Unfair McTreatment

[Aprill]

When I had a third degree burn from freshly boiled water on my stomach, I didn't sue the pasta company.

I was pregnant and it was on my stomach. If she needed skin grafts, whatever, because I have had to peel my skin off pots and pans, and not had skin grafts.
I find it hard to believe that it was really needed.

 

[CatholicRock]

When I had a third degree burn from freshly boiled water on my stomach, I didn't sue the pasta company.

I was pregnant and it was on my stomach. If she needed skin grafts, whatever, because I have had to peel my skin off pots and pans, and not had skin grafts.
I find it hard to believe that it was really needed.

The reason was that her skin was much more frail due to her age, than yours.

 

[Aprill]

A pregnant stretched out belly with a third degree burn is pretty severe.....I can understand she burnt herself...
but the key words are

SHE BURNT HERSELF. If you can't figure out coffee is hot, don't drink it.

 

[CatholicRock]

A pregnant stretched out belly with a third degree burn is pretty severe.....I can understand she burnt herself...
but the key words are

SHE BURNT HERSELF. If you can't figure out coffee is hot, don't drink it.

I agree dear lady.

 

[R3quiem]

I look at it this way:

It can be argued that it was McDonald's fault for making the coffee much too hot, or it can be argued that she should know coffee is hot. Either way, she was hurt and McDonald's is rich. McDonald's should have awarded her some money without courts being involved, at least enough to cover the damages. Since they didn't I guess it was right for her to sue, but should she have been seeking millions and millions of dollars or just enough to cover the medical expenses and missed work?

We are supposed to emulate Jesus. Would Jesus sue somebody for millions of dollars?

 

[chilehed]

...The ideal temperature for brewing coffe is between 180-200 degrees F; I just measured the water coming out of my coffee maker at 150F. Water at 150F casues severe burns in 2 seconds, at 140F it takes only 6 seconds.....

The pot's done, the water temp is 170F. That'll give ANYONE third-degree burns.

 

[chilehed]

I look at it this way:

It can be argued that it was McDonald's fault for making the coffee much too hot, or it can be argued that she should know coffee is hot. Either way, she was hurt and McDonald's is rich. McDonald's should have awarded her some money without courts being involved, at least enough to cover the damages...

What in the world makes you think that McDonald's is morally obligated to pay the costs of her own carelessness? And what makes you think that who's at fault has nothing to do with that obligation?

McDonald's has a large revenue stream - so what? Your argument is based on nothing more than rank bigotry. Who the heck are YOU to decide that McDonald's makes too much money?

Your compassion for the lady is admirable, but your conclusion is misplaced.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

I have to disagree.

Coffee is hot. That is a fact of life.

McDonald's brews their coffee significantly hotter than is typical, and had been warned that their overheated coffee was a severe burn risk. That means they are legally liable when someone burns themselves.

 

[PetertheRock]

What in the world makes you think that McDonald's is morally obligated to pay the costs of her own carelessness? And what makes you think that who's at fault has nothing to do with that obligation?

McDonald's has a large revenue stream - so what? Your argument is based on nothing more than rank bigotry. Who the heck are YOU to decide that McDonald's makes too much money?

Your compassion for the lady is admirable, but your conclusion is misplaced.

Yeah...so lets say a drunk driver slams into my legally parked car and gets severely hurt. Using this argument I should pay for the drunk drivers medical bills for parking my car in the drunks way.

The liberal on the other hand would want to sue the liquor company for making the drunk driver get drunk. They would want to sue the car manufacturer for not making a safe enough car to prevent the drunk from getting hurt, and the liberal would also probably want to sue me for having my car parked in the drunks way.

 

[Fantine]

Product safety decisions are made on the basis of risk.

(And perhaps the temperature of coffee isn't the best illustration for this.)

Every product we manufacture can be made more safely. Perhaps we could make a small appliance more safely for a modification costing $.50 per unit. If the manufacturer sells 10,000,000 units a year, that's a cost of $5 million a year.

The possibility that someone would be injured by the product and the company might be liable is figured into the equation. If the company feels its potential settlement losses are $6 million a year, they will put in the $.50 modification. If, however, because of tort reform, its potential settlement losses are only $2 million a year, it will forget the safety feature.

That's the downside of tort reform. As a society, we will be subjected to more medical and pharmaceutical and product safety-related risks, and more of us will be harmed, because we have removed corporate America's primary motivation for making safer products.

 

[BAFRIEND]

One fact I think is being overlooked is that the lady was probably to some degree forced to sue by her medical or auto insurance to recoup some of the loss. I know that when my grandmother fractured her shoulder on the bus when the driver accelerated before she seated herself (she was 70), she did not want to sue, but her insurance forced her to or would not have paid anything. Her lawyer was very mad when she died of unrelated causes before she accepted the settlement.

McDonalds is a very militant company when it comes to giving in on law suits and is very aggressive.

One fact of my post, I stated that suing the company was not wrong but that the real crime was the PR slam against the lady suing. She asked for an award, the jury heard the case and gave it. The judge lowered the award, I am guessing in large part to the uproar. I guess if you demonize someone, you get a discount in civil litigation.

If large awards offend you, then vote for litigation ceilings and limitations, of course, the lawyers will get it thrown out on rights issues.

 

[BAFRIEND]

This is the same liberal attitude that wants to blame fast food establishments for fat kids, the tobacco companies for people smoking, gun manufacturers for murders, and all this other nonsense that is going on.

Food consumption is one thing, I agree there, but tobacco is immoral and guns have one purpose.

No one, unless they are incredibly stupid, uses a gun as a hammer. A gun is made to kill living things. That is it period. If it were not for guns, alot of people would be alive today. You are many times more likely to kill your own kids or have them accidentally shoot themselves or a friend, then you ever are of killing in self-defense. You can outrun a knife and it is unlikely a mass murder will take place with one, but a gun has other aspects to it: convenience and efficiency. If you want to be involved in the manufacture of guns, then you should have a financial risk attached to it.

 

[PetertheRock]

Food consumption is one thing, I agree there, but tobacco is immoral and guns have one purpose.

No one, unless they are incredibly stupid, uses a gun as a hammer. A gun is made to kill living things. That is it period. If it were not for guns, alot of people would be alive today. You are many times more likely to kill your own kids or have them accidentally shoot themselves or a friend, then you ever are of killing in self-defense. You can outrun a knife and it is unlikely a mass murder will take place with one, but a gun has other aspects to it: convenience and efficiency. If you want to be involved in the manufacture of guns, then you should have a financial risk attached to it.

If it weren't for guns a lot of people would be dead because they would have no way of defending themselves. Guns are not evil...people that use them for evil things are evil. Your stats are flawed since there is no accurate stats for how many people have actually been saved through the use of guns. But the fact is many more people have been saved through the legal use of guns than through the criminals use of guns.

I will agree with you about tobacco. The only reason I would go after tobacco is because back 50 years ago people did not know the dangers of tobacco. In todays day I would not allow one person one red cent from tobacco litigation. Everyone knows that tobacco kills. If a person today decides to smoke it's on them and not on the tobacco company.

Why haven't we gone after big alcohol since alcohol has been resposible for more deaths than tobacco and guns combined? Maybe it's because someone like Ted Kennedy would never do anything that would hurt his lifeblood.

 

[R3quiem]

What in the world makes you think that McDonald's is morally obligated to pay the costs of her own carelessness? And what makes you think that who's at fault has nothing to do with that obligation?

McDonald's has a large revenue stream - so what? Your argument is based on nothing more than rank bigotry. Who the heck are YOU to decide that McDonald's makes too much money?

Your compassion for the lady is admirable, but your conclusion is misplaced.

Did you read my post? I didn't say they are obligated to, I said they SHOULD. As in, they should have the morales to do it without the law involved. If I had some money, and someone got hurt and it was unclear as to whether it was my fault or not, I would definitely help that person out regardless.

 

[chilehed]

Did you read my post? I didn't say they are obligated to, I said they SHOULD. As in, they should have the morales to do it without the law involved...

The word "should" means that there is a moral obligation to do something. McDonalds had no moral obligation to cover her medical bills.

If certainly would have been a virtuous act to do so, but that's different.

 

[MichaelFJF]

McDonald's brews their coffee significantly hotter than is typical, and had been warned that their overheated coffee was a severe burn risk. That means they are legally liable when someone burns themselves.

They do not.
They have not been warned.
They are not liable. I suggest you talk to anyone in the industry about brewing and holding temps. They will set you straight.

 

[DJ B.K.]

Yeah...so lets say a drunk driver slams into my legally parked car and gets severely hurt. Using this argument I should pay for the drunk drivers medical bills for parking my car in the drunks way.

The liberal on the other hand would want to sue the liquor company for making the drunk driver get drunk. They would want to sue the car manufacturer for not making a safe enough car to prevent the drunk from getting hurt, and the liberal would also probably want to sue me for having my car parked in the drunks way.

Your liberal stereotyping is realy annoying. It doesn't help in discussion so just stop.

 

[R3quiem]

The word "should" means that there is a moral obligation to do something. McDonalds had no moral obligation to cover her medical bills.

If certainly would have been a virtuous act to do so, but that's different.

That's exactly what I mean, it would be a virtuous act to do so. So why not do so?

 

[PetertheRock]

That's exactly what I mean, it would be a virtuous act to do so. So why not do so?

Because once you start doing something like that any idiot that stubs their toe will sue to get their medical bills covered.

 

[BAFRIEND]

If it weren't for guns a lot of people would be dead because they would have no way of defending themselves. Guns are not evil...people that use them for evil things are evil. Your stats are flawed since there is no accurate stats for how many people have actually been saved through the use of guns. But the fact is many more people have been saved through the legal use of guns than through the criminals use of guns.

I will agree with you about tobacco. The only reason I would go after tobacco is because back 50 years ago people did not know the dangers of tobacco. In todays day I would not allow one person one red cent from tobacco litigation. Everyone knows that tobacco kills. If a person today decides to smoke it's on them and not on the tobacco company.

Why haven't we gone after big alcohol since alcohol has been resposible for more deaths than tobacco and guns combined? Maybe it's because someone like Ted Kennedy would never do anything that would hurt his lifeblood.

Don't expect me to feel sorry for big business involved in vice. Any legislation blocking litigation against them is just proxy by the industry.