McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

[vitualis]

One of the original reasons for copyright laws (in addition to the ones already given) that expired after a reasonable number of years was so that the material would become public domain. That is, works such as literature and music would become freely available to the public so that would would not become lost in the archives of some publishing guild that would "OWN" works forever (would be then become forgotten completely by the next generation).

If not for copyright laws (that expired), a whole lot of literature from the 19th century may never been know now (e.g., take a look at the Gutenburg archives sometime).

However, with the progressive extensions of the duration of copyright, the original spirit of copyright is being loss. If the "duration" of a copyright would truly last for over 100 years, the effect would be that most of the intellectual property of any particular age would be "lost". Why? For example, there may be relatively very little interest in TODAYs video/literature/music/etc. in the year 2103 and indeed, even by 2053. As the copyright of most of today's art is controlled by the major publishing/recording companies, they get to re-release/distribute as they see fit -- and they don't redistribute stuff that ISN'T PROFITABLE.

By the year 2103, most of today's art would not have be redistributed and hence be unknown for many years. As the length of copyright is now so ridiculously long, by the time they DO expire, they would have been long forgotten in the future society.

Anyway, that's my RANT.

As for medical indemnity, I agree totally (but then I have a vested interest... ). Unfortunately, it is not an easy system to fix... Often, there is no true breech of duty of care BUT there is a bad outcome -- and an expensive one for the patient. The courts know that if the patient wins it usually only means that the medical insurer (rather than the doctor) pays -- and ensures that the patient has the funds to pay for future/ongoing medical costs... and thus, the courts are often sympathetic to the patient.

Ultimately, the adversarial system is probably not the best forum of solving these sorts of issues.

Regards.

[BJ_M]

The argument for allowing backups is just a common sense one. When you purchase a product it becomes your own, and you should have the right to do whatever you want with it, as long as it doesn't violate any copyrights or laws.

..........................

just a 2cents comment ... there are many things you can 'buy" but dont really belong to you -- check out the fine print on many software titles - it never belongs to you at any point ..

in many places you can buy a house sitting on land (of course) -- but in many locations - the land doesnt belong to you (or something in the land as oil or gold) , unless you were specifically buying those right also ..
There are some other reasons why the land may not belong to you (treatys and long ago judgements are some other reasons) ..

[bugster]

I know this has nothing to do with video but still

And, forgive me, I can't resist. The woman who sued McDonalds set the cup of coffee BETWEEN HER LEGS in a moving vehicle. She was thereby contributorily negligent; that's why the original judgment was thrown out. While the general rule in tort law is that you take your plaintiff as you find him, stupidity on the part of the plaintiff (victim) is a defense.

I was told the 'real facts' of this Mcdonalds case bu a US Lawyer (so believ what you like of what I am about to say ). What I was told was that the woman in question placed the cup of coffee BETWEEN HER LEGS because she was unable to hold it. The reason she was unable to hold it was due to the extreme heat and thickness (or lack of) of the paper/plastic cup in which the coffee had been served. I was also told that it came out at trial that Mcd's were well aware of the problem of the cups being too hot to hold when served containg the scalding coffee, they had investigated using better insulating cups (thicker) but had rejected the idea on grounds of cost. The cost involved would have been less than 1 cent per cup, and this was taken into account during the case and was used to show that Mcdonalds were well aware of the fact that serving coffee at the temperature at which they served it, in the cups they provided, was a danger to the customer. That is why (at least partly) the burned woman was awarded significant damages.

[JasonK]

And to think of all those billions of cups of coffee served with no problems. Now we have to settle for "warm" coffee.

All these things I mentioned are part of the same screwed up system, that was my point. I guess the average person wouldn't catch that.

[defense]

@bugster, this incident was a long time ago, but if my memory is as good as I think, I'm almost certain it wasn't due to what you heard from an attorney. I believe what happened was that McDonald's NEVER had a single word about the coffee being "HOT" on the cup.

To them it was obvious, but it kind of resembled someone mopping a floor and not putting the "wet floor" sign out. That can also bring legal action, and has many times in the past. Although that was mentioned, the two things are horses of a different color. With coffee, it is just "assumed" it is hot or even SCORCHING HOT, but when it comes to the law, assumptions can bust your ass.

McDonald's was found negligent because on their cups of coffee, they never had a "warning" to the consumer that the coffee was hot. That's why the woman won. She got most of that money as punitive damages to punish McDonald's for being negligent. An example had to be set, and the woman bringing legal action just happened to be the beneficiary of this.

Most of the people that are still laughing and/or pissed that this lady was awarded so much money are the ones who are "burning up" (no pun intended) that they weren't the ones to sue.

And to think of all those billions of cups of coffee served with no problems. Now we have to settle for "warm" coffee.

@JasonK, the coffee McDonald's serves since that lawsuit isn't warm, the cup just says "CAUTION" "HOT" all over it. I haven't been to a McDonald's in a while and I don't drink much coffee, but I remember the times I've had coffee it has said that all over the cup and the coffee has been scorching hot.

[adam]

Once again, McDonalds was not found negligent because the woman wasn't given notice of the cofee's heat. I believe the cup in this case did in fact say, "Caution HOT" and furthermore, the cup very well could have said, "Caution scorching hot will cause 3rd degree burns!" and it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference in the case.

Anyone ever see the SNL sketch where Dan Akroid markets a bag full of nails as a children's toy? It doesn't matter that the name of the product is
"bag full of nails" and that everyone is put on notice of its dangerous nature. A bag full of nails simply is not safe as a children's toy, just as scorching hot liquid is not safe as a drink.

McDonalds was negligent because the coffee constitued an unreasonable safety hazard in and of itself. Regardless of whether anyone knew how hot the coffee was or not, it was negligence just to sell it at that temperature. The fact that the negligence was in regards to a product which they manufactured made them strictly liable for ANY damages caused by the coffee even if the plaintiff was in fact negligent as well. Finally, the fact that McDonalds had actual knowledge of the safety hazard and persisted with conscious indifference for the health and safety of others made them grossly negligent. When a defendant is grossly negligent punative damages are allowed, and in this case were awarded.

You don't have to live with warm coffee because of this case, you have to live with safe coffee. If you have a problem with that then brew your own coffee at scorching temperatures and then you can see what 1st-3rd degree burns feel like first hand.

[JasonK]

I make coffee with boiling water. It doesn't get much hotter than that.

The coffee cools off when you pick it up at the drive through and drive on to work. People shouldn't be drinking and driving.

I have had Micky D coffee from time to time, but dont' recall the cup saying hot. Probably because the coffee wan't.

[adam]

I make coffee with boiling water. It doesn't get much hotter than that.

And if you tried to drink it while it was that hot it would cause serious burns, and if you tried to sell it to consumers like this you would seriously injure them as well.

The coffee cools off when you pick it up at the drive through and drive on to work.

And gasoline will eventually evaporate off of a gas soaked t-shirt, but until it does you run the risk of becoming a walking inferno if you try to wear it. You CANNOT sell a product which is dangerous. It doesn't matter if the product will become safe within a matter of minutes, for that period of time when it poses a safety risk, you are endangering people.

People shouldn't be drinking and driving.

McDonalds sells coffee from a drive through window! Are you joking?

[Karate Media]

People shouldn't be drinking and driving.

McDonalds sells coffee from a drive through window! Are you joking?

Well, just to butt in, there are liquor stores that have drive-thru service as well, and certainly no one would say that this fact would justify drinking alcohol while driving. You take your beer home and drink it there...

And shouldn't this thread be moved over to OT? I mean, I know it's kinda my fault, but...


I wonder what baker thinks of all this?

[adam]

Karate Media, that is simply no kind of analogy. Drinking alcohol while driving is an illegal activity itself, and it is illegal because it physically impairs the driver. Alcohol, when used appropriately, is not a dangerous substance, in and of itself. It is the combination of it with driving, in this scenario, that makes it dangerous.

Drinking a generic liquid does not impair your driving, and there is no law forbidding it. Regardless of whether you are driving or not, scorching liquid is dangerous, in and of itself. The risk here is caused by the coffee, not by the act of driving with it. Again, she probably would have recieved worse injuries just from drinking the coffee while inside the restaraunt.

I'm not saying that because you sell something from a drive through window it is automatically excusable for the driver to use it while driving. It doesn't matter where you get the liquor its still illegal to consume it while driving. The point is that there is nothing wrong with drinking coffee while driving, and it is asinine to require someone to not drink coffee and drive, when you just sold it to them while they were sitting in their car.

[defense]

@adam, if I was incorrect from my recollection on the McDonald's case, then I stand corrected, however, I sincerely disagree with your assessment. More specifically, I disagree with the court's ruling, although that wouldn't be the first time. I can give you at least ten examples off the top of my head as to why the entire marking of the "hot" issue arguement has little weight.

You are saying that one could see how serious burns can feel by brewing their own coffee at scorching hot temperatures. The thing here is that the consumer has to take some of the responsibility for this and with those facts, McDonald's, in my opinion, definitely shouldn't of been found liable. It is obvious that coffee is going to be hot, whether it be very hot or blazing hot. The Chinese and Thai restaurants down here for "take out" will give you soup in the form of a plastic cup.

You can easily sip it while driving if you so desire and if one should spill it on themselves and burn themselves in ANY way, should the restaurants be held accountable? No way! It's the same thing if a restaurant serves scorching hot coffee or tea and you spill it on yourself INSIDE the restaurant. If your clumsy as shit and can't hold a cup of coffee in a car or elsewhere, then that's not the restaurants fault. This woman basically won the lottery and is still probably laughing her ass off today.

Last but certainly not least, I also disagree with your statement with respect to being held accountable whether the "caution" is evident or not. You mentioned that whether McDonald's had "scorching hot" cautions on their cups would mean absolutely nothing, as they sold the coffee to a consumer regardless.

Well, i'm not sure what the laws are where you reside, but I can tell you that to my knowledge, in at least most of the States in the U.S. a company can NOT be held liable for an incident which MAY occur when they have taken all of the necessary precautions. I will use the "slippery when wet" floor example. If a company, in this case, let's say "McDonald's," has an employee mop the floor and that employee does NOT put the "wet floor" sign out, then McDonald's can certainly be sued and held responsible for any injury that may occur. However, if the sign is placed on the floor then they have taken the necessary precautions to prevent any accident from occuring, and as a result, can't be held responsible should any injury occur.

I'm fairy certain, this just as most other laws, are ambiguous, and there can be someone with poor site or a blind person who slips and falls and as a result, McDonald's can still in some way, be held accountable. However, i've never heard of a blind person saying that they slipped and fell because they couldn't see the wet floor sign. In ANY of these cases, there is room for injury, however, a company can ONLY do so much to try and prevent it and cover their ass in the process. Because of the B.S laws in this country pertaining to these types of injuries, fraud is at an epidemic rate. That's why Vegas spends countless dollars each and every day to try and "catch" these phony accident claim con artists.

[defense]

UPDATE: ...I decided to check out some "facts" on this McDonald's case because I was curious.

First, I was partially correct about a law suit being the reason McDonald's has a warning listed on their cups for coffee being hot. It just wasn't this particular law suit. Prior to this law suit, McDonald's had a suit brought against them in Pennsylvania where they decided to increase the strength of their styrofoam cups as well as place a warning on their cups which says the coffee is hot. So that is why I remembered they had added the warning AFTER a law suit, it just wasn't this particular law suit.

In this law suit, the woman was 79 year old Stella Liebeck of New Mexico. Interesting name because I think she told a few "lies." Anyway, McDonald's argued that it serves over 1 billion cups of coffee per year and had very few complaints. They also argued they had "warnings" on the cups and that Stella should of known the coffee was hot. That was basically what I mentioned, and what is most obvious. They also argued that anyone over 65 is likely to have more problems handling coffee due to the fact that the lid is placed on solid to prevent spills.

Interesting facts I did NOT know though. As we know, the Jury found McDonald's liable, but only 80% liable. They did find Stella 20% liable and awarded her $160,000, and another 2.3 million in punitive damages. What is interesting is that the ENTIRE judgment was later reduced to $450,000.

That is very interesting because I thought she absolutely got millions of dollars and she didn't. McDonald's never appealed the final ruling and whether it be a half a million or 2 and a half million, that's just a drop in the bucket for McDonald's. With that being said, Stella still hit the jackpot and I feel she should of at the very LEAST been accountable the other way around. Her at 80%, and McDonald's at 20%, and the judge by SIGNIFICANTLY reducing what she ended up receiving also though so.

-Last thing to note is that from what i've read, McDonald's has NOT lowered the temperatures of it's coffee. They have just made "MORE" warning notices on the cups and they still serve the coffee at a blazing 180 degrees farenheit!

[adam]

Defense no offense, but you obviously did not read the entire thread. Please re-read my posts, particularly the parts where I talk about product liability and strict liability. Your understanding of the law regarding this case is inaccurate.

You are wrong. Notice has nothing to do with this case and the consumer does NOT have to take ANY responsibility for their actions when the defendant is being held strictly liable, as was the case here. Strict liability is an exception to the standard rule of negligence.

@ Everyone: You are failing to realize how hot this coffee was. Soup in a cup, typical drive through coffee in a non-labeled cup, these are all REASONABLY hot, not scorching. If you spill them or try to slurp them down it will hurt but it will not send you to the hospital. I keep seeing the same arguments..it was her fault for spilling it or even for trying to drink it right way without letting it cool down. I am only going to say this one more time. You cannot legally sell a product which is dangerous, period. It is no defense to say it will be safe once it cools down. This may be true, but it is the responsibility of the MANUFACTURER to ensure that it has cooled before selling it. You cannot blame a person for using the product they just bought as it was intended to be used.

I guarantee this woman did not laugh her way to the bank. She only recieved half a million dollars, and if you have ever had to stay in the hospitable any significant amount of time and have to undergo physical therapy than you know how much that costs, and that doesn't even take into consideration her pain and suffering. Burns hurt.

[adam]

Since your last post slipped in there after I hit reply, McDonalds was held stricktly liable. That means it doesn't matter whether the plaintiff was negligent or not, McDonalds is still held liable. Now when the jury was determining the amount of COMPENSATION, they took into consideration that defendant was also negligent. They could have given her any amount in compensatory damages factoring in medicla costs and pain and suffering, and they chose to offset these by 20% due to her comparative negligence.

The majority of the damages awarded were punative anyway.

Please stop saying this woman hit the jackpot. She recieved severe 3rd degree burns, permanent scarring, and if she wasn't already 80 years old she probably would have been rendered infertile. After her injury the woman wanted to settle out of court for $20,000. McDonalds only offered her $800. She then tried to mediate, McDonalds refused. She was not out to make a quick buck, she just wanted to be compensated for her injuries.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not, but prior to this case McDonald's coffee had caused anywhere from between 700 and 800 injuries requiring hospitalization! All of these cases involved at least 1st degree burns. McDonalds did not have clean hands going into this case.

[MOVIEGEEK]

I promise this will be my last post on this liability subject(sorry Karate Media).
adam,
Are drive-through drug stores(ie Walgreens)liable if I consume my pain medication,which warns against driving and operating heavy machinery,and become drowsy and get in a massive accident?
In CA it is legal to drive while under the influence of prescription drugs,albeit you will probably be arrested if you are caught driving recklessly,the charges will be dropped.
BTW..that Seinfeld episode was on tv the other night where Kramer burns himself with the coffee and they offer him a lifetime supply of coffee...classic!

[Karate Media]

Adam--

I wasn't really trying to make a serious point, I was just "butting in" with a little factoid (although it was in response in part to the idea that just b/c something is sold at a drive thru means you should consume it while driving)... Of course, even if drinking alcohol while driving WAS legal, it still would be a bad idea to drink your drive-thru beer while driving-- I kinda do agree that any activity that takes your attention away from driving should be avoided - whether it's eating, drinking, talking on the phone, putting on makeup, or anything else I've seen drivers do while operating a motor vehicle. So, yes, buy your coffee on the way to work, drink it when you get to work, but keep your damn eyes on the road in between!

(Of course, I don't drink coffee, though)

But no, I was not trying to make a perfect analogy...

[defense]

@adam, no offense taken, although I did read your post fully. I am not an expert on product liability or strict liability, but I do have some knowledge of it. Quickly, what is your take on my mention of the "slippery when wet" floor sign scenario?

I think the main disagreement here is the fact that "I" see this woman as "hitting the jackpot" while you see her as a poor soul who got burned. I am with you on the fact that I do agree it was unfortunate that she sustained that serious a nature of burns, however, I think it was solely her fault.

Coffee is a product that is sold hot, and sometimes scorching hot. I don't doubt she suffered a lot of pain. If someone gets burned in a fire, they may of suffered unbearable pain, but does that mean they should be able to sue for it? If the fire occurred in a McDonald's or another well established, very "lucrative" business, I'm sure someone would damn sure try and sue.

After her injury the woman wanted to settle out of court for $20,000

I'm sure she did. That was probably before some clever attorney brought to her attention what she could potentially sue for.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not, but prior to this case McDonald's coffee had caused anywhere from between 700 and 800 injuries requiring hospitalization!

I researched this and McDonald's states that this number is trivial and "unproven." For arguements sake, let's say this number is accurate.

Given that McDonald's serves millions of customers DAILY, this number is so infinitecimal, that it would be like throwing a grain of sand onto an entire beach...you just wouldn't see it. I'm sure 10 times that many people complain of bugs in their Big Mac's.

In any event, I do see your points, however, my view isn't gonna change. I think it's safe to say that any group of 12 on the jury pool could of VERY easily seen this case on the other end of the spectrum, and awarded Stella zilch.

One last thing..what is your take on the fact that McDonald's still serves their coffee at 180 degrees farenheit? Even with the hundreds of people who have complained about the coffee temperature, they still maintain that blazing temperature.

[adam]

I split this topic for obvious reasons. From now on, just discuss the McDonalds case here, after all that's about all that was discussed in the original topic anyway. For those readers seeing this topic for the first time, some posts relating to the original topic of DVD protection were left in the old topic. As a result, some of the earlier remaining posts might have some gaps, so realize that some statements might be out of context.

[ChrisX]

McDonalds will have to take notice: "NO more selling of coffee due to product liability".

This would save them costs, "NO SERVICE FOR COFFEE OR ANY DANGEROUS FOODS".

Anyway, I very rarely come across coffee as too hot to drink. Usually lukewarm or having too much milk into it at McDonalds. This is safer than having boiling hot coffee.

SCORCHING HOT NO! McDonalds is liable to spilt coffee causing injury to scald. Can I sue McDonalds for cold coffee? No, of course not!

In Australia, public liability insurance and medical indemnity insurance have skyrocketed in cost.

This became a community, industry and Government crisis due to liability insurance costs. As a result, community events, shows, some local activities were canceled. In some cases increase in tickets if the event goes on.

Local government bodies and supermarket stores also have beared the brunt of public liablity with cases being sued for injuries even though no fault of their own.

Hospitals is in crisis. Doctors are resigning or retiring early due to high costs of liability insurance and cost of being sued. Shortage of doctors and nurses as a result. The costs of visiting a doctor is expected to skyrocket soon as well.

Our Governments in Australia brought new laws to stop the shyrocketing increase legal claims by capping what and how much someone can sue.

Personel responsibility and commonsense became the focus in the courts and this put a stop of millions of dollars of ridiculous compensation payouts.

A man got his $4.5 million compensation payout reversed in the appeal court weeks ago for injuries sustained in a Bondi Beach surf diving accident in shallow water. The court took the viewed as his personel responsibility for his injury and the local government not at fault.

adam - I know what you are trying to add in this thread and McDonalds is responsible for serving coffee too scorching hot. I agree with this and business must be careful with their products.

[flaninacupboard]

defense, look at it this way. the womans' lap got burned because she couldn't hold the cup in her hands because it was too hot because mcdonalds want to save money selling old coffee. those are the facts, you cannot argue with them. i've no idea what medical costs are like in america, it's free in the UK (but you get what you pay for...) but i imagine the work she required was expensive. did she deserve money to pay her bills, yes (as an aside, do you get no claims bonus on medical insurance?) did she deserve money for her pain and suffering, hard to say. i've been turned down at job interviews, then met the person who had the job and found they are completelylame at their job, so do i dezserve compensation for the emotional pain? compensation for emotion is hard to put rules on, but in most cases it is uncalled for. i remember reading a case recently here in the UK, of a woman suing for 3/4 million pounds because her "clear" breast cancer test was mixed with a "problem" test. it was a simple human error, the test tubes the wrong way round. i make mistakes in my job, probably every day! surely the worst thing that woman can do is take money away from a health service that is so poorly funded, it just means more corners are cut and more mistakes made. but there you are...

[housepig]

fascinating.

here's some linkable info, just to refresh everyone on the details...

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

- housepig

[defense]

@ flaninacupboard, I have looked at this case from all angles, and I have stated that I do understand where adam and others are coming from, however, I do not agree with their beliefs. The law is the law and that is what it is, however, there are ambiguities, and to say that McDonald's was at fault for this elderly woman spilling coffee on herself is ludicrous.

I never said that this woman staged this incident, I just personally feel as though she was not cognizant of the totality of benefits she could receive as a result of the injury/burns sustained.

The law in the states often gives absurd amounts for punitive damages and whether it be this woman or Rodney King, the law is implemented for precendence. As adam said, this is "technically" a case of product liability in legal terms, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the verdict. If someone gets their hand chopped off by faulty equipment on the job is their employer at fault?

Absolutely, but how much should this person get via worker's compensation? From what I know, a monetary amount is supposed to reach a number to allow one to feel "whole." No matter what a person gets in forms of $$$$, they won't have their arm back. This woman from the McDonald's suit received what I find to be a ridiculous amount of money. Yes she suffered pain, I don't think there is any question about that.

What I am in disagreement with is the fact that she received a huge sum of money for something which was "in my opinion," her fault. Interestingly enough, McDonald's seems to have the same views as myself because since that law suit in 1992, they have still continued to serve their coffee at temperatures of approximately 180 degrees. They certainly have much more to lose then I do, and they have still taken an "undaunted" approach to their $460,000 settlement. Obviously they feel that lawsuit was trivial, and I couldn't agree more.

[daesdaemar]

The reason the world is so screwed up today is precisely because anyone could possibly believe that the woman wasn't responsible for her own actions. If I had spilled the coffee on myself I would have called myself a dumb a** all the way to the hospital and the idea of sueing wouldn't even have occurred to me.

[LanEvo7]

When I first saw this topic, i thought it was about the recent suit by the fat kids. The old woman's case is old, after seeing all the facts, I think she at least had a case. These fat kids suing McDonalds is just hilarious.

If you don't know about it, here it is in a nutshell. The first suit was by the kids claiming that eating McDonalds made them fat and they want McDonalds to pay for losses regarding this. This one got thrown out of court. The second case filed by the same kids, claim that the food is so processed that they don't know it makes them fat.


Now this is a stupid case. These are just people who don't want to get off their fatasses and find a job. I mean claiming that I didn't know those oily fries was going to make me fat is like saying I don't know that liquor makes me drunk.

[adam]

@MOVIEGEEK- I already responded to those exact same types of questions in my post regarding Karate Media's statement. If you want my answer than scroll up. In short, I never said that because something is sold from a drive through window that makes it okay or legal to consume it while driving. Taking driving impairing drugs or alcohol is a completely different matter than drinking coffee. What I meant when I called attention to the fact that McDonalds was selling coffee from a drive through window, was that it was FORESEEABLE, likely even, that someone would drink the coffee while driving, and to blame someone for doing something that is foreseeable is no defense.

Now before anyone tries to argue that it is foreseeable that the guy who buys alcohol from the drive through window will drink it while driving, let me cut you off here. The law does not require you to foresee the illegal acts of others. Negligence is about proximate cause. If you do something that proximately causes someone's injury, you are liable. If at anytime after your negligence, and before their accident, an interveening act takes place that severs the link between your negligence and their injury, then you are no longer liable. When someone drinks and drives or takes drugs while driving, any resulting accident from the driver's impairment is the direct result of the person's use of the drugs, not their source. It is reasonable to sell alcohol to someone in a car. It is not reasonable for someone to intentionally break the law and drink alcohol while driving.

It should also be mentioned that the woman was not even driving. She was the passenger in the car and yes she dropped the coffee. It happens all the time, and people rarely get hurt from it. In her case she suffered 3rd degree burns over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, genitals and groin.

[gmatov]

Adam,
I just read that you split this thread today. Glad you mentioned that before I made an ass of myself by copy-pasting the header, Off Topic, to ask why I should stick to DVD material.

Vitualis,
Actually, if you research it, air and water have the same specific heat, per pound. 1 BTU will raise 1 pound of water 1 degree, or 1 pound of air, but 1 pound of water is about 29 cubic inches and 1 pound of air is about 14 cubic feet. Air, or, specifically, a still air film has an insulating value of .17 R. Water, to you, probably means instant heat conductance, but to a heat treating company, the water must continuously flow over the hot metal to be effective. Water does not instantly carry away heat. It takes time to conduct the heat to the next molecule. Stick a piece of red hot metal into a cup of water. It will boil around it till the metal is cooler than 212 F, but the cup of water will be cool an inch or so away.
Besides, when I mentioned 137 F, please be advised that every square inch of the crane's surface was 137 F, not just the air.
As to the book of records, I don't know about 200 C, but the US Army did tests in which, with plenty of liquids, they submitted troops to oven temps of 140 F. They stayed in the oven with a lamb or veal chop, and the meat was cooked but the soldier wasn't.
daesdaemer.
Of course you wouldn't even consider suing. (Honest )
Adam has reiterated that Stella did not consider suing till McD's offered her 800 bucks, instead of the 20 thou she asked for, for her medical bills. (Adam, Was it for her medical expenses, or were they paid by 3rd party insurance, and this was her request for P&S, which was laughed down?) Also, my little rant was just an addendum to my previous about whether our government is actually on "our" side as opposed to "big business" side.
Is it outlandish to rant about the gov. hiring a private company to jail people, you know, bottom line, profit and loss private companies? (At this point, Iguess the thread was still video, so I was at a loss there.)
Whoa, Hoss,
Damn if we don't have a guvmint is good guy in the house. You really think everything the guvmint does is for your benefit? Any one have any bridges for sale? (Oops, I forgot, "We're not afraid to execute people, down h'yar.)
The Supremes have ruled on numerous occasions that the police, for 1, have no responsibility to come to your aid. None. Period.
(BTW, you seem to know more about the Simpsons than I do, but I'll argue with you about the X Files.)
1 guy got me a little po'd with the "newbie" stuff who joined a couple months before me. Actually, you are a couple behind me, maybe better at it than I am, but would you please knock it off? It may be good for a laugh with the "in" crowd, old timers, but it does wear thin.
I'll hunt up the disposition of the 25 million pounds of "tainted beef". And, I do believe I can show you that it did, indeed go into the school lunch program, as well as to our military. First thing you have to remember is that contaminated with e-coli does not mean "poison". In fact, not that many even got sick from Jack-in -the-Box burgers, only a few died(hell, I'm not even sure if ANY died), and those that did, did so because the meat was not heated to 155 F in the middle.
Hey, that is 12500 TONS, 500,000 cubic feet, if you figure 50 pounds per CF, or if you want to go to 60, nearer to water, 400,000 CF, or 1 acre covered nearly 10 feet deep. Do you really think the guvmint made them landfill this stuff?
And, yes, I have read enough of your posts to know that you can get pretty prissy when anyone disagrees with you.
Just glad Adam split it to this OT so you were able to get back in a few days after you said you had had it.
One last thing. The guy who makes boiling hot coffee does not drink it boiling hot. Or, maybe he did and that's why he types, his tongue is burnt to uselessness. Everyone kind of inhales the first few sips, cooling the coffee with more air than coffee, same as the"uncouth" slurp their soup in the hoity-toity movies. I do know a little about cooling hot liquids, as a few of my former jobs had me operating "cooling towers" to cool water fer return to the process lines, boilers, turbines, etc.. The air carried the heat away from the water.
Lanevo,
Hell, I thought it was the water. I mean, any liquor I mixed it with got me kinda drunk. It's why I gave up water.
This is getting way too long but people get pissed when I answer myself, even when it's an addendum.
Adam,
Yes, we probably do have too many lawsuits. Yes, we probably do have too many lawyers.
But, to say that the occasional "huge" award is the reason that the Insurers are doubling, trebling, malpractice premiums, is inane. They are doing this to get "tort reform" enacted.(My opinion) You have already shown that the "award" in the McD's case was reduced drastically. Unless someone like you digs through the files, all that the public sees is 10, 15, 50 million dollars, not that, either on appeal, or because the judge says "That's ridiculous", the award has been reduced to a pittance. The insurers (Sorry, Tex, conspiracy, again) don't want us to know they didn't really pay out that kind of money. It's a catastrophy in the making. ALL these Drs are gonna quit and take jobs at McD's. Sure they are. (Now, if only we can get these awards to be taxable, we might get enopugh revenue enhancement to shrug off the Insurers.)
I quit here. Interesting to see what this diatribe brings in response.

[adam]

@Defense- Here is my take on the slippery floor scenario.

McDonalds clearly has a duty to its customers. In regards to a safety issue like a slippery floor, it must use all reasonable means to prevent foreseeable risks, and somone slipping on a wet floor certainly would be a foreseeable risk. Simply putting up a sign saying "wet floor" is almost always enough to satisfy that duty owed, in this situation, but it all depends on the particular facts. Simply giving notice to someone of a risk is not always enough, and in some cases it is not nearly enough. You must still exercise at least reasonable care anytime you owe a duty to the plaintiff. So, even with a sign saying "wet floor" it is still not safe to leave the floor wet at all times. If there was a leak which left the floor constantly wet, they would not satisfy their duty of care just by sticking a sign over it giving notice. It would only relieve them of liability for a reasonable time period until they fixed the problem and removed the risk entirely. Even when given notice, you can still be injured by a wet floor under certain circumstances.

Now sometimes the law imposes a higher level of duty on the defendant. In such a case they will be required to exercise more than just reasonable care. One of those instances is in regards to product liability. The modern justice system has evolved with society, and as we all know, a major corporation like McDonalds does an incredible amount of business. Its one thing to let McDonalds slide on one cup of dangerously hot coffee. Its another thing to allow them to get away with serving 1 billion dangerously hot cups of coffee. When there is such a huge potential for risk, such as with inherantly dangerous products, the law imposes strict liability. McDonalds must make sure that the coffee it serves is at least safe for immediate human consumption, because they have a strict duty to their customers. In this case, they breached that duty.

I'm sure she did. That was probably before some clever attorney brought to her attention what she could potentially sue for.

As I already said. All she asked was compensation to cover some of her medical expenses. McDonalds refused. She tried to mediate, and again McDonalds refused. When you mediate that means you specifically try to avoid a law suit by bringing in a 3rd party to settle your claim. She wanted to talk it out, McDonalds was the one who insisted on going to trial.

Given that McDonald's serves millions of customers DAILY, this number is so infinitecimal, that it would be like throwing a grain of sand onto an entire beach...you just wouldn't see it.

All the more reason why McDonalds should pay out when they do in fact cause someone's injuries. McDonalds had to pay this woman under $500,000 dollars, and in its prior cases involving its coffee sales it had already paid out a total of close to $500,000, for a total of 1 million dollars. At the time of the accident, McDonalds made that much in coffee sales in four days. What is more insignificant? 4 days worth of coffee sales to McDonalds or 700 people seriously burned? If I told you that over a period of a few years, McDonalds could either lose 4 day's of profit from coffee sales, or that 700 people would have to be scalded and recieve no compensation for it, which would you rather happen? The scary part is that I absolutely guarantee that McDonalds pays a man to sit down and contemplate these numbers and decide whether its feasible for them sacrifice a few customers, in order to raise the bottom line a few points.

In the eyes of the law and in the mind of any rational person, the significance of these numbers is irrellavent anyway. Who cares how many people got their coffee and enjoyed it, despite McDonalds negligence? If even one person is hurt by McDonalds negligence than that one person is entitled to compensation. That is the whole point of a legal system, for everyone to get adequate representation. It is not fair to force this woman to suffer at the expense of society at large. If McDonalds owed a duty to her, breached that duty, and could foresee that breaching that duty would cause injury, and that injury did in fact occur, then there is no reason why McDonalds shouldn't have to compensate her. The fact that McDonalds intentionally took this risk in an effort to save money, and the fact that this risk resulted in numerous injuries in the past, only makes their negligence that much worse.

If McDonalds does in fact still employ the practice of scorching old coffee to save money, then it is really only evidence of one thing...that we are a capitalist society. If it costs more money to make a product safer, than a corporation will only make their product as safe as they can get away with. If a very large corporation can save more money in operating costs than they will spend in litigation, than one would hope they would still absorb those losses in the interest of safety. As we all know, however, that doesn't always happen.

This thread has gotten somewhat heated and if I have stepped on anyone's toes I apologize. We have discussions like this all the time in law school and its just implied that its all in the interest of learning. I think I will just leave this discussion by just noting what appears to be a statistical fact, regardless of how any given person feels about this case.

It seems the average lay person, and by that I simply mean someone not familiar with the workings of the law, views this case as being frivolous and a perfect example of what is wrong with the legal system today. The average person who has studied the law and read similar cases, however, sees no problem with this case's outcome and generally regards this case as being grossly misunderstood, and in fact a perfect example of how the law works as intended.

Take that however want.

[gmatov]

Adam,
Points well taken. Many do NOT understand what you are saying. If a product is inherently dangerous, the manufacturer or producer MUST be held responsible. This is not to bring up the case of the dolt who clipped off his fingers trying to use his rotary lawn mower to clip his hedges. This is more like the Alex Hailey book "Wheels", where a 50 cent additinal bracing would have prevented X numbers of deaths, but the "bean counters" calculated the cost of settlements was less than the assembly cost increment. Do you recall the name of the movie, with Gene Hackman, fighting the "Auto Maker", Class Action, I think. (What punctuation!) Now, if that was not a classic Ford Pinto movie, please explain to me what it was. If no one has seen it, the "bean counters" were brought in to it to tell the "wheels" that the cost of settlements would be much lower than the cost of re-engineering. So, a gasoline bomb on wheels.
Nader aside, the Chevy Corvair was another example. Nader primarily tried to get them to add stabilzer bars to the Corvair, to keep the rear wheels from "tucking under" when the wheels momentarily left the ground after hitting a "dip" in the road, for instance. The Powers That Be said, no, that would be a couple bucks more per car. Let 'em sue. We have more lawyers than they can shake a stick at. And, that is the problem! They have more lawyers!
This is nowhere more evident than in Labor Negotiations, where we have a bunch of "Mill Hunkies", with a couple Union lawyers, to face a "Management Team" with a hundred Philadelphia lawyers. We always lose, in the long run. And we've got a hundred million young punks, McD's and the like employees, that say "We don't need no stinkin' Union! Our company takes care of us." Can't argue withyou there. They sure do give it to you.
Have a happy retirement, y'all.
It has just occurred to me that most of you are too young for this to mean anything.
I sure am glad this is Off Topic, the Texican would be givin' me hell again for straying. (Being a Maverick. You know what a Maverick is, don't you?)

[gmatov]

Adam,
Per your last, please do NOT leave. You make valid points, very interesting. Without them, it would just peter away. Unless that is your intent, maybe it would dry up if you allowed it to. Otherwise, I for one would rather you continue, unless you are losing interest in it. It is not easy to teach one the finer points of law. If it was, we wouldn't have law schools, would we?

[gmatov]

Yunz should love this. (I'm from PA, I'm allowed to talk like that.)
Jack in the Box chain bounces back

Company leads way in improving safety of restaurant food

Monday, June 24, 2002

SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

While it may not compete with the rehabilitation of President Nixon, the comeback of fast-food chain Jack in the Box from a deadly outbreak of food poisoning is remarkable nonetheless.

The San Diego-based restaurant chain has grown to 1,800 stores after a 1993 E. coli bacteria outbreak at its Washington state stores in which hundreds of people became sick and several children died.

The incident stemmed from a batch of E. coli-infected hamburger meat that the chain bought from a supplier. The patties were subsequently not thoroughly cooked, Jack in the Box spokesman Brian Luscomb said.

"It was a very difficult time for the entire organization," he said last week. "From an emotional perspective, the incident in Washington affected every employee. We vowed this would never happen again at Jack in the Box."

Following the E. coli outbreak, the 51-year-old chain instituted a food-safety program that it freely shares with its competitors, he said.

The company devoted itself full time to improving food safety and brought an awareness to the issue that had been lacking, said Gene Vosberg, president of the Washington Restaurant Association.

"I think it's extraordinary that they survived," Vosberg said. "I think it's because they worked so hard to make sure they got it right."

There were some tough years, however, and sales dipped significantly in 1993 and 1994, Luscomb said.

But according to company lore, the chain's fortunes began to perk up when it reintroduced "Jack" as its mascot and chief executive officer. Jack, a clown with a white Ping-Pong ball for a head, is the star of the chain's advertising campaigns, including a series of commercials.

"People love Jack," Luscomb said. "Jack has a rather irreverent wit."


I don't know how to hghlight the statement above," food safety issue that had been lacking". Could that mean that if no one got sick and sued, we were OK? I'm glad "people love Jack" or more of us might get sick, ping-pong balls being so cute