I am SOOOO Mad!

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

swimpastor — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:23:08 GMT

Not wanting or meaning in any way shape or form to demean our great American diving team, or the way they have worked hard to admirably represent themselves, their families, their sport, and our country at these just finished Athens games, I will suggest that our wholesale societal surrender to both trial lawyers and insurance companies is very closely related to the fact that the American diving program is not bringing any hardware home from the games. No evil diving boards in YMCA's or at community pools where kids could first get enthused about the sport = no diving medals. (Please don't question whether or not I value Olympic medals more than I value human life - I believe the risks of having diving boards is manageable, and honestly believe that this all is really more about financial loss rather than about the potential loss of life or limb.) Last week I received notice of two class action lawsuit settlements I am eligible to participate in. (It won't be long until I receive as many class action lawsuit notices each week as I do pre-approved credit card offers.) In both instances, neither of the defendants who have agreed to the lawyers demands wronged me, even though the lawyers told them they did. (Whether or not a judge would have agreed is immaterial, as who needs the hassle of letting it go to court.) If I were to subscribe to either of the settlements, I might get a couple of bucks - literally - but what are the lawyers getting? I shudder to wonder.

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:58:10 GMT

Each of us pay for these law suits in the form of increased prices/rates. ... Really? If McDonalds has to charge higher prices, I can always go to Burger King or Taco Bell. How is that an increased rate? That way, irresponsible corporations learn a lesson in a competitive environment. McDonalds, as an irresponsible corporation, was certainly doing something that raised my health insurance costs. Things change in a monopoly, which is why monopolies are more heavily regulated.

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:37:03 GMT

Yes we do. Everybody wants to tax the "big, bad corporations" that have all the money, but what they don't realize is that the first thing they will do is pass those increases on in terms of not only higher prices, but layoffs. I never got a job from a poor person-rich people, and rich corporations create jobs. If you want to work, you want companies to make money that they can reinvest in new business. Also, the higher the tax on the corporation in the US, the more likely they are to take their business (and their jobs) overseas to a more tax friendly environment.

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Mon, 26 Jul 2004 06:09:11 GMT

Originally posted by Tom Ellison Each of us pay for these law suits in the form of increased prices/rates. ... This is very true. In the long run McDonalds did not end up paying the settlement. We consumers did. And, as if this thread has not been ratholed enough, I'll just say that we (consumers) also ultimately pay all corporate income taxes too.

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Mon, 26 Jul 2004 05:49:08 GMT

Originally posted by Guvnah I do almost all my swimming at YMCAs. Even when I travel. (Love that AWAY program!) I may have visited 50 different facilities coast to coast by now. Most Ys don't even have blocks available. One in Bridgewater NJ has permanent blocks, and lots of teams that use the facility, but non-team swimmers -- no matter how good or experienced or capable they are -- cannot use the blocks. I'll be visiting some near Orlando next week, including the big one on International Drive, so I'll be sure to keep an eye out for policies there. Just thought I would close the loop regarding something I wrote early in this thread. I visited three different YMCAs in Florida last week, including the Aquatic Center in Orlando. None allowed uncoached starts from the blocks. The Aquatic Center had posted rules. One of them was "Always enter water feet first." I chatted with a life guard there. "Unless the coach is on the deck, no starts from the blocks." That even applied to sanctioned team participants -- they couldn't use the blocks until their coach was there.

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:09:21 GMT

This is my favorite-"how dumb can people be? or What lawsuit brought this one on" In the shower area of my Y, there is a sign that says "Wet Floor" Now, please. It really is a sad commentary on the state of our society that we have to have a sign telling people that the floor may be wet in the shower area!

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:08:34 GMT

Originally posted by Bob McAdams I don't see how McDonald's coffee is part of this argument, which is about competitive swimmers being allowed to use the starting blocks to practice their starts. A more relevant question is whether cars should be allowed to turn at intersections. Left turns should clearly never be allowed, because a car that is turning left could be hit by a car that is travelling the other way going straight. Of course, the car that is turning left could watch for cars going the other way and wait until there's nothing coming. But what if a car comes zooming through at the last minute and the driver doesn't see it? And right turns are not really safe either, since a car that is turning right has to slow down to turn. What if a car that is going straight doesn't see that he's slowing down and rams him? Or what if he hits a pedestrian who is crossing at the intersection? The fact is that everything I've just said is perfectly true and valid. The only thing it ignores is the fact that people need to turn. But if you even consider that fact, you are admitting that rules and regulations should take into account what people need and not just safety. All of which brings us back to the topic: A pool has a clearly posted policy that says: "Starting blocks may only be used in otherwise vacant lanes by certified swimmers." Only 4 of the 6 lanes are in use. Swimmer #5, who has a certification badge on his suit, informs the lifeguard that he is going to be practicing starts in one of the empty lanes. Why shouldn't this be allowed? because on an off chance something goes wrong, someone will most likely get sued, or at least they're afraid that they might, and some facility may end up losing it's insurance and having to close doors... so rather than risking that, they tighten the rules. This is where the generalized impression that there are too many sue happy people out there spoils it for everyone. Sort of borderlines to the zero tolerance policies that are getting more and more popular... again, lack of common sense and generalized fear of something happening and someone being held responsible for something they couldn't predict happening.

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:02:02 GMT

Originally posted by mattson I don't see how knives are part of this argument. If everyone else's knives cause you a small cut (normal cup of coffee), and brand X causes gangrene/hand chopped off/whatever at a high rate (3rd degree burn from overly hot coffee), then maybe you'll have something. I have a set of 'ginsu' knives. Can I sue now? oh, darn, I never cut myself with them... but man, they're as sharp as the commercials claim. Love them for cooking and paring etc...

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 07:59:41 GMT

Originally posted by emmett Imagine the list of modern conveniences we would have to do without if Big Bad Corporations had to stop providing them (or dumb them down) because a very tiny minority of people using poor judgement, a diminished skill set or less than prudent caution, manage to hurt themselves. Absent a modicum of personal responsibility darn near ANYTHING can be hazardous to your health (the Darwin Awards come to mind here.) Isn't that why the plastic bags have a warning label "do not put over your head" and my blow dryer says "do not use in shower" "Do not eat toner." -- On a toner cartridge for a laser printer. "Do not use orally." -- On a toilet bowl cleaning brush. "Remember, objects in the mirror are actually behind you." -- On a motorcycle helmet-mounted rear-view mirror. "Caution: Remove infant before folding for storage." -- On a portable stroller. makes me wonder what kind of lawsuits caused these... :p and few others... www.rinkworks.com/.../warnings.shtml

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 07:47:06 GMT

Originally posted by Phil Arcuni I did not think that I needed to look up to be sure someone was not jumping into the lane before I moved into it. My colleague did not expect someone to suddenly move into a lane that he just observed was clear. heh, I learned that one about the first week of swimming in a crowded pool. Since then I've grown eyes on the back of my head and bottom of my feet - so to speak.

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 07:38:14 GMT

Originally posted by Scansy This one irked me too. I realize that there are legitimate cases where people have gland or hormone or other problems that make them gain weight. .... Disease doesn't have to imply it's an involuntary condition. It jsut means - unhealthy, and I think we all agree on obesity being unhealthy. Lot of diseases can be voluntarily self-inflicted. Sometimes intentionally, other times just out of lack of care or giving in to impulses. The resulting condition can still end up being a disease. What irks me is that people use disease as yet another cop-out to absolve themselves of personal responsibility for their health.

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:56:38 GMT

Originally posted by KenChertoff The point I was trying to make is that the general rule in the United States is that the verdict should reflect that by reducing the plaintiff's recovery (if any) in proportion to his own responsiblity -- it's not an all or nothing result. yea, I agree with you on that one. I was jsut curious, did something i say make it sound different, or are you just making a general statement to point out that fact... Because It was not my intention to claim that it is all or nothing, although I do think that MCDonalds share should be very small... definately not 80% I'm thinking at most 5-10%.

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:19:45 GMT

Originally posted by mattson I don't see how knives are part of this argument. I don't see how McDonald's coffee is part of this argument, which is about competitive swimmers being allowed to use the starting blocks to practice their starts. A more relevant question is whether cars should be allowed to turn at intersections. Left turns should clearly never be allowed, because a car that is turning left could be hit by a car that is travelling the other way going straight. Of course, the car that is turning left could watch for cars going the other way and wait until there's nothing coming. But what if a car comes zooming through at the last minute and the driver doesn't see it? And right turns are not really safe either, since a car that is turning right has to slow down to turn. What if a car that is going straight doesn't see that he's slowing down and rams him? Or what if he hits a pedestrian who is crossing at the intersection? The fact is that everything I've just said is perfectly true and valid. The only thing it ignores is the fact that people need to turn. But if you even consider that fact, you are admitting that rules and regulations should take into account what people need and not just safety. All of which brings us back to the topic: A pool has a clearly posted policy that says: "Starting blocks may only be used in otherwise vacant lanes by certified swimmers." Only 4 of the 6 lanes are in use. Swimmer #5, who has a certification badge on his suit, informs the lifeguard that he is going to be practicing starts in one of the empty lanes. Why shouldn't this be allowed?

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:07:34 GMT

I'm coffeed out... I think I am going to ignore any more posts on this subject... George Park www,swimdownhill.com

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:01:58 GMT

Dear water-based biter of heads off chickens: How long can you keep this thread going by misinterpreting or ignoring what people are saying? deliberately pouring coffee in a lap is not normal use, so no suit. Putting cream and sugar in coffee is normal use and spilling is a common occurance, thus a possibility of a suit if an injury occurs if the product is defective. The product is defective because it was *too hot.* Not hot, but *too* hot. Hotter than a reasonable (american) person would expect. So hot that it could not be treated in a normal manner like other cups of coffee. But if a reasonable person does not *know* the coffee is hotter than all other coffee, how can it be treated differently? All the products that Emmett mentioned have *known* hazards, and reasonable persons know how to deal with them. The coffee had an *unknown* hazard, so a reasonable person could not deal with it. McDonalds knew their coffee was defective, but made a conscious decision to do nothing about it. This is irresponsible, and McDonalds should have some sort of sanction because of their irresponsibiltiy. I expect corporations to act responsibly. Would *you* hand someone a cup of boiling water without warning them that it was really boiling?

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:24:34 GMT

Path to riches and fame: Use knife to slather peanut butter on a slice of bread, put said bread in toaster, apply heat, when it starts to smoke, use knife to try to extract slathered smoking (or possibly burning, by now) bread, electrocute self (may require other hand be placed in sink full of water). Sue toaster manufacturer, bread baker, knife purveyor, peanut butter conglomerate, electric utility, water company, plumbing installer. Get unbelievably large settlements from each. Use those profits to develope and market new, litigationally correct, toaster that has no openings through which imbecils might place bread (slathered or otherwise) or knives. Or maybe just no heating elements (that would save on electricity costs, thus paying for itself over time!). Star in your own infomercial (maybe even hire Martha Stewart as a sidekick).

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:40:37 GMT

Imagine the list of modern conveniences we would have to do without if Big Bad Corporations had to stop providing them (or dumb them down) because a very tiny minority of people using poor judgement, a diminished skill set or less than prudent caution, manage to hurt themselves. Absent a modicum of personal responsibility darn near ANYTHING can be hazardous to your health (the Darwin Awards come to mind here.) Toasters Water heaters Fans Extension cords Electrical outlets Electric mixer Hammers Screwdrivers Drills Vaccuum cleaner Forks (Sporks too! But that would be no great loss in my book.) Paper Glassware Window glass Dry ice Kitchen Stove Bicycles Marbles Microwave ovens Sizzling steaks Thousands more including (dare I say it?)....Swimming pools. Here's another way to think about it...if that lady had chosen to simply POUR that hot coffee in her lap, instead of accidently spilling it, would she have had a winning lawsuit? If not, then the temperature of the coffee isn't the issue. If so, then our system is designed to reward stupidity, not punish corporate irresponsibility.

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

mattson — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:41:13 GMT

Geek, the remedy suggested (lowering the temperature by 10-20 degrees), still leaves you with hot coffee that can burn you. But it greatly reduces the chances of serious burns, without compromising quality. Why wouldn't you do that, or at least educate people that your coffee is hotter/more dangerous than any other coffee out there? I am amazed at how many people are taking the stance that "reducing unreasonable and unnecessary risk" is equivalent to "eliminating any and all risk". Everyone is agreed that hot coffee can cause scalded tongues and minor burns if spilled. Should I expect (with normal use) the risk of $10K - 100K hospitalization due to an 89 cent product, when there is no reason for it? Originally posted by Bob McAdams I don't see how McDonald's coffee is part of this argument, which is about competitive swimmers being allowed to use the starting blocks to practice their starts. This came up, because someone used it as an example of frivilous lawsuits. Some of us have stated, once all the facts are in, this case in not frivilous. (You can still think the outcome was wrong, without thinking the case had no merit.) I've made an effort to stop posting, but others have persisted (which required a response :) .) Originally posted by Bob McAdams A pool has a clearly posted policy that says: "Starting blocks may only be used in otherwise vacant lanes by certified swimmers." Only 4 of the 6 lanes are in use. Swimmer #5, who has a certification badge on his suit, informs the lifeguard that he is going to be practicing starts in one of the empty lanes. Why shouldn't this be allowed? What do you mean by certification? Like those Red Cross swimming courses? That would provide a means to let the lifeguard know that the swimmer has passed a certain level of competance, without requiring a guess. On the face of it, that would seem to be reasonable (to me). Anyone to play Devil's Advocate? :)

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

aquageek — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:32:22 GMT

I'll leave it at this, coffee is hot, get over it. If you can't handle coffee, which is hot by the way, maybe you should drink cold caffeinated bevereages unless you are looking for a free ride, courtesy of McDs. Oh yeah, for the record, coffee is hot, hence the steam, that indicates heat.

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:22:05 GMT

Originally posted by Gareth Eckley ... For Aquageek who sees no need for corporate responsiblity, was the case of the "firestone tyres fitted to Suv's where they would explode on hot roads, the fault of the driver or the company making unsafe tyres ? ... Not a good comparison. The average person knows that coffee will be hot. This is something that a reasonable person just knows intuitively. The average person cannot tell that tires are manufactured poorly by looking at them. This is not something that a reasonable person just knows intuitively. I would guess that many auto mechanics would not be able to tell just by looking at the tires.

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:14:06 GMT

Originally posted by Michael Heather Anyone remember what the real thread of this discussion is about without looking at the first post? Swimpastor can't practice starts from the blocks at his local pool......:cool: My wife tells me that I am a fountain of useless knowledge.:)

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:05:37 GMT

In response to the original post about diving in the YMCA in general swim sessions. As a swim coach and teacher i have to do a "Risk Assesment" for all factors that may affect the safety of the people who are in my care, just as the Y is responsible for the safety of people using it's facility. I would allow diving from the blocks IF: The pool depth is greater than 6 feet ( 2 metres ) All pool users know that this is happening. There is a clearly marked designated lane for this, closed off to other uses. The Lane is clearly marked ONE WAY, you dive in and swim to other end and get out. The swimmers in adjacent lanes who are nearest the ropes bordering on the diving lane swim AWAY, in the same direction, as the diver and are circle swimming in that lane. This is to avoid swimmers swimming head first into the diving zone. There were two lifeguards, One to watch pool and one to watch the diving lane and the divers. The diver has clearly demonstrated proficiency in diving, perhaps by doing a practice dive off the side (not the blocks), or is known to the lifeguards as being proficient. Even with all of this there is still a risk and there are people who would see an empty lane and would swim into it just because they are stupid !

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

Former Member — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:23:21 GMT

For those who refuse to look at the FACTS in this case but prefer to opinionize, here is information from the case. McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail; From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks; Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees; At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years; Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature; McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not; McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;” McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk; The case is all about the temperature. People make assumptions about actions they take. The average person assumes that drinking coffee from McDonalds is safe. I would assume that as they have been serving it for many years they would be doing so safely and responsibly. No one assumes that 3rd degree burns, skin grafts and months in hospital would result if by accident they or someone else spills coffee over them. For Aquageek who sees no need for corporate responsiblity, was the case of the "firestone tyres fitted to Suv's where they would explode on hot roads, the fault of the driver or the company making unsafe tyres ? BTW, I know that as soon as someone stops arguing over the facts in a case ( here it is the temp of the coffee ) and goes to global opinions over society, lawyers etc, etc, that they have realised that they have LOST the argument.

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

aquageek — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:07:15 GMT

So, mattson, if this woman had just poured in her lap intionally, the outcome would have been the same? It's a great country - you can intentionally hurt yourself, drive up your alleged bills for pain and suffering in order to collect damages from someone else. In addition to coffee being hot, knives are sharp and can cause injury. If you've ever bought a very expensive knife you know they can be very sharp.

RE: I am SOOOO Mad!

mattson — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:28:43 GMT

I don't see how knives are part of this argument. If everyone else's knives cause you a small cut (normal cup of coffee), and brand X causes gangrene/hand chopped off/whatever at a high rate (3rd degree burn from overly hot coffee), then maybe you'll have something. Hi Emmett, I am not a lawyer. So the information I'm giving is just what I have dug up (but it is not my imagining what is going on). Part of the suit is that you were using the product in its intended manner. So opening the lid to add cream and sugar (and accidently spilling) would be normal behavior for a cup of coffee, pouring it on your head or lap would not. (If you remember, she was held responsible for the spill.) This next section I think is what you want: An injury from a product is not a justification for suing the manufacturer. Rather, the consumer must be able to legitimately allege that the product was "defective", a legal term meaning essentially, that the product was unreasonably dangerous. A product can be unreasonably dangerous for various reasons. The design of the product could be defective, thus the entire line of products would be unreasonably dangerous. Generally, (although it varies from state to state), to determine whether the product is unreasonably dangerous, a balancing test will be employed in which the utility of the product is weighed against the danger it poses. In most cases, the plaintiff will be obligated to offer a reasonable alternative design that the manufacturer could have employed, which would have prevented the injury and which would not have substantially diminished the product's effectiveness. So the utility (morning beverage) is compared to the danger (3rd degree burns, hospitilization, etc.) The reasonable alternative design is to make the coffee the same temperature as everyone else. Even 10 degrees cooler would have substantially reduced the risk.