Do you think WoTC should be sued?

[billd91]

Why? The drive-thru is to get your purchase without having to park and stand in line, but you intend to eat the food after leaving. Not to consume WHILE driving.

What? You don't drink the coffee you buy at the drive-through while you're driving? Your wife and kids don't dig into the food you get at the drive-through while you're driving? I can assure you, a LOT of people expect to start consuming the food they buy at the drive-through before they reach some final destination.
But how about the people who intend to drink their coffee AT McDonalds? Shouldn't they be able to drink it right away? They're buying the same coffee, from the same pot, as the people buying it at the drive-through. But at 180 degrees, it's not fit for them either.

 

[billd91]

I really have no sympathy for anyone endangering the lives of other drivers or pedestrians because of their foolishness wanting to drink/eat/text/use the phone or computer/etc while driving.

Had she not been in a vehicle, MAYBE. But even carrying in your lap when window cup-holders have been around for most of her life...no sympathy at all. She could have asked for a drink tray and set it in the passenger floorboard.

By the way, you might want to actually look at the Liebeck v McDonalds case. The little old lady was the passenger and the car was parked so she could put cream and sugar in the coffee. No speed bumps. No driving dangerously. She fumbled opening the lid and spilled the coffee in a still vehicle.

 

[VGmaster9]

People STILL think I want to sue Wizards? Wow...

 

[Stoat]

You sue them when you are a stupid greedy whore who just wants to get rich quick on the basis of your own ignorance.

If I pay you $160,000, will you let me pour boiling coffee on your junk? I'm almost positive I can raise the money.

I really have no sympathy for anyone endangering the lives of other drivers or pedestrians because of their foolishness wanting to drink/eat/text/use the phone or computer/etc while driving.

The woman was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her nephew. She was not driving.

 

[shadzar]

By the way, you might want to actually look at the Liebeck v McDonalds case. The little old lady was the passenger and the car was parked so she could put cream and sugar in the coffee. No speed bumps. No driving dangerously. She fumbled opening the lid and spilled the coffee in a still vehicle.

Either way a car is not made for such things. You can wait until you get where you are going.


People inside had the same temperature coffee? Did they have access to ice?

Anyone tries to eat or drink something in MY car, they will find themselves on the side of the road just a soon as it can come to a stop.

The woman was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her nephew. She was not driving.

Still at that age, she should know better. Cars aren't made for those sorts of things.

 

[Stoat]

Anyone tries to eat or drink something in MY car, they will find themselves on the side of the road just a soon as it can come to a stop.

Even your 79 year old aunt?

Still at that age, she should know better. Cars aren't made for those sorts of things.

I imagine that the lawyers for McDonald's made a similar argument at trial. And it appears that they were somewhat successful.

The jury found that the woman was partially responsible for the accident. For that reason, the $200,000 compensatory damage award was reduced by 20%.

 

[WizarDru]

Why? The drive-thru is to get your purchase without having to park and stand in line, but you intend to eat the food after leaving. Not to consume WHILE driving.

This was discussed in the trial. McDonald's tried to make that exact claim....except THEIR OWN RESEARCH again showed that a large percentage of their customers expected to drink their coffee as soon as they bought it, not later.

I really have no sympathy for anyone endangering the lives of other drivers or pedestrians because of their foolishness wanting to drink/eat/text/use the phone or computer/etc while driving.

Well, that's good...because Liebeck wasn't endangering anyone. She was not driving, she was a passenger. And her grandson, who was driving, pulled to a stop so she could add creamer to her coffee. They had not even left the parking lot...he merely pulled forward from the window. Liebeck was not the first third-degree burn victim, either.

This is the crux of the problem with this case: everyone makes large assumptions about the case based that don't have anything to do with the facts. It's assumed that this is a case of an overly litigious society or a company being blackmailed. You make a long reasoned argument about something that doesn't apply to this case. Unless your argument is that no one should eat in cars EVER, which makes one wonder why you aren't arguing for the removal of cup-holders. McDonald's certainly isn't...since their data showed (and their marketing is designed to appeal to) people purchasing their food through drive-through and eating it on the go.

Liebeck spent eight days in the hospital and three weeks in out of work recuperating. She required debridement and skin grafts. She lost 20 pounds, dropping her to 83 pounds.

And moreover, McDonald's lost the case...TWICE...because of their extremely callous behavior before and during the trial. They made the jury ANGRY. Which is not really a great way to win a jury trial. Examples include McDonald's saying they didn't care about the 700 burn cases because statistically, it was "basically trivially different from zero." While factually correct, it sent a message to the jury that McDonald's didn't care about the consumer and was quite happy to continue along as they had been...which they actually said during the trial, too.

After this trial, McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee. They improved the lids and changed their coffee procedures. They increased the font size and nature of the text on the cup (which Liebeck couldn't read without glasses, btw). The trial, essentially, enabled a consumer protection by forcing McDonald's to be more responsible.

There was a time when I thought the case was ridiculous and frivolous and a sign of how we had lost our way of personal responsibility. Then I learned the facts of the case and realized that just because it made a great story (assuming you didn't bother to inform yourself about it), that doesn't make it TRUE.

 

[BryonD]

Unless your argument is that no one should eat in cars EVER, which makes one wonder why you aren't arguing for the removal of cup-holders.

To me, it wouldn't make any difference if she spilled in in her house or in their dining room. She spilled it.

If you can show me that some element of the dining room CAUSED it to spill, then that would be different.

Liebeck spent eight days in the hospital and three weeks in out of work recuperating. She required debridement and skin grafts. She lost 20 pounds, dropping her to 83 pounds.

That is terrible. And people accidentally do harm to themselves all the time. And we should feel for them. But it still their own fault and responsibility.

And moreover, McDonald's lost the case...TWICE...because of their extremely callous behavior before and during the trial. They made the jury ANGRY. Which is not really a great way to win a jury trial.

So by your own case emotion played a crucial element of the result.

There was a time when I thought the case was ridiculous and frivolous and a sign of how we had lost our way of personal responsibility. Then I learned the facts of the case and realized that just because it made a great story (assuming you didn't bother to inform yourself about it), that doesn't make it TRUE.

I agree with your version of the story. It doesn't change my view of "don't spill coffee on yourself and blame someone else."

 

[OnyxPharaoh]

Ahem... "and continued refusal to take corrective measures despite years of other settlements over too-hot coffee" most likely caused by that attitude.

Ahem....I would say that after years of other settlements people would pull their heads out of their asses and say "HEY MCDONALDS SERVERS HOT COFFEE I"D BE ING CAREFUL!"

So when someone's hurt by a defective product, they're greedy if they try to get their medical bills and lost income covered?

I didn't say that. You specifically mentioned suing over a companies attitude, not a defective product.

I would even argue the product was not defected but was Hot Coffee as advertised. I'll go a step further and say the fault was the consumers for misusing the product because in all my years I have never see a beverage that says "Best when used between your legs".

Well....there was the can of "Pussy Whip" whipped cream but I'd hardely call that a beverage.

And are we to assume everyone has perfect knowledge about defective products on the market and that corporations don't deliberately hide that information? Man, what world do you live in? Apparently it's a world in which GM never hid the heightened risk of side-saddle gas tanks, Ford never hid the information about truck's slipping out of park and into reverse, and Bridgestone/Firestone didn't hide information about tire treads separating behind secrecy orders for 8 years.

Again hoss, I didn't say all lawsuits were frivilous and that there aren't good reasons to sue a company or individual. I was simply stating that your assumption that you should be allowed to sue someone over their attitude was ridiculous. I know lost of s, and if I could sue them all for being s I'd own a small country by now.

Oh, and don't make fun of my GM's. I'll smack you in the mouth for that.

 

[OnyxPharaoh]

If I pay you $160,000, will you let me pour boiling coffee on your junk? I'm almost positive I can raise the money.

I'm not even sure what this has to do with anything.....

The woman was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her nephew. She was not driving.

He never mentioned the woman in question. He just said 'anyone' acting under such-and-such circumstances. Rebuttal rejected!