Aerothorn on 15/12/2009 at 11:40
Oh god. I'm not a lawyer and even I've heard that argument so many times it sends me into a frenzied rage.
CCCToad on 15/12/2009 at 15:02
Actually, that particular suit was justified. If I recall the details of the article correctly, the uncovered company memos to the effect that McDonald's was deliberately keeping coffee at temperatures well above what was safe. It also said that the reason the award was so high was because they intended it to be punitive, not just compensatory.
Course, that hasn't stopped every idiot and his uncle from trying to imitate it. Even here we had some guy who decided to sue McDonald's after he tripped and fell in the parking lot.
oudeis on 15/12/2009 at 15:57
I believe they were referring to the reactions of those who thought the suit was frivolous.
Rug Burn Junky on 15/12/2009 at 17:21
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Actually, that particular suit was justified.
I'm fucking speechless.
CCCToad on 15/12/2009 at 17:56
I don't really know first hand, I just read a post-mortem that said it was discovered that the McDonald's was deliberately keeping the Coffee at near-boiling temperatures and well above their own guidelines for safety.
edit: wikipedia actually works for this one, since I can't find the original source and this topic is too trivial to seriously discuss or argue about.
Quote:
The trial took place from August 8-17, 1994, before Judge Robert H. Scott.[13] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 °F (82-88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald's served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds
Quote:
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[4] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. H
This one just doesn't deserve to be the poster child for frivolous lawsuits when there's ones that are much more fraudelent and were still awarded massive settlements. For example, the person that sued the NY subway system after an unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide by throwing herself on the tracks.
edit: found a link. (
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,952305,00.html)
In my personal opinion, there isn't any equivalency between those cases. In the McDonald's case, what happened was an accident. In the second, the plaintiff was actively trying to harm themselves but still got money from the incident.
Rug Burn Junky on 15/12/2009 at 18:00
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
/edit relax there tuffy, your ninja edits are fucking up the thread. Plus I already know the case very, very well, so there's no need to run through it again.
I was shocked that you got it right, not that you would say that. Just search the forums, I've done this dance a half dozen times.
Rug Burn Junky on 15/12/2009 at 18:44
And yet you still manage to fuck things up a tad. The NYC subway case is a nice one to whine about "frivolous lawsuits," but only superficially.
You're right that that case isn't relevant, but there's also nothing wrong with it: it was a settlement based on a reasonable cost benefit analysis, not a true application of the law. And the law, comparative as opposed to contributory negligence, is a good one - this result notwithstanding - because it prevents other, far more inequitable results.
You may want to just quit while you're ahead on this one. Hold your head up high that you didn't really make an ass of yourself yet, and please don't go tarding this one up by telling us your opinion again.
CCCToad on 15/12/2009 at 19:03
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
You're right that that case isn't relevant, but there's also nothing wrong with it: it was a settlement based on a reasonable cost benefit analysis, not a true application of the law. And the law, comparative as opposed to contributory negligence, is a good one - this result notwithstanding - because it prevents other, far more inequitable results. .
Would you mind explaining how the cost benefit analysis was used to determine the settlement? I don't really know much about the case other than that the person sued because of injuries sustained while trying to kill themselves.
Rug Burn Junky on 15/12/2009 at 19:17
It's self evident: The city was facing a lawsuit that could potentially cost it millions. It decided it was easier to just pay off the lesser amount and cap its losses. There's a value to certainty.
The likelihood for a loss was remote, given the analysis that even with comparative negligence, the award could/would be reduced to a trivial sum, but the implications of a verdict against the city were so dire (highly publicized bad precedent inviting further suit) that you couldn't blame the city for paying it off and walking away, rather than rolling the dice.
"Trying to kill himself" is inflammatory and messes up the analysis, just think of it as encompassing the principle "partially to blame for the situation." In this case, that "partially" was running up against the upper bound of 100%, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a nugget of fault by the city that could be gleaned at trial.
There's no good rule you could come up with to stop the guy from filing suit in the first place, so the protection is to rely on the courts rejecting the analysis at trial. In this case, the city's lawyer wasn't comfortable with that potential payoff matrix and took a safe way out.
Not the optimal outcome for that particular plaintiff, but not an indictment of the system in any way, shape, or form. It's easy to say "hurr frivolous" but that falls away if you actually think it through on every level. The prevention is worse than the cure.
AR Master on 15/12/2009 at 19:37
see now isnt that nicer than being all neckbearded and popping your monocle out about the effrontery and impudence of the lower class talking about law?
:cool:
