Push 0 #26 February 4, 2003 John Grisham has a book on the subject of punitive damages and damages of non-monetary value called "The Runaway Jury". Even though the tobacco companies have long lost their first lawsuit, it's still good. I think it depends on how bad the bagel was. If it was so spoiled and rotten inside that I got poisoned, my liver gave up and I am now on dyalisis (sp?), I think that I should get a whole lot more than 2 bucks. -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #27 February 4, 2003 I like suing McDonalds. They are part of the evil empire coalitionjraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #28 February 4, 2003 QuoteI like suing McDonalds. They are part of the evil empire coalition That's right! They put a secret addictive chemical in their french fries that makes you crave them fortnightly! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #29 February 4, 2003 I have no problem with the innocent victims who are damaged being made whole. What I object to is the victim or relatives being unjustly enriched simply because the defendant has insurance or is a large corporation. You cited instances of employees intentionally causing harm and business mistakes, but I didn't see anything about those "victims" who intentionally set out to defraud. Staged accidents, bridgework that is broken prior to purchasing the bagel, etc. How do we deal with these people? That's who I'm after. In Texas we string them up!!! Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #30 February 4, 2003 QuoteNot really. Look at it this way, either (a) the suit is groundless, or (b) there really was something wrong with the bagel. (A) Suit is groundless. Suit fails. If it's really groundless, the McDonald's recovers their court costs, and the only people who lose are the people who filed suit. (B) Bagel really had something wrong. Couple wins. McDonalds' all over America start exercising better quality control. or (c), McD's settles out of court, continues serving bagels that have something seriously wrong with them (like a hard center), more people break their teeth. I used to think that whole coffee spilling thing was ridiculous. Then I found out the details of the decision. McDonalds had been warned, repeatedly, by their own internal inspection group that they had to stop serving coffee that hot because it was at a temperature that would cause 3rd degree burns if consumed immediately. They ignored that, because the majority of people buying coffee from them did so in the drive through and wanted it to stay hot during their commute. They knew they were presenting a danger to the public, and decided to continue to do so because they didn't want people having cold coffee 20 minutes after they bought it and associating McD's with bad coffee. It's easy to make these kinds of criticisms in a vacuum, but when you have the real world facts, things change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DivaSkyChick 0 #31 February 5, 2003 Philly, In addition to what you said, my understanding was that McDonalds also settled numerous cases out of court prior to losing the big one. AND they kept the coffee so hot because they did the bottomless cup thing when you're in the store - if it wasn't hot enough, you might actually ask for that free second cup. --- www.facebook.com/mandyhamptonfitch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mujie96 0 #32 February 5, 2003 QuoteI like suing McDonalds. They are part of the evil empire coalition YEAH!!! Bring down the evil fast food demons. ITs absolutely disgusting what fast food has done to this country anyway. I don't remember the author but Fast Food Nation is an interesting read and it'll make you think about what you're putting in your mouth... Just keep swimming...just keep swimming.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #33 February 5, 2003 >They ignored that, because the majority of people buying coffee > from them did so in the drive through and wanted it to stay hot > during their commute. So do you think it should be illegal (or at least actionable) when a company sells something that a customer wants, even if it's dangerous when misused? (i.e. spilled on oneself) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akaGQ 0 #34 February 5, 2003 sounds to me like your typical dumbass looking for a free-ride and easy money if you ask me - GQ ... it was the love of the air and sky and flying, the lure of adventure, the appreciation of beauty ... -Charles Lindberg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DivinDon 0 #35 February 5, 2003 Seems to be a lot of that around.I would hate to see what a DZO has to put up with from all his WHUFFO neighbors,man what a headache Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phatcat 0 #36 February 5, 2003 QuoteI don't remember the author but Fast Food Nation is an interesting read and it'll make you think about what you're putting in your mouth... No shit. The author is Eric Schosser - good read. However, I can't honestly say I've given up fast food completely. It IS tasty! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #37 February 5, 2003 QuoteSo do you think it should be illegal (or at least actionable) when a company sells something that a customer wants, even if it's dangerous when misused? (i.e. spilled on oneself) Well, surely you think it should be actionable when a company sells a dangerous product, or you would support the open sale of fully automatic assault weapons, wouldn't you? Or, maybe the issue is really just varying degrees of 'dangerous' ofset by the amount of assumed risk? I find that most people who complain about the McDonalds coffee case really don't understand how profound the negligence was. Alternately, would you prefer that instead of allowing case by case lawsuits, the government overly regulate every part of life? (off topic tangent)It's fundamentally rediculous to complain about lawsuits. It would be much smarter to complain about verdicts. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Push 0 #38 February 5, 2003 If there is an aggravated danger to the customer consuming the product, the danger is related some property of the product directly, if this danger is present even if the product is consumed reasonably, and if this danger is not obvious to your average consumer, it should be illegal to sell the product without a label warning of that danger. Now we need to agree on what aggravated means, what directly means, what reasonably means and what average means. -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mujie96 0 #39 February 5, 2003 Jokes about McDonalds taking over the world aside, I actually studied that case for a business law course I took and it was pretty extreme. A lot of times we look at headlines and think something is ridiculous before we bother to find out the rest of the story. Just keep swimming...just keep swimming.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jose 0 #40 February 5, 2003 Maybe he bought the bagel to have sex with the hole in the middle. And the "hard part" in the bagel damaged his junk, thereby hindering his sex life. I mean, when my girlfriend caught me with my long dong in the middle of a bagel, she just didnt buy the story that I was playing ring toss by myself. I never got laid by her again. I can see the reason here, whats the matter with you people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #41 February 5, 2003 There is a light hearted discussion on the hazardds of extreme bagel munching here.... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=267911#267911 You meanthe guy who is raising the law suit never signed a waiver? Tsk, tsk......-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Staso 0 #42 February 5, 2003 QuoteDoes anyone else think this kinda' crap has got to end? i do. the first time when somebody is locked in mental house when he or she tries to sue the a manufacturer of micorwave because he or she tried to dry a cat in it and the cat got very well done. any stupid sue case will do. not necessary a cat in microwave. stan. -- it's not about defying gravity; it's how hard you can abuse it. speed skydiving it is ... Speed Skydiving Forum Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #43 February 5, 2003 QuoteSo do you think it should be illegal (or at least actionable) when a company sells something that a customer wants, even if it's dangerous when misused? (i.e. spilled on oneself) No...but she didn't want or ask for a cup of scalding hot coffee that would cause third degree burns when she put it to her lips causing her to jerk the cup away thereby spilling it on herself. I'm pretty sure she wanted a cup of coffee that she could drink, and what she got was obviously not fit for consumption. Since when is drinking coffee a misuse of it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #44 February 5, 2003 >No...but she didn't want or ask for a cup of scalding hot coffee that > would cause third degree burns when she put it to her lips causing > her to jerk the cup away thereby spilling it on herself. Nor did I ask for a caramel so sticky and hard that it pulled a tooth of mine out, getting blood everywhere and traumatizing me for a good two days. Nor did the guy who drank the "distilled water" out of the car battery ask for battery acid. Nor did the tandem student ask for a malfunctioned main and lineover on her reserve, causing her death. No one _asks_ for any of that. The question is, is it reasonable that they did not expect it? Is it reasonable to assume that a tandem student knows they can die, after they are told that? Is it reasonable to expect a cup of coffee might be very hot, given that it has HOT on the cover? That it might even hurt you if spilled on you? I think it is. >I'm pretty sure she wanted a cup of coffee that she could drink, and > what she got was obviously not fit for consumption. Since when is > drinking coffee a misuse of it? So if you got a plate of fajitas sizzling away at a restaraunt, it would be unreasonable to be cautious about putting it in your mouth immediately? Is it a reasonable expectation that every cooked food and heated beverage (even those made with boiling water) is cooled by the server to a safe temperature before you receive it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites