NationStates Jolt Archive

How many people think this song is representative of so many people today? It is by the Eagles.. and is "Get Over it". It is a perfect song for the outrage I feel about the "lets go get a lawyer because I'm supposeably suffering" culture we live in today. One of my harshest criticisms of this country (USA).

http://www.allspirit.co.uk/overit.html

I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin' 'Don't blame me'
They point their crooked little fingers at everybody else
Spend all their time feelin' sorry for themselves
Victim of this, victim of that
Your momma's too thin; your daddy's too fat

Get over it
Get over it
All this whinin' and cryin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it

You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash
But you might feel better if I gave you some cash
The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight
You don't want to work, you want to live like a king
But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing

Get over it
Get over it
If you don't want to play, then you might as well split
Get over it, Get over it

It's like going to confession every time I hear you speak
You're makin' the most of your losin' streak
Some call it sick, but I call it weak

You drag it around like a ball and chain
You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain
You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
Got your mind in the gutter, bringin' everybody down
Complain about the present and blame it on the past
I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ass

Get over it
Get over it
All this bitchin' and moanin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it

Get over it
Get over it
It's gotta stop sometime, so why don't you quit
Get over it, get over it

i think that they should blast this song our of every radio in America. then maybe people will stop suing each other over hot coffee.

wait, they might sue everybody for that. CRAP!!! :headbang:

Make a law that says that song can't be sued. And that song does describe people nowadays unnaturally well.

i think that they should blast this song our of every radio in America. then maybe people will stop suing each other over hot coffee.

I agree. One note though about the woman and the coffee...McDonalds had been told over and over that their coffee machines were holding the coffee at an unsafe temperature and many people had been burned. The woman who got scalded in that famous case asked McDonalds to pay her medical bill of about USD$700 (if I remember correctly) and they refused. A jury found McDonalds culpable and awarded her the vast settlement as punitive damages. She never asked for it.

I agree. One note though about the woman and the coffee...McDonalds had been told over and over that their coffee machines were holding the coffee at an unsafe temperature and many people had been burned. The woman who got scalded in that famous case asked McDonalds to pay her medical bill of about USD$700 (if I remember correctly) and they refused. A jury found McDonalds culpable and awarded her the vast settlement as punitive damages. She never asked for it.
Yeah. She gets blamed for stating the whole thing, but she just wanted to pay her bills.
It’s those people who trip and sprain their ankle at work and want two million dollars who are to blame.
Oh, and easily led juries, blame them to

Well my point is people get sued way too easily in this country and that's the mentality out there. People are looking to sue others... I say we enact stiffer rules in the court so frivilous law suits can't get through (especially with regards to doctors).

I agree. Too much suing. And then there's the fact that half the people getting sued can't afford to get sued.

Well my point is people get sued way too easily in this country and that's the mentality out there. People are looking to sue others... I say we enact stiffer rules in the court so frivilous law suits can't get through (especially with regards to doctors).
Your right about the doctors. How much would medical costs go down if doctors didn’t have to pay 20% of their income to malpractice insurance?

Your right about the doctors. How much would medical costs go down if doctors didn’t have to pay 20% of their income to malpractice insurance?

Yeah, and not surprisingly, in states where there are limitations on lawsuits healthcare is actually better.

Irony is lost on some people.

Irony is lost on some people.

Yet others breathe it in like fresh air after a spring rain. ;)

Ah good, advocation of murder and and the insinuation that you should shut up about any problems you have regardless of their severity of validity. The song is utter shit. :rolleyes:

Well my point is people get sued way too easily in this country and that's the mentality out there. People are looking to sue others... I say we enact stiffer rules in the court so frivilous law suits can't get through (especially with regards to doctors).
What do you mean "get through"? Are you suggesting that our judges don't know law?

Your right about the doctors. How much would medical costs go down if doctors didn’t have to pay 20% of their income to malpractice insurance?

take it up with the greedy-ass insurance companies. they are the ones jacking up premiums. and it isn't because they have to pay out more money - as every study of the issue has shown, payouts are down and profits are astronomical.

I say we enact stiffer rules in the court so frivilous law suits can't get through

name one

What do you mean "get through"? Are you suggesting that our judges don't know law?

Apparently I think judges are required to allow these cases to go to trial. I think we should also limit settlements to $250,000.

name one

I can name dozens.

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_collection.asp?wacky=0

Do you really think I'm that stupid?

Apparently I think judges are required to allow these cases to go to trial. I think we should also limit settlements to $250,000.
Stupid idea. Sometimes the combined legal fees and damaged done by the doctor being sued are greater than that.

Apparently I think judges are required to allow these cases to go to trial. I think we should also limit settlements to $250,000.
You do know that judges can dismiss suits that lack merit? Hell, it's one of the most well known motions, a motion to dismiss for lack of merit/standing.


As for the cap, not on your life. A human life is worth far more then 250k. If they're being grossly negligent, I say sock the corporate assholes for billions.

take it up with the greedy-ass insurance companies. they are the ones jacking up premiums. and it isn't because they have to pay out more money - as every study of the issue has shown, payouts are down and profits are astronomical.

I don't think so. In fact it isn't about the insurance companies. It is about the fucking lawyers in this country who fleece doctors and make it nearly unprofitable for them to be in business.

You do know that judges can dismiss suits that lack merit? Hell, it's one of the most well known motions, a motion to dismiss for lack of merit/standing.



Stupid frivilous lawsuits get tried all the time.

I can name dozens.

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_collection.asp?wacky=0

Do you really think I'm that stupid?

Um...most of those were most likely dismissed for lack of merit. Give me a real citation in the form x v y, in which x won...

I can name dozens.

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_collection.asp?wacky=0

Do you really think I'm that stupid?

Given that you are citing a website that claims there was a black and white ethics code that at some point in the past ruled the legal system, I have to wonder.

Unwritten law rule #4: Right and wrong are no longer cut and dried propositions in America’s legal system.

I log on to Nation States and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin' 'He flamed me'
They point their crooked little fingers at everybody else
Spend all their time in moderation crying
Victim of this, victim of that
That guy offended me; Coz I only use facts!

Get over it
Get over it
All this whinin' and cryin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it

So you were offended by: "your argument is trash"
But you might feel better if I kissed your dumb ass
The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let's kill all the whiners, kill 'em tonight
You don't want to argue, you just want to vent
But the big, bad forum just won't relent

Get over it
Get over it
If you don't want to play, then you might as well split
Get over it, Get over it

It ends up in insults every time I hear you speak
You're makin' the most of your losin' streak
Some call it trolling, but I call it weak

Stupid frivilous lawsuits get tried all the time.
Well then, roll out the citations.

I agree. One note though about the woman and the coffee...McDonalds had been told over and over that their coffee machines were holding the coffee at an unsafe temperature and many people had been burned. The woman who got scalded in that famous case asked McDonalds to pay her medical bill of about USD$700 (if I remember correctly) and they refused. A jury found McDonalds culpable and awarded her the vast settlement as punitive damages. She never asked for it.
Have you seen this cartoon? http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1995/95-04-05-McDonald's-coffee.gif

I don't think so. In fact it isn't about the insurance companies. It is about the fucking lawyers in this country who fleece doctors and make it nearly unprofitable for them to be in business.

Blaming lawyers for frivolous lawsuits is a good deal like blaming axe murders on axes. Lawyers are tools others use, frequently at great expense, for their own end.

I agree. One note though about the woman and the coffee...McDonalds had been told over and over that their coffee machines were holding the coffee at an unsafe temperature and many people had been burned. The woman who got scalded in that famous case asked McDonalds to pay her medical bill of about USD$700 (if I remember correctly) and they refused. A jury found McDonalds culpable and awarded her the vast settlement as punitive damages. She never asked for it.
Why should McDonalds have had to pay her bills in the first place. Unless it was the first time she got coffee from McDonalds(doubtful) than she was well aware of how hot the coffee was, especially if she tried to sip it before it spilled on her, which if she was previously unaware of the temperature she probably would have. Ergo, she knew it was extremely hot. Therefore, McDonalds logically would hold no liability in the case.

Why should McDonalds have had to pay her bills in the first place. Unless it was the first time she got coffee from McDonalds(doubtful) than she was well aware of how hot the coffee was, especially if she tried to sip it before it spilled on her, which if she was previously unaware of the temperature she probably would have. Ergo, she knew it was extremely hot. Therefore, McDonalds logically would hold no liability in the case.
Because bookworms, common sense holds that you don't make coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns, on the unlikely chance that a spill does happen.

To quote:
"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 drive-through 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 consultant's 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. "

Because bookworms, common sense holds that you don't make coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns, on the unlikely chance that a spill does happen.


And if you DO for some reason make it that hot, you make SURE that lid can't fall off no matter what jolting it might take.

Because bookworms, common sense holds that you don't make coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns, on the unlikely chance that a spill does happen.

especially not when your own safety experts told you about the danger, and when there had been hundreds of similar incidents.

I can name dozens.

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_collection.asp?wacky=0

choose one. then explain what facts you know about it that the judge and jury missed that leads you to believe it was frivolous.

Do you really think I'm that stupid?

no, just misled by a huge corporate propaganda campaign.

choose one. then explain what facts you know about it that the judge and jury missed that leads you to believe it was frivolous. While he is at it, I also think he should explain how it is the fault of lawyers rather than the person who hired them.

While he is at it, I also think he should explain how it is the fault of lawyers rather than the person who hired them.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people :D

Given that you are citing a website that claims there was a black and white ethics code that at some point in the past ruled the legal system, I have to wonder.

and then there is this gem:

"You have to show respect or risk being cited with contempt of court and the attorneys don’t. You have to abide by specific timetables while the attorneys can drag things out and tie you up in litigation for years."

which is, of course, complete and utter bullshit.

and then there is this gem:

"You have to show respect or risk being cited with contempt of court and the attorneys don’t. You have to abide by specific timetables while the attorneys can drag things out and tie you up in litigation for years."

which is, of course, complete and utter bullshit.
Attorneys are more likely to get cited for contempt then the people they represent...

"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."
Hmmm, lets place really, really hot coffee between our legs, in a relatively flimsy styrofoam container, and try to take the form-fitting lid off. I fail to see how this is in any way McDonalds' fault. Now, had the person at the drive through window spilled the coffee on her McDonalds would be civilly liable. As this was not the case they are not liable at all. Now, while it would have been a nice gesture for McDonalds to pay her medical bills, they have no legal responsibility to do so.

Hmmm, lets place really, really hot coffee between our legs, in a relatively flimsy styrofoam container, and try to take the form-fitting lid off. I fail to see how this is in any way McDonalds' fault. Now, had the person at the drive through window spilled the coffee on her McDonalds would be civilly liable. As this was not the case they are not liable at all. Now, while it would have been a nice gesture for McDonalds to pay her medical bills, they have no legal responsibility to do so.
"Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000." http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

Clinton years... when we had time to argue over coffee.

Hmmm, lets place really, really hot coffee between our legs, in a relatively flimsy styrofoam container, and try to take the form-fitting lid off. I fail to see how this is in any way McDonalds' fault. Now, had the person at the drive through window spilled the coffee on her she McDonalds would be civilly liable. As this was not the case they are not liable at all. Now, while it would have been a nice gesture for McDonalds to pay her medical bills, they have no legal responsibility to do so.

Guess what, if you think that it is okay for a megacorp to hand out near boiling liquids in containers that can be ruptured by an accidental squeeze, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. However, all facts considered I will take the opinion of the court over that of a corporate appologist and it seems the court thinks they were liable and did have the responsibility to pay her bills, and to be completely blunt, their opinion has legal standings and yours doesn't.

Hmmm, lets place really, really hot coffee between our legs, in a relatively flimsy styrofoam container, and try to take the form-fitting lid off. I fail to see how this is in any way McDonalds' fault. Now, had the person at the drive through window spilled the coffee on her McDonalds would be civilly liable. As this was not the case they are not liable at all. Now, while it would have been a nice gesture for McDonalds to pay her medical bills, they have no legal responsibility to do so.
Because they had their coffee set at temperatures that causes third degree burns (that's the sort you have to get skin grafting for). Because they were warned, repeatedly, that the coffee was too hot. Because they have been sued before because of this and repeatedly refused to change the temperature at which the coffee was kept at.


Duty: Ensuring that your product is safe, within reason.
Breach: Having coffee served at high temperatures, high enough so that it causes serious burns
Damages: Obvious
Causation: This is what you are arguing. However, when you are stopped, parked, attempting to remove the lid, and the lid pops off spraying coffee everywhere, who is at fault? Is it not unreasonable to place your coffee there while stopped, especially if everything else is full? I've done this lots, and I've never been burned. Spilled a bit, even with coffee, but by the time it soaked through it was just a bit warm (and boy was I red in the face, but that's another story). The fact remains that if McDonalds had heeded the advice of many people and common sense, she wouldn't have been burned. That's the proximate cause. Without the coffee being held at unreasonably hot levels, the accident would have never occured.


(Proximate cause=cause that directly produces an event, and without which the event would not have occured) There are two here, one is obviously the placing of the coffee there, and she was held partially responcible for her actions (20%)

Causation: This is what you are arguing. However, when you are stopped, parked, attempting to remove the lid, and the lid pops off spraying coffee everywhere, who is at fault? Is it not unreasonable to place your coffee there while stopped, especially if everything else is full? I've done this lots, and I've never been burned. Spilled a bit, even with coffee, but by the time it soaked through it was just a bit warm (and boy was I red in the face, but that's another story). The fact remains that if McDonalds had heeded the advice of many people and common sense, she wouldn't have been burned. That's the proximate cause.

It would be my fault and I would be man enough to take the blame because I'm the one who had the damn clumsy hands. If that were to happen to me.

I log on to Nation States and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin' 'He flamed me'
They point their crooked little fingers at everybody else
Spend all their time in moderation crying
Victim of this, victim of that
That guy offended me; Coz I only use facts!

Get over it
Get over it
All this whinin' and cryin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it

So you were offended by: "your argument is trash"
But you might feel better if I kissed your dumb ass
The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let's kill all the whiners, kill 'em tonight
You don't want to argue, you just want to vent
But the big, bad forum just won't relent

Get over it
Get over it
If you don't want to play, then you might as well split
Get over it, Get over it

It ends up in insults every time I hear you speak
You're makin' the most of your losin' streak
Some call it trolling, but I call it weak

Self reflection? :rolleyes: Dude, you're full of it. You are the one trolling and you never contribute anything to these threads.

It would be my fault and I would be man enough to take the blame because I'm the one who had the damn clumsy hands. If that were to happen to me.
I'd think you'd be going to the hospital first. No where do I say she was entirely without fault. In fact, the court didn't even find that. What they did find is first, McDonalds acted in a "reckless, callous and willful" manner, subject to punitive damages, and second, because of their actions, were required to pay 80% of her judgment (bills), while she was held to be 20% responsible.

I'd think you'd be going to the hospital first.

Perhaps, and understand it was my fault for not having some damn common sense. Coffee is hot. :rolleyes: It doesn't take lawyers to figure that one out. You know what your problem is? You defend personal injury lawyers. I hate them and I feel they are one of the problems with this country today. Sometimes when someone does something intentional to hurt me then yes these lawyers may be good, but with frivilous stupid charges like that coffee case... they aren't.

Perhaps, and understand it was my fault for not having some damn common sense. Coffee is hot. :rolleyes: It doesn't take lawyers to figure that one out. You know what your problem is? You defend personal injury lawyers. I hate them and I feel they are one of the problems with this country today. Sometimes when someone does something intentional to hurt me then yes these lawyers may be good, but with frivilous stupid charges like that coffee case... they aren't.
I've never gotten third degree burns from coffee (hell, nothing worse then first degree), even hot off of my home coffee maker. You do realize how severe third degree burns are, right?

:rolleyes:

I've never gotten third degree burns from coffee, even hot off of my home coffee maker. You do realize how severe third degree burns are, right?

Again I would blame myself, and myself only. Coffee is served hot. Anyone can figure that one out.

Again I would blame myself, and myself only.
Doesn't change the fact McDonalds acted willfully, callously, and maliciously.

Perhaps, and understand it was my fault for not having some damn common sense. Coffee is hot. :rolleyes: It doesn't take lawyers to figure that one out. You know what your problem is? You defend personal injury lawyers. I hate them and I feel they are one of the problems with this country today. Sometimes when someone does something intentional to hurt me then yes these lawyers may be good, but with frivilous stupid charges like that coffee case... they aren't.

hmm.. coffee 40+ degrees of what most coffee is. Having been warned about how their coffee is too hot. Multiple cases for it.

Yeah, I'd say the lawyers had something here, no matter if they're usually a problem or not.

Perhaps, and understand it was my fault for not having some damn common sense. Coffee is hot. :rolleyes: It doesn't take lawyers to figure that one out. You know what your problem is? You defend personal injury lawyers. I hate them and I feel they are one of the problems with this country today. Sometimes when someone does something intentional to hurt me then yes these lawyers may be good, but with frivilous stupid charges like that coffee case... they aren't.
The coffee cups were thin and the coffee was too hot. McDonalds had been warned before about this but took no steps to correct it. They had 700 warnings.

"For that case, involving a Houston woman with third-degree burns, Mr. Morgan had the temperature of coffee taken at 18 restaurants such as Dairy Queen, Wendy's and Dunkin' Donuts, and at 20 McDonald's restaurants. McDonald's, his investigator found, accounted for nine of the 12 hottest readings."
"A scientist testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third-degree burns, so it didn't matter whether Mc Donald's coffee was hotter. But a doctor testifying on behalf of Mrs. Liebeck argued that lowering the serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees"
http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

Meh

Also: "Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee."

Perhaps, and understand it was my fault for not having some damn common sense. Coffee is hot. :rolleyes: It doesn't take lawyers to figure that one out. You know what your problem is? You defend personal injury lawyers. I hate them and I feel they are one of the problems with this country today. Sometimes when someone does something intentional to hurt me then yes these lawyers may be good, but with frivilous stupid charges like that coffee case... they aren't.
Coffee is supposed to be hot. It is not supposed to be "OH MY GOD! MY SKIN IS BEING BURNED FROM MY NOW EXPOSED BONES! MY FLESH IS PEELING OFF ME! GET IT OFF! GET IT OFF! AAAARRRRRRGGGHHH!!"

I honestly don't see why this is a difficult concept.

Once again, I ask you to explain how personal injury lawyers are to blame instead of the people who are hiring them.

If the coffee was too hot ask for something to put over it, or get a refund and buy coffee elsewhere. She is still to blame for bringing the coffee into the car.. mcdonalds never forced her to do that.

Or buy a coffee container like my dad.... doesn't take a damn rocket scientist to figure that one out.

If the coffee was too hot ask for something to put over it, or get a refund and buy coffee elsewhere. She is still to blame for bringing the coffee into the car.. mcdonalds never forced her to do that.

Or buy a coffee container like my dad.... doesn't take a damn rocket scientist to figure that one out.
She had something over it. She was taking the lid off when the container burst. While parked. You have an expectation that a mere spill isn't going to cause third degree burns.

She had something over it. She was taking the lid off when the container burst. While parked.

For some reason I don't buy that. I personally think she was full of it.

If the coffee was too hot ask for something to put over it, or get a refund and buy coffee elsewhere. She is still to blame for bringing the coffee into the car.. mcdonalds never forced her to do that.

Or buy a coffee container like my dad.... doesn't take a damn rocket scientist to figure that one out.

yes, because everyone measures the coffee they buy before they drink it, to make sure it won't burn them. I mean, THAT'S common sense, right?

Would you be against this if someone was burned pouring it into the coffee container because the styrofoam snapped or something?

If the coffee was too hot ask for something to put over it, Something was over it, something she was trying to remove to put cream and sugar in. That something is otherwise known as a lid. or get a refund and buy coffee elsewhere. A little late once she spills it. Further, having a hot liquid does not automatically mentally equate to "this is going to strip the flesh from my body hot". She is still to blame for bringing the coffee into the car.. mcdonalds never forced her to do that.
And McDonalds is to blame for selling a dangerous and defective product.

Or buy a coffee container like my dad.... doesn't take a damn rocket scientist to figure that one out.
Given the fact she was opening the container when this happened, how would this have helped her exactly?

For some reason I don't buy that. I personally think she was full of it.
And 700 other people, not to mention a Judge and jury.

yes, because everyone measures the coffee they buy before they drink it, to make sure it won't burn them. I mean, THAT'S common sense, right?

Would you be against this if someone was burned pouring it into the coffee container because the styrofoam snapped or something?

Buy coffee elsewhere. And if you think the container is too thin, obviously you can tell because it is getting hot. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But hey, what can I say? You people love lawyers and lawsuits.

For some reason I don't buy that. I personally think she was full of it.
More then a few judges and 12 people disagree. I don't even think McDonalds contested the base facts of the case.

It's no love of lawyers that makes me hate major corporations.

Obviously i don't think many of you got the point of this thread.

Buy coffee elsewhere. And if you think the container is too thin, obviously you can tell because it is getting hot. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But hey, what can I say? You people love lawyers and lawsuits.

Sure do, I mean, the fact that I think people shouldn't have to trust that their coffee won't strip the skin from their bones makes me LOVE the lawsuits that take up time that could be used for more important things.

And I can bet that she's not going to buy coffee there anymore... it's stupid that it had to be that over 700 people were burned that badly before anything was done about it.

She had something over it. She was taking the lid off when the container burst. While parked. You have an expectation that a mere spill isn't going to cause third degree burns.
It didn't burst. She mishandled it when taking off the lid, probably by using too much force instead of finessing it off, as the lids are tight and form-fitting to prevent spills for a reason, and the coffee sloshed over the edge at which point she probably jerked and spilled even more coffee on herself.

Mes:
I have no love of lawyers however at the same time they are not to blame. Axes do not cause axe murders and lawyers do not cause lawsuits. You are just blinded by your irrational hatred and utterly unwilling to admit it when you have been clearly shown wrong.

Obviously i don't think many of you got the point of this thread.
Shit... what is thread about... some Eagles song or something?

Whatever guys, whatever you say. I'm not going to be debating this too much because I have to organize for freshman orientation tomorrow (I volunteered). So I must get going... debate this till you turn blue.

Clearly been shown wrong??? I didn't blame lawyers for anything. Are you talking to me?
Sorry, quoted the wrong person at first and then edited it. Note your quote now says "Met:"

Sorry, quoted the wrong person at first and then edited it. Note your quote now says "Met:"
Oh yeah, no problem. I'll delete my statement. I was just real confused.

Obviously i don't think many of you got the point of this thread.
Let's try this again.

Do you agree with the following

Duty: Ensure that customers are not harmed by your food

Breach: Holding and serving coffee at high temperatures that the McDonald's corporation was warned was far to hot

Damages: Obvious

Causation:
Proximate Cause #1: The position of holding coffee while attempting to add cream and sugar. While the accident would not have occurred if the coffee was not there, or at least the severity mitigated by distance and hence temperature, it is not unreasonable to assume that the worst coffee can do to you is some uncomfort. A minor cause

Proximate Cause #2: The coffee at high temperatures is clearly the major cause of this case. The coffee was not only too hot, beyond that of what one would expect of coffee, but the McDonald's Corporation further ignored complaints and other issues with their coffee, showing a willing and callous indifference towards a blatant safety issue. The major cause.

It didn't burst. She mishandled it when taking off the lid, probably by using too much force instead of finessing it off, as the lids are tight and form-fitting to prevent spills for a reason, and the coffee sloshed over the edge at which point she probably jerked and spilled even more coffee on herself.
How do you know it didn't burst? (It's more fun to debate this than something I feel emotional about...)

if the problem is that people are greedy pigs and become undeservingly wealthy via lawsuits, why are you siding with the corporations?

as i see it, mcdonalds and the rest of the corporate evils are out to make money regardless of the damage they might do to everyone else. if they weren't kept in check we would all be dead.

Obviously i don't think many of you got the point of this thread.

was the point to allow you to go on some nonsensical rant unhindered by any inconvenient bits of reality to contradict it?

was the point to allow you to go on some nonsensical rant unhindered by any inconvenient bits of reality to contradict it?

I don't think you should talk about reality. It wasn't nonsencial, nor was it a rant.

an analogy to clarify my point of view:

if a man drops a knife on his foot and loses a toe, tough luck. no reason to sue the knife company.

if a man drops a teddy bear on his foot and loses a toe, then the teddy bear company should pay his medical bills for selling an incredibly defective product.

I don't think you should talk about reality. It wasn't nonsencial, nor was it a rant.
No, it was a nonsensical song that amounted to tripe.

How do you know it didn't burst? (It's more fun to debate this than something I feel emotional about...)
Okay, it's highly probable it didn't burst, and if it did than the company that produces the cups would be just as liable as McDonalds. McDonalds does not produce it's own cups. As they did not attempt to sue the cup company, I would assume that the cup itself did not burst.

an analogy to clarify my point of view:

if a man drops a knife on his foot and loses a toe, tough luck. no reason to sue the knife company.

if a man drops a teddy bear on his foot and loses a toe, then the teddy bear company should pay his medical bills for selling an incredibly defective product.
Unless Teddy is clearly labelled as having Super Toe-Chop Action.

Okay, it's highly probable it didn't burst, and if it did than the company that produces the cups would be just as liable as McDonalds. McDonalds does not produce it's own cups. As they did not attempt to sue the cup company, I would assume that the cup itself did not burst.
So... it'd be ok with you to sue the cup company but not Mc.Donalds? What?

Okay, it's highly probable it didn't burst, and if it did than the company that produces the cups would be just as liable as McDonalds. McDonalds does not produce it's own cups. As they did not attempt to sue the cup company, I would assume that the cup itself did not burst.
Saying it didn't, would the accident have occured if the coffee was kept at a lower temperature? Is it reasonable to forsee that hot coffee could cause third degree burns?


Is it unreasonable to expect that holding coffee inbetween your thighs will not result in third degree burns? (is it expected that coffee won't cause third degree burns)

I think a better song would be Gay Bar.