Soxbadger Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) Yep McDonalds case is actually one of the better ruled cases. McDonalds punitive damage for knowingly serving coffee that was to hot was the amount of money McDonalds made on selling coffee in 1 day. (Im pretty sure thats how they got the amount). McDonalds should have settled for her medical bills when they were given the chance, but instead they wanted to be greedy and got hammered. Its a pretty easy negligence case, McDonalds knowingly served coffee that was to hot, they had a duty to serve it at a safe standard, it was reasonably forseeable that someone would spill coffee on themselves as a result of serving the coffee to hot, the Plaintiff suffered damages. (edit) I dont care if the optimal temperature of coffee is the sun, you dont give something that hot to a customer, its just common sense. Edited July 11, 2011 by Soxbadger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 11:33 AM) Yep McDonalds case is actually one of the better ruled cases. McDonalds punitive damage for knowingly serving coffee that was to hot was the amount of money McDonalds made on selling coffee in 1 day. (Im pretty sure thats how they got the amount). McDonalds should have settled for her medical bills when they were given the chance, but instead they wanted to be greedy and got hammered. Its a pretty easy negligence case, McDonalds knowingly served coffee that was to hot, they had a duty to serve it at a safe standard, it was reasonably forseeable that someone would spill coffee on themselves as a result of serving the coffee to hot, the Plaintiff suffered damages. My Starbucks coffee is served at 180 degrees. 5 degrees cooler than what she burned herself with. My suit would get thrown out because there is a warning on the cup. McDonalds still serves their coffee at the same temp. Edit to respond to yours. More obvious example of common sense: Serving people hot coffe that is not immediately consumable, or knowing your coffe is hot when you receive it? Once again, every restaurant serving coffee (starbucks, Dunkin, Caribou) serve coffe at well over 170 degrees, the temperature that can cause burns in less than 10 seconds on the skin. How come 99.9% of people dont burn themselves and then sue? Edited July 11, 2011 by RockRaines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) And the jury found McDonalds warning was neither large enough nor sufficient, seems like they changed their policy based on the ruling... As for your lawsuit getting thrown out, it would very well depend on the facts. You cant just say your theoretical case that doesnt exist would be a winner or loser, it depends on the specific facts and circumstances. (edit) Because there may be a huge difference between 170 degrees and 190 degrees. Im not a scientist, and the reason why most people dont sue is because most people who spill coffee on themselves dont suffer 3rd degree burns? Not much of a lawsuit if there wasnt a significant injury. Edited July 11, 2011 by Soxbadger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 11:30 AM) i love lamp lol My opinion is that there should've been a net or something to stop someone from falling 20 feet onto concrete.Like others have pointed out before, beer+baseball fans=idiots...doesn't take a genius to figure out that there will be guys reaching out to grab a baseball, at least make it so they don't break their necks if they fall over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Rock, To further explain on the injury part. I have clients who want to have waivers for their pool, trampoline etc. I always have to tell them, that if a kid dies in their pool, I dont care how many waivers they have, they are going to get sued and there is going to be a risk that they are found liable. If the injury is severe enough people arent just going to walk away. Had this lady only suffered minor burns, my guess is that the case doesnt exist. But she suffered severe burns and was in the hospital for 8 days. McDonalds offered her $800. It was just stupid on their part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 11:38 AM) And the jury found McDonalds warning was neither large enough nor sufficient, seems like they changed their policy based on the ruling... As for your lawsuit getting thrown out, it would very well depend on the facts. You cant just say your theoretical case that doesnt exist would be a winner or loser, it depends on the specific facts and circumstances. Yes, they changed the warning, and have been sued many times since. I base my theoretical case on the hundreds of frivolous cases that have popped up since that have been tossed. Starbucks, Dunkin, Coffee Bean etc have all been sued since 1994's ruling. Even Hashbrowns cannot be considered idiot proof anymore. There have probably been settlements for medical bills for the hundred or so cases out of the billions and billions of cups they sell. If that isnt proof of a small population of idiotic individuals I dont know what does. http://www.patriotledger.com/news/state_ne...hot-hash-browns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 11:44 AM) Rock, To further explain on the injury part. I have clients who want to have waivers for their pool, trampoline etc. I always have to tell them, that if a kid dies in their pool, I dont care how many waivers they have, they are going to get sued and there is going to be a risk that they are found liable. If the injury is severe enough people arent just going to walk away. Had this lady only suffered minor burns, my guess is that the case doesnt exist. But she suffered severe burns and was in the hospital for 8 days. McDonalds offered her $800. It was just stupid on their part. I agree they should have paid her 20k in bills. However I dont agree that the restaurant is wrong for serving a hot cup of coffee to someone who ordered a hot cup of coffee. I burned my tongue on a buffalo chicken roll yesterday because bit it too soon, 100% my fault because I should know the difference between hot and cold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Starbucks serves coffee as hot or sometimes hotter than the cup that burned that woman. http://gothamist.com/2008/06/07/court_shorts_se.php Nothing has changed since then except for adding a warning to the label. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Sorry for the tangent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 If anything, they should have discontinued offering coffee through the drive thru. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 11:58 AM) If anything, they should have discontinued offering coffee through the drive thru. But only 700 or so out of over 10 billion orders couldnt grasp the idea that the coffee was hot. Thats way too minuscule to discontinue a practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 12:09 PM) But only 700 or so out of over 10 billion orders couldnt grasp the idea that the coffee was hot. Thats way too minuscule to discontinue a practice. Yeah. Good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 12:30 PM) i love lamp Do you really love the lamp, or are you just saying it because you saw it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 12:35 PM) Do you really love the lamp, or are you just saying it because you saw it? No, I really love lamp *sniff* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 01:16 PM) No, I really love lamp *sniff* Pics or it isn't true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 10:09 AM) I flat out do not believe you. You are lying both to me and to yourself. You're being annoyingly pigheaded. I have been to literally hundreds of games in my life and I have never, not even for a second as a joke, leaned over a railing. I'm not scared of heights (well I am, but the normal kind of rational fear), but I know that leaning over absolutely can result in falling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 10, 2011 -> 09:41 PM) So what if a player rips a foul ball into the right field stands and the ball hits a fan in the eye and kills him/her? Is he responsible? Hey, if Josh wants to give the kid a million bucks, good for him. All I'm saying is he doesn't owe the kid anything. Yes, the player would be responsible. Not responsible in the sense that they would be legally obligated to do anything about it, but they physically sent that ball at the person's head. This is not obtuse in any way, and I know you understand what I'm saying. The person who does it (the hitter in your hypothetical situation and Hamilton in reality) has no legal obligation to do anything, but any human being with emotions should want to help out and do whatever is in their power to ease the suffering. A person of Hamilton's wealth and resources can easily do this by, as others have stated, having his foundation set aside money for college and/or a trust fund. If it were a career minor leaguer with little money, he could simply attempt to be a friend to the child by remaining in contact with him over the years, perhaps getting tickets to a few games a season, visiting the clubhouse, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 03:31 PM) You're being annoyingly pigheaded. I have been to literally hundreds of games in my life and I have never, not even for a second as a joke, leaned over a railing. I'm not scared of heights (well I am, but the normal kind of rational fear), but I know that leaning over absolutely can result in falling. Have you ever had to make a split second decision between leaning 3 inches more and missing a foul ball? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 02:39 PM) Have you ever had to make a split second decision between leaning 3 inches more and missing a foul ball? [raises hand] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 02:39 PM) Have you ever had to make a split second decision between leaning 3 inches more and missing a foul ball? Yes, twice as I recall. Actually one was fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 02:39 PM) Have you ever had to make a split second decision between leaning 3 inches more and missing a foul ball? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 02:39 PM) Have you ever had to make a split second decision between leaning 3 inches more and missing a foul ball? I'm not saying we are right, but I agree with you here. One of the best players in the game threw a father a ball he was trying dangerously hard to catch both to impress his son and so he could give the ball to his son. This is no one's fault...but I could see how it could happen and it is just an unfortunate and terrible accident. I am sure a memo was circulated around baseball for players to not throw balls into the stands anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 05:41 PM) I am sure a memo was circulated around baseball for players to not throw balls into the stands anymore. I'm pretty sure if that happened it would have leaked already, and I'd hate to see that be the end result of this. I believe Hamilton said that he'd still continue to do so, just maybe be more careful. Hell, is MLB still having "Gold-plated balls" for the final out in the HR derby tonight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Wasn't the McDonald's case also partially about the fact that they deliberately kept their coffee 10-30 degrees hotter than what was considered "safe" in order to extend the product life cycle and save money...? That at higher temperatures, they'd have to brew fewer fresh cups of coffee...throw out less "cold/stale" coffee and wring more profit out of that particular product? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 11, 2011 -> 05:15 PM) Wasn't the McDonald's case also partially about the fact that they deliberately kept their coffee 10-30 degrees hotter than what was considered "safe" in order to extend the product life cycle and save money...? That at higher temperatures, they'd have to brew fewer fresh cups of coffee...throw out less "cold/stale" coffee and wring more profit out of that particular product? Ironically every other coffee place serves it in the same temperature range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.