Putting aside the issue of liability-I was called to the television by my sister yesterday. They showed the burns on the crotch of the woman who was burned by the spilled cup of cofffe she purchased at McDonalds. There was significant third degree burns that would envoke sympathy from even the most callous observer.
I do not have a link . I assure it is not something you want to see.
This woman, who was genuinely and pretty seriously injured, was mocked by political commentators who decided it was far too much trouble to know what the hell they were talking about, and much more fun to just make fun of someone who was hurt, in order to support their superflous arguments about a litigious society.
In other news of compassion and human rights, vigilante stalks, shoots and kills 17-year-old boy and is not even arrested while, at the same time, the SCOTUS actually has to consider whether or not life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment for a 14-year old boy. I have a 14-year-old boy, I know this is not worth considering. Of course it's cruel and unusual punishment. It's idiocy.
We're going backwards in America, becoming less tolerant, less compassionate and just plain less American with every citizen who embraces the snark-fest that has become our political norm. What's next? Cutting off the hands of shoplifters in court? Stoning unfaithful wives at the mall? Applauding the proliferation of executions in our most blood-thirsty state?
Enough. Really. We have forgotten who we are supposed to be.
Most outrageous Tim is the rise of what I call strict liability crines. You are guitly merely by accusation. Combine that with the rise of crimes that arise merely out of being a criminal defednant. e.g. Assault on a Police Officer, Failure to Appear, Contempt of Court for failure to foillow ,etc.
The DC Public Defender Service Posted an Article called Internal Exile. For exmaple Virginia has over 300,000 citizens who forefieted thier right to vote based on a felony conviction. Possession of cocaine is a felony in the Commonwealth if Virginia.
Thanks for posting this Steve. I have never seen the other side of the story all this time. Quite an eye opener and warning to not take things at face value.
That's the first time I heard the actual details of the incident. And McDonalds position on the matter. Thanks for posting that clip. It certainly changes my view on the case!!
Thanks for posting this Steve. I have never seen the other side of the story all this time. Quite an eye opener and warning to not take things at face value.
That's the first time I heard the actual details of the incident. And McDonalds position on the matter. Thanks for posting that clip. It certainly changes my view on the case!!
Those of us in the know, including those of us who have actually have knowledge of testimony given at the trial, understand the factual basis for the finding of liability. This video does not even discuss those facts. But for those who superficially plead for tort reform and cite this case as a basis for such reform, heavens, don't confuse them with those pesky little things called facts, because facts might even lead to the truth.
This woman, who was genuinely and pretty seriously injured, was mocked by political commentators who decided it was far too much trouble to know what the hell they were talking about, and much more fun to just make fun of someone who was hurt, in order to support their superflous arguments about a litigious society.
In other news of compassion and human rights, vigilante stalks, shoots and kills 17-year-old boy and is not even arrested while, at the same time, the SCOTUS actually has to consider whether or not life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment for a 14-year old boy. I have a 14-year-old boy, I know this is not worth considering. Of course it's cruel and unusual punishment. It's idiocy.
We're going backwards in America, becoming less tolerant, less compassionate and just plain less American with every citizen who embraces the snark-fest that has become our political norm. What's next? Cutting off the hands of shoplifters in court? Stoning unfaithful wives at the mall? Applauding the proliferation of executions in our most blood-thirsty state?
Enough. Really. We have forgotten who we are supposed to be.
Nothing new from my point of view. Temperature evidence gathered from a McD manual? Nothing has changed IMO. Allow me to repeat,
Legs/pressure/cap/lift/spill/physics. It's a Styrofoam cup. What would happen if you applied pressure to the sides of a Styrofoam cup with the lid on and then took the lid off? Think back to your physics class and tell me how much at that point would it take to demolish the sides of a Styrofoam cup.
I do feel for that woman, though. I never knew it was that bad.
Tom, how about this: hand/pressure/cap/lift/spill/physics? You see, at trial us attorneys deal with evidence. Where is the evidence that the pressure from her legs had caused this spill? And where is the evidence to show that it was not reasonably foreseeable that this kind of spill might occur? Did McDonalds reasonably believe no one in their cars would seek to open the lid on a cup of coffee to go?
What if the coffee was not 187 degrees but instead was 207 degrees? What if it was 250 degrees?
As I stated before, that video does not even touch on the facts giving rise to the finding of liability. There is plenty of information about that case scattered about the Internet.
Eh, you present some good points. What I saw on the video was temperatures supposedly derived from a McD's handbook or SOP manual. That isn't proof. As a trial attorney, did anyone ever take a Styrofoam cup with the top on and place it between their legs, only to take the top off to see what would happen? Is it McD's liability that she didn't have a cup holder in the car to begin with? Is it their liability that she couldn't hold said cup of said coffee until she got to her destination, allowing it to cool down?
I'm not wanting to argue. That's not my style. I'm just thinking out loud about what I have read, heard and seen. This video presents nothing more than what I may have already known. Burns aside, she could have used a little bit more of common sense. At least that's my stance. YMMV.
Tom, how about this: hand/pressure/cap/lift/spill/physics? You see, at trial us attorneys deal with evidence. Where is the evidence that the pressure from her legs had caused this spill? And where is the evidence to show that it was not reasonably foreseeable that this kind of spill might occur? Did McDonalds reasonably believe no one in their cars would seek to open the lid on a cup of coffee to go?
What if the coffee was not 187 degrees but instead was 207 degrees? What if it was 250 degrees?
As I stated before, that video does not even touch on the facts giving rise to the finding of liability. There is plenty of information about that case scattered about the Internet.
Did the woman use poor judgement? Yes and considering her age,she should have known better. The case was a plaintiffs dream,the agonising pictures were enough for a smart and crafty lawyer to take control of the jury. I don't like McDonald's and if I were on that jury the evidence would have to show malicious intent to injure that woman,a very high bar. But then as a juror you have to follow the Judges instructions and I don't know what they were in that case. There is jury nullification and that can always play a part in the verdict,the OJ Simpson trial comes to mind.
From one of my favorite movies, A few Good men: "A jury trial is about assigning blame."
I was once in a trial involving technology. This goes years back before most people had personal computers. I asked my attorney how the judge was going to decided this complicated case. He said he would have no real ability to understand the technical issues. But ultimately, was going to decide who was the bad guy, who was the good guy and rule in that manner. So it was very important how we acted in front of him. Same here. I suspect McDonald saying 750 people had gotten burned was no big deal since they served so many people coffee was not wise. They looked like the bad guy in the eyes of the jury and the judge...
Malicious intent? Nah, just neglect. What they're liable for is selling a product that, under normal use (she meant to consume it in a car; McDonald's has a drive-through)) can seriously injure the user. They are liable because they sell their coffee too damned hot. What was it? 180 degrees? That's absurd. You can't drink it at that temperature; you have to let it cool, bring the temperature down, before it is not dangerous under any circumstances. Let's say she was a young woman, with a couple of kids, sitting down with her coffee in McD's dining room, and in the hustle and confusion of settling the kids and the McBiscuts, the coffee was spilled in her lap then. Should she have known better than to bring kids to the home of the happy meal? Should she just be happy it burned her crotch, through her clothes, rather than getting on the face, in the eyes of one of the kids?
Or should McDonalds, having faced this issue several times before, be liable for selling a dangerous cup of coffee? The arguments against this are weak and political, not practical.
)
