How Low Will The Lawyers Go?

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Similarly, the coffee in that case can be best described as way too hot. Coffee should not cause third-degree burns…

Well, coffee is served hot by definition, isn't it? When I order a meal it has to be hot and I just fail to see why the company has to sell you a meal that is exactly at the point where it is hot, but not already to cold for the majority of people to enjoy the meal but not hot enough to cause third-degree burns if you spill it over yourself either.
I order hot food, not something to put on my skin safely!
It's a little bit like asking for inflammable fuel in case you spill it over yourself at the gas station while smoking...

[DavidG]

Rex I thought we were talking about frivolous lawsuits not ones against companies that act recklessly and criminally? It costs you money to defend yourself against a frivolous lawsuit (even one you win) while at the same time the lawyer on the otherside is making money. And that ain't right. Now at this point someone is thinking 'well why not just counter sue'? Well when you are sued by some unemployed bum with $5 in his pocket who got legal aid, who are you going to sue? (that's the way things can and do work here in Canada)

Re the McD's case

A legal system that relies on morons who put steaming cups of hot coffee between their legs while driving to punish their reckless and criminal mega corporations is deeply deeply flawed. If McD's was knowingly using E-coli tainted beef in their burgers (cooking kills that right? so hey what's the harm) would you not expect lawmakers to do something about it?

Re: hot coffee causeing 3rd degree burns.

Coffee is made from boiling water. Water boils at 100 degrees C. I think it is quite resonable to assume that coffee may be this hot. IT certainly is if you pour a cup of black coffee at home. But I'll admit maybe McD's was negligent since they had been apparantly warned many times that this was dangerous (only to extremely dim people but still, I guess we got to protect them too), however the punishment should be as Mephisto said. Somewhere in the McD's corporation there is a guy that decided 'coffee must be served this hot, no exceptions' and ignore all the complaints. Find this guy and give him a little jail time.

[rextorres]

It wasn't just that the coffee was too hot. Although they did sell coffee that was hotter than normal so that they could keep it around longer.

They were also providing coffee cups with lids that had a huge tendency to come off. This might not sound like a big deal, but they were selling them at a drive through. Which is not good if the coffee you sell has a tendency too cause major burns.

I might add that the women's lawsuit was not in a vaccuum other people had complained about these issues and McD's had chosen to ignore them.

Anyway - might point wasn't to debate the merits of this particular lawsuit I was just trying to point out that sometimes the only way to change a corporation's bad behavior is through litigation and that if a company acts reponsibly they will avoid these big legal challenges.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Growltigger:
DavidG, dunno what surveyors earn but before I met the current Mrs GT, I did go out with a rather nice young surveyor who had a very nice sports car, an expensive flat and cash to burn, as well as rather nice legs.

There is an office of surveyors next to me, and they all seem to drive rather expensive cars!

Yea things are a little different here. :-) UK surveyors are guys that examine your house before you buy it right? looking for dry rot and whatnot? Here we just dig around in the dirt and set metal bars on property corners.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

according to past Posts when the subject was Last brought up: normal coffee - 140'F Mcdonalds coffee in that incident - 180'F.

If the company sells malfunctioning products to the public and people suffer from it, the solution is simple (at least over here): The company pays for the damage it caused (and to some extend for physical pain, but seldom more then 20k €). As a punitive, we get the heads of the people responsible that such a product entered the market, be it on purpose or negligence. They will go to jail for it and no legal construct will help them.
Result: The consumer gets his damage replaced and the responsible person will get his punishment. I see absolutely no need to punish the company and all the honest people working for it by enforcing punitive damage on the company when the few people that are responsible can be punished directly. Just my 0.02$

good point, and the way i think it should work to.

[ January 29, 2004, 22:10: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[rextorres]

Originally posted by DavidG:
Rex I thought we were talking about frivolous lawsuits not ones against companies that act recklessly and criminally?

You are absolutely right, but the rhetoric from politicians equates frivolous lawsuits done by ambulance chasers with people sueing ford for knowingly selling SUVs that roll and kill people.

Anyway our legal system isn't set up to prosecute someone for a crime that isn't in the books. I don't know how it is in Germany - but here you would have to show criminal intent to prosecute in the criminal courts - the coffee guy wasn't commiting a crime so there would absolutely be know way to prosecute him.

That's why you go after the profits - because that's the only recourse we have as an average citizen.

[ January 29, 2004, 22:28: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Mephisto]

In Germany the state attorney could accuse the MD manager of "physical injury by negligence".
If the manager was required to know that it coffee was extremely hot and that the cups tend to fall over but never bothered to check, it would have been negligence. Nevertheless the intervention of a third person, in this case the victim, would probably stopped the case as it is also negligence to not put your cup on a secure surface/not drinking hot coffee while driving.