OJ Simpson is not a murderer, and that many people agreed that OJ Simpson was liable for murder.
Juries don't seem all that reliable. Probably because rather than being randomly picked, they are hand-picked by the defense, judge, and prosecution.
>Despite "knowing better" and everything, some day you will have a brain fart and forget to look left when you are turning a corner because you were thinking about something else. Despite all of us "knowing better", we as a society or a corporation can KNOW and can predict that someday someone will do that, through almost no fault of their own. They are called accidents.
That already happened (not that exact thing, but not looking and myself hitting another car). Did I sue toyota for their brakes being weak, cheap junk? NO! I screwed up, I knew the limitations of my vehicle, I chose to drive it outisde what the vehicle was designed for.
She knew the limitations of a paper cup (she was 79 years old for crying out loud, I don't know how she couldn't have used a paper cup before in her life), and she knew what damage hot liquids do to the body.
Despite those facts, this idiot decided to place hot coffee in her lap. Her fault, and it doesn't matter if it barely scalded her, or she died. She took risks that were unnecessary, and misused the product.
Why do you support such misuse? Your razor example is wrong anyways, because one would need to misuse this product. For example, using a face razor to shave your pubic area and hurting yourself that way. You include no such misuse. Your example is invalid.
>The world isn't black and white, it's amazing how wrong you can be when you look at a grey wall and scream "it's white"!!
Maybe not to you. To the law, the world is a clear black and white. You either win a trial, or you don't. The only possibly grey area is "still undecided", and that's not really a grey area, that's just indecision. Only when bad laws are pressed into service does law become a grey area, and then we're all repressed citizens under a fascist regime. I say no thanks to that, and the fact that idiots like her can squeeze millions from McDonald's for their own misuse of the product makes me proud to be a non-American.
I did, and vanfirm is still scum. Can you tell me what I've missed? I'm not a mind reader, you know.
>With coffee 180+, you spill it on yourself and just scream as your trying to remove the fabric that your skin is grafting itself to.
Well, that's the point.
When coffee is used normally, if it does burn (and 140 degrees is more than enough to burn -- that's what the hot water from your sink is at) the burns don't involve fabric, normally. I suppose if you're wearing gloves, it could, but that's rare, and normally the coffee would spill off the gloves anyways. I can't see any reason to drink coffee with fabric in one's mouth, so the only way a graft of skin to fabric can occurr is when the coffee pools, like it would when one is sitting and crushes a cup in one's crotch. And that requires a feat of stupidity known only to people who are willing to ignore their most basic of senses (like HOT be be careful). You shouldn't get to sue for doing that.
So, you agree, the intended use of coffee is not holding it by one's crotch, right?
Then how can there be any case at all? It doesn't make any sense that if she only received "minor" burns she wouldn't have the right to sue -- if one agrees for major burns she can sue, then it follows that she can sue for minor ones as well. This is just as you can sue for a sprained ankle from a crack in someone's sidewalk, all the way up to an amputated leg. The amount of injury really only determines the compensation, not the ability to win the case.
And that's what's sad. Not the amount of burning, but the fact that she could sue for any at all.
>Perhaps some references about the hot coffee case are in order.
Perhaps you should know that vanfirm is famous (IMHO) for frivilous lawsuits, suing various pill manufacturers for complications arising as a result of taking medication that the user knew full well could cause such complications?
Also, you may wish to know that the flu is often lethal to people in her age bracket. Therefore, anyone sneezing in her general direction should really be sued for attempted murder.
Of course, McDonald's could have avoided this whole problem by refusing to sell their products to old people. Oh, wait, they'd be sued for that also.
A lot of old, forgetful, people do a lot of really stupid things. How many grandmothers have died because they forgot to light the stove? How many have died because they fell asleep with a burning cigarette on their sofa?
Yet we don't sue gas companies or cigarette companies for that. Hurrumph.
I just noticed something interesting about that lawfirm.
Do you agree with the other, similar cases they handle?
For example, this one. The product arava can cause serious complications in certain individuals. These individuals would have been informed of such possibilities of complications prior to taking this drug, if prescribed by a competent physician.
As you can see, the list of contraindications and side effects were made clear from day one. There was no coverup of this info. Any doctors prescribing this medication knew full well the possible adverse reactions. Any patients taking such medications should have been properly informed.
YET THIS COMPANY SUES.
The hypocrisy, it's tiring and old. Using this company as support for your case if like linking to a microsoft security article as a holy grail on security. It's laughable and simply detracts from anything interesting you (or they) have to say.
>Coffee isn't acid.
Actually, it is an acid. I can't think of any drinks off hand that aren't. The only common liquids I know of in a house that are bases are fabric softner and bleach.
Aside from that elementary fact, the facts argued in that case are that a "cooler" coffee would have taken less time to burn. So, she should have had less burns, assuming she could have magically jumped from her car and showered within a minute. However, assuming this magical shower appeared right in front of her car, the hotter coffee burned in seconds, so she wouldn't have had time to jump into this magical shower and stop the burning.
In fact, burning from hot coffee and burning from a light acid, to the casual person, and likely to the person experiencing the pain, aren't really all that different. So the example is perfectly valid, as the results are similar.
That all being said, it's the dumbest case on earth even for those that pour out sympathy because no matter what, hot or sorta-hot, that coffee was going to burn her. There's no avoiding that fact. The law doesn't normally take into account the severity of a crime as to wether one is guilty of it or not, that's only taken into account when sentencing is pronounced. "But officer, I was only doing 10 over, not 50 over, that doesn't really count, does it?"
So, this law now sets a precedent that ANYONE burned with coffee can sue because the company serving the coffee is now assumed to be in the wrong. Period. Now, perhaps they won't need to pay out millions, maybe only a few thousand. But doesn't that sound like a great scam?
That's why misuse of products shouldn't count. You don't put dangerous items near sensitive organs. I don't store my razor on my genitalia. You shouldn't store your coffee there. And if I did store my razor there, and cut my dick off, I should be able to sue, no? Their razors were clearly TOO SHARP. A standard razor should only nick me, no? (Oh God, I hope you don't agree. If you do, the world's gone mad).