Good Morning Christmas Eve Birds!
ChatterBank0 min ago
Litigation
19 Answers
Does anyone agree that we are in a growing culture of litigation? We are moving towards a way of life where you can sue anyone for anything, even if you are the negligent party, is this right?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pezza........ Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Where is this negligee party then?
Do you mean in the UK? or the global society as a whole?
The answer is quite obviously yes....people suing McDonalds because they spilled hot coffee in their lap....stating that because the cup didn't say the contents would be hot it was McD's fault....I mean Christ on a BMX people....another prime example of why some people should be shot at birth.
sft42, if the McDonalds story were true, it would indeed be scandalous and a reward for stupidity. In fact, it's a damning indightment of corperate stupidity. As normally presented the story goes as follows: Woman buys coffee from McDonalds' drive through, places between thighs and drives off. Cup tips, woman gets scaled.
What actually happened was a passenger in a car bought a coffee and tried to open it whilst the car was at a standstill. The coffee was between 180-190 degrees fahreheit, a temperature which would cause automatic and instantaneous scalding of skin, flesh and muscle. A burn hazard exists about 140 degrees.
McDonalds were found to be well aware that this temperature of coffee was dangerous and yet it was their preferred temperature for serving coffee. There were many other cases of similar things happening too. The jury awarded the woman $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages.
More here: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b77256026e6.ht
m
What actually happened was a passenger in a car bought a coffee and tried to open it whilst the car was at a standstill. The coffee was between 180-190 degrees fahreheit, a temperature which would cause automatic and instantaneous scalding of skin, flesh and muscle. A burn hazard exists about 140 degrees.
McDonalds were found to be well aware that this temperature of coffee was dangerous and yet it was their preferred temperature for serving coffee. There were many other cases of similar things happening too. The jury awarded the woman $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages.
More here: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b77256026e6.ht
m
The McD's coffee cup was the first one I thought of but for plenty more try this page:
You target=_blank>http://www.duhaime.org/Law_fun/lawsuit.htm
sft42: no, I'm certainly not advocating opening cups of hot beverage whilst holding them beneath your thighs, but the woman's entirely stupid way of opening the thing is somewhat incidental and as pointed out, the damages were reduced as the woman was held to have some degree of responsibility. The point remains that the coffee was served at a temperature that if someone had drunk it, would have scaled them, is normally drunk at least 30 degrees cooler and that McDonalds knew that injuries had been caused, yet weren't clever enough to work out that maybe their system was ridiculous.
Gef, I'm not entirely sure what 'Waldo is talking mince' means, but I assume from the context it's somewhat derogatory. Thanks so much for your brilliant contribution. If you actually bothered reading the article, you would have seen that what you or I might call a 'piping hot' coffee is *at least* 30 degrees cooler than that which McDonalds served. McDonalds were *not* sued because some twit spilt the coffee, but because it was dangerous for human consumption. The case was actually valid. Or maybe you think it's acceptable for food retailers to sell food in the full knowledge that if it were consumed it would injure someone?
Gef, I'm not entirely sure what 'Waldo is talking mince' means, but I assume from the context it's somewhat derogatory. Thanks so much for your brilliant contribution. If you actually bothered reading the article, you would have seen that what you or I might call a 'piping hot' coffee is *at least* 30 degrees cooler than that which McDonalds served. McDonalds were *not* sued because some twit spilt the coffee, but because it was dangerous for human consumption. The case was actually valid. Or maybe you think it's acceptable for food retailers to sell food in the full knowledge that if it were consumed it would injure someone?
Yes, I agree we are living in a culture of growing litigation. People should have rights, but they should be aware of their responsibilities too. The most ridiculuos case I heard about was the one where a yob threw a brick at a bus shelter which was made of unbreakable plexiglass. The brick bounced back and hit him, so his mother tried to sue the local council. The lawyer told her straight 'Do you realise that if I even attempted to move this case I would be laughed out of court?' That told her and her plonker of a son. It just shows the cheek of some people though.
Yes we are - unfortunately the ambulance chasing shysters (I'm sure I've spelt that wrong, but hey ho), in my opinion are the root cause of the problem by encouraging, in many cases, spurious claims. However, their advertising demographic is very clever, as the adverts are aired during the day, usually on cable/sattellite, just when the Trisha brigade of something for nothings are sitting watching the box all day.
where there's blame there's ....someone drinking copious amounts of sunny D in between filling in competitions from cornflake packets and ringing anyone of a hundred ambulance chasers who's adverts in the press and on tv promise you untold riches because whatever happened was not your fault! When did we abdicate responsibilty for our actions? When did the legal system become a 'new form of national lottery'. Fill in a form, "it could be you (it's worth a shot)". Money for nothing (well not if you don't have to fork out for life, car, home, buildings, travel or contents insurance anyway).
Gef, please go and read the link before commenting futher; you appear to be 'talking meatballs'.
Perhaps I haven't explained it terribly well, but *there was* a legitimate case against McDonalds, and the publicly circulating version of tale is *wrong* in all the significant details. Read the link, as I say. It is *not* about stupid idiots failing to taking responsibility for their own actions. For what's it's worth, I am not in favour of a litigation culture, but the Maccy D's coffee story as presented was factually incorrect. My apologies for attempting to point this out; maybe I won't bother in future.
Perhaps I haven't explained it terribly well, but *there was* a legitimate case against McDonalds, and the publicly circulating version of tale is *wrong* in all the significant details. Read the link, as I say. It is *not* about stupid idiots failing to taking responsibility for their own actions. For what's it's worth, I am not in favour of a litigation culture, but the Maccy D's coffee story as presented was factually incorrect. My apologies for attempting to point this out; maybe I won't bother in future.
waldo - I am not interested in reading the link because it is of no relevance to the discussion. All I am saying is that people should be expected to use common sense. If you buy a cup of coffee it should be hot! Perhaps I should sue the ice cream manufacturer next time I get a headache because it's too cold.
I'm going to be a chicken and say I can see both points of view, but I would like to point out that the coffee that fell on that woman was at 185�F, which is around 85�C. Surely when you make a coffee at home, you boil the kettle and so your coffee, when you first get it (and how you'd ideally like it from any kind of restaurant) is just under 100�C (212�F)?
This year I took Employment law as part of my law degree and our lecturer said: people say we live in a compensation culture but the hard truth is that awards are low; you might have been treated horribly at work but to run the case might cost �3000 and the awards are between �3000 and �5000 (I have not checked the exact figures but they were of this order); he works in a law centre and he sees such cases every day, so if people start a case it is not about damages but about justice.
1 to 19 of 19
