I am SOOOO Mad!

Originally posted by Tom Ellison Under normal circumstances I am not as blunt as I am going to be here, but this really got under my skin. McDonalds should continue to serve HOT coffee! Anyone STUPID enough to spill hot coffee in their lap has NO ONE to blame but themselves. Law suits such as this are a perfect example of a system run amuck! But, but, then who's gonna protect me from myself? I don't want that responsibility! ;) :p

Before I post this let me say that, yes, I am a lawyer and, no, I am not a trial lawyer. My practice deals with commercial, non-litigation matters (contracts, intellectual property, software licensing, etc.). I don't know (or, for that matter, care very much) about the facts of particular personal injury suits, like the infamous McDonald's Coffee Case, for the simple reason that, as my law school professors constantly pointed out, one oddball case is not the law. Now that that's out of the way -- the people yelling about "frivolous lawsuits" might want to consider that 40% of nothing is nothing. Trial lawyers have every incentive to avoid frivolous suits -- they don't get paid for their time or work. Also, "excessive" verdicts can be, and often are, reduced by trial judges and appellate courts. As for the original issue, the Y (or any pool operator) regardless of litigation, would be irresponsible to allow a pool user to engage in conduct -- i.e., diving without supervision -- that could endanger another user. You may be willing to accept the risk; the kid you land on might have other ideas. It hardly seems fair or reasonable to ask a 17 year old lifeguard to make a judgement about your competence that may affect another user's safety. I would not want to use a facility that doesn't enforce basic safety rules.

Originally posted by botterud To Leonard and Tom: Please re-read the facts of the case. McDonald's sold coffee at temperature that was not fit for human consumption. McDonald's had notice of multiple injuries from their practice. McDonald's could have paid her medical bills and been done with it, but decided to press the matter to trial. So a jury of citizens, with full knowledge of all of the facts, made the call. What is so outlandish about that? What's outlandish is that people expect something freshky cooked to be cooled off to an eating temperatire beforeit's served. Wll, let's make all restaurants do that. No more Flambe's, no more sizzling Fajitas, no more hot soup, cause we might serve it jsut two minutes before it'sready to eat, and some dufus will take a mouthfull before they check and see if it's cool enough to eat yet. I think that's almost as stupid as my ex boyfriend taking a hot pocket out of a microwave and biting into it seconds after it ws done, only to burn his tongue.. and he's done that over and overagain. I mean, how many times does it take people to learn that something that had just been cooked just may be too hot to eat the very second th impulse strikes you to gulp it down. I think it's very outlandish.You're talking about grown people, not little kids. Now, if they served a happy meal to a 2 year old that is not accompanied by an adult to tell them to eat it slowly... but thern, how many 2-year olds do you ge going abuot on their own. Never mind, don't answer that, I can tell by the McSuits, there must be quite a few. Hey, I just bit into a burger before unwrapping it,and cut my tongue on the paper... maybe I should sue them for serving my burger wrapped up - wrapped up burgers are not fit for human consumption. :rolleyes: Bah! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by botterud To Aquageek: I can tell you, however, that cases where there is no insurance tend to resolve much more quickly and efficiently than those where there is an insurance policy. I could explain why, but it would be a treatise. Please re-read the facts of the case. McDonald's sold coffee at temperature that was not fit for human consumption. McDonald's had notice of multiple injuries from their practice. McDonald's could have paid her medical bills and been done with it, but decided to press the matter to trial. No treatise needed, it's ultra simple. A company that has no insurance is not subjected to outrageous claims where the plaintiff's bar sues for all they can get. Additionally, the plaintiff's bar knows there's little to no money in these cases so of course they go quickly. A company with no insurance also can't afford to hire quality defense counsel that is provided standard with every insurance policy so it's easier to push them around. From the plaintiff perspective of course they are quick and efficient, no one puts up a fight against ludicrous claims. I'd also like to know of a single restaurant where you can walk in and chug a cup of coffee fresh from the machine and not burn yourself. I, for one, like my coffee hot and am smart enough to realize this fact and avoid spilling it. Apparently that standard is not universal.

I was officiating a swim meet last winter. One of the top divers in the area jumped off the edge of the deck just to get wet. The depth of the pool was clearly marked on the side of the pool. The diver was a visitor. He smashed his face on the "bottom wall" of the pool, came up all bloody with a broken nose. He subsequently failed to qualify for sectionals. Should he sue the pool operator? I hope the lawyers will explain if this would or would not be a "frivilous" law suit or what its merits might be.

Having handled personal injury and med mal claims for 7 years in multiple states and having hired and paid numerous lawyers, I, as a simple fact, am not wrong. Having multiple family member on both the P&C policy and Brokerage side of insurance with over 30 years of experience, I, as a simple fact, am not wrong. But, from an employment atty who prefers coffee cold, I will defer to your knowledge. I also handled employment claims, by the way.

However, I think it's good to know I only have to be responsible for 20% of my stupid actions from now on. I can blame the other 80% on people with deep pockets.

Tom, Geek: You are still not paying attention to the facts of the McDonald's case. It is not that the coffee was hot. It was that the coffee was made about 40 degrees too hot, deliberately, with no information to the consumer. (That is not the same as hot vs. lukewarm, which you two keep stating.) The coffee was made that way, with the assumption that the drive-through customer would not drink it until 5 minutes later. (By which time it would be hot, but consumable. BTW, I only order the hot chocolate, and I would like to drink it right away, not wait.) If they had posted something, like "wait 5 minutes before drinking", or provided an option of coffee that is hot but not scalding, then what you two are saying would be valid. But that is not what happened.

Under normal circumstances I am not as blunt as I am going to be here, but this really got under my skin. McDonalds should continue to serve HOT coffee! Anyone STUPID enough to spill hot coffee in their lap has NO ONE to blame but themselves. Law suits such as this are a perfect example of a system run amuck!

Originally posted by KenChertoff Now that that's out of the way -- the people yelling about "frivolous lawsuits" might want to consider that 40% of nothing is nothing. Trial lawyers have every incentive to avoid frivolous suits -- they don't get paid for their time or work. Also, "excessive" verdicts can be, and often are, reduced by trial judges and appellate courts. Do they avoid frivolous lawsuits - or do they avoid lawsuits that they can't win? They are not necessarily the same thing.