NationStates Jolt Archive

Please give your feedback on the following,

________________________________________________________________

The right of people to be rightfully compensated is being infringed by this resolution.


Affirming that:
1 This resolution is too vague and vexing
2. This resolution takes away the rights of people to seek compensation for damages
3. Limits the freedom and independence of the court
4. Destroys precedence in many nations legal realms
5. Part 3 of this resolution allows drug and food manufactures to escape responsibility no matter what the circumstances (example, selling of a medication known to have dangerous side affects but not warning the public)

Declares that:

1. Resolution #30 "Common Sense Act II" be repealed

So it's available


Resolution #30: Common Sense Act II
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Far too many civil injustices occur each and every day in courts around the world. Frivolous lawsuits plague innocent homeowners and businessmen, who have done nothing wrong but earn enough money to become a target of an opportunist.

Lawsuits on the basis of idiotic negligence on the part of the victim shall henceforth be dismissed in the courts of UN member nations, as they violate the civil liberties of those being sued.

Idiotic neglegence shall be defined as such:
1:Burning oneself with a hot beverage, such as coffee.
2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do.
3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.
4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.

This proposal will lower the tax burden on all citizens, it will make the jobs of Judges and Juries easier, and will help restore a modicum of common sense to the world.

Implemented: Fri Sep 12 2003


The right of people to be rightfully compensated is being infringed by this resolution.

Not really

Affirming that:
1 This resolution is too vague and vexing

Vexing is a rather odd word to use as an argument, and actually, I think it is quite the opposite to being vague. I actually think its too specific

2. This resolution takes away the rights of people to seek compensation for damages

Nope. You are still allowed to seek compensation, you just can't get compensation for damages if the damages were a result of poor common sense. I know common sense isn't too common, but I find it frustrating to hear things like McDonalds getting sued because someone burnt his legs with their coffee....and is using "you didn't put that it was hot on the cup" as his excuse.

3. Limits the freedom and independence of the court

True, which is why it needs to be replaced

4. Destroys precedence in many nations legal realms

I think that was the intention

5. Part 3 of this resolution allows drug and food manufactures to escape responsibility no matter what the circumstances (example, selling of a medication known to have dangerous side affects but not warning the public)

Actually....you are mostly right. In its current form, part 3 is a bad idea - with an addition of "labelled to the proper standards" would make part 3 a good idea. This clause is more for issues like fast food joints getting sued because people got fat eating their food or people smoking cigarettes for getting cancer. If its labelled to standards (and that includes statements about cancer issues on the package), I don't think the lawsuit should proceed.

Declares that:

1. Resolution #30 "Common Sense Act II" be repealed

2 and 4 are weak arguments, and 1 is debatable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the 'Lectric Law Library's stacks
The Actual Facts About
The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case



There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. ©1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of
California

Brought to you by The 'Lectric Law Library -- http://www.lectlaw.com


We've lots of related information so wander around & explore. Some places to start:

The Library Rotunda Our Central Hub, Directory and Index
The Reference Room Dozens of Topic Areas & Our Law Lexicon
The Lay People's Lounge
The Business People's Lounge
The Legal Professional's Lounge



If someone hands you something that you think is safe and its not...

It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit, it was negligence on the behalf of a corporation that thought it could get away with it.

the precedent set here will alway be that the company must look out for the well being of the customer not visa versa.

Resolution 30 also known as the Common Sense act II is highly misleading to begin with.

It does not define common sense but rather a set of definitions which are too specific and pertain to real-life occurences, and pertian no real benefit to anyone in particular; or are so vauge that they provide a danger to the stability of the individual legal systems of countries and or the individuals of those countries themselves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the 'Lectric Law Library's stacks
The Actual Facts About
The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case



There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. ©1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of
California

Brought to you by The 'Lectric Law Library -- http://www.lectlaw.com


We've lots of related information so wander around & explore. Some places to start:

The Library Rotunda Our Central Hub, Directory and Index
The Reference Room Dozens of Topic Areas & Our Law Lexicon
The Lay People's Lounge
The Business People's Lounge
The Legal Professional's Lounge



If someone hands you something that you think is safe and its not...

It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit, it was negligence on the behalf of a corporation that thought it could get away with it.

the precedent set here will alway be that the company must look out for the well being of the customer not visa versa.


HORSE PUCKEY!!!!

Hey STUPID...COFFE IS HOT, DON'T WEAR IT!!!

See how easy that is?

Lets all work together to fix this thing,

say what you think needs to be added/or taken out and why. Write it down in resolution form a post it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the 'Lectric Law Library's stacks
The Actual Facts About
The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case



There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. ©1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of
California

Brought to you by The 'Lectric Law Library -- http://www.lectlaw.com


We've lots of related information so wander around & explore. Some places to start:

The Library Rotunda Our Central Hub, Directory and Index
The Reference Room Dozens of Topic Areas & Our Law Lexicon
The Lay People's Lounge
The Business People's Lounge
The Legal Professional's Lounge



If someone hands you something that you think is safe and its not...

It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit, it was negligence on the behalf of a corporation that thought it could get away with it.

the precedent set here will alway be that the company must look out for the well being of the customer not visa versa.

Call me a heartless cynic, but that seems more an example of bad luck than corporate mal-practice (and I'm a great fan of bashing companies for negligence).

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live frivolous litigation free Compadria!

Ahh, giant quotes!

I would have to side with Forttonlands, resolution #30 is, if anything, too specific for its own good.

It does not define common sense
Can you even begin to? It does define, "Idiotic neglegence".

The right of people to be rightfully compensated is being infringed by this resolution.
The whole point of resolution 30 is so an oppurtunist cannot unfailry sue a company or individual for reasons involving commen sense. If one does not have enough sense to use a product appropriately, he or she should not be able to sue the makers of said product.

5. Part 3 of this resolution allows drug and food manufactures to escape responsibility no matter what the circumstances
Resolution #30 is not allowing companies to get away with false advertising, or generally misleading the public intentionally. It is protecting companies and individuals from lawsuits involving injuries occured while using a product in a manner it was not designed for.
If a company is selling harmful medication and marketing it as a helpful product, that is different from a company selling hot coffee and marketing it as just that, hot coffee.

Ahh, giant quotes!

I would have to side with Forttonlands, resolution #30 is, if anything, too specific for its own good.


Can you even begin to? It does define, "Idiotic neglegence".


The whole point of resolution 30 is so an oppurtunist cannot unfailry sue a company or individual for reasons involving commen sense. If one does not have enough sense to use a product appropriately, he or she should not be able to sue the makers of said product.


Resolution #30 is not allowing companies to get away with false advertising, or generally misleading the public intentionally. It is protecting companies and individuals from lawsuits involving injuries occured while using a product in a manner it was not designed for.
If a company is selling harmful medication and marketing it as a helpful product, that is different from a company selling hot coffee and marketing it as just that, hot coffee.


Yes but when said company KNOWS that serving that coffee at a certain temperature is dangerous or a certain company knows they produce that 'nut free' product in the same factory as other products that do contain nuts and cross contamination occurs and fails to inform the consumer that then is negligence.
Perhaps (now dont shout at me im new round here) a rewriting of the resolution could be done to include something along the lines

And the U.N does note that any individual or organisation that has prior knowledge of a hazard or detriment and fails to remedy said hazard or detriment and also fails to inform those who could or would be affected shall not be protected by the above resolution.

this would make companies and individuals liable for not using there own common sense knowingly serving coffee at temeratures that will burn is negligence and should not be protected by any law.

Someone has made a proposal to repeal resolution 30 and while I agree that it should be repealed, the repeal is so poorly written that I cannot support it.