OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping

Imperious_Leader · #1 March 7th, 2005, 09:38 PM

I'm sorry if you take a cup of coffee that says on it caution contents are hot , stick it between your legs and try to take the lid off as you drive you are 100% at fault not 20 % as the jury found.When this all happened the coffee we served was 170F the coffee from McDonalds was 180F we lowered ours to 130F if you were drinking it right then and there that would be fine but if you are taking it somewhere to drink...as she should have been 130F would be luke warm by the time you got there.
If you sit at home and drink yourself into a stupor then decide to go for a little drive wreck your car and lose both your legs do you then sue the company that brews your favorite beer?Come on surely the company that brews your beer knows that if you drink enough of their product you and possibly others are going to get hurt.Thus they should begin to make nothing but non alcholic beer at once.I could honestly find more reason to hold your beer company at fault than McDonalds because your favorite beer is guaranteed to make you act stupid.
It isn't that I feel no sympathy for the woman who burned herself but , it's time that people stop blaming everyone else for their problems or mistakes.She should have been charged with failing to properly control her vehicle because if she was fiddiling with her coffee lid she wasn't giving her full attention to driving.
Oh I almost forgot about all the cell phone companies we know that their product is causing accidents everyday , guess it's time for someone to sue them too.

Fyron · #2 March 7th, 2005, 11:20 PM

In that case, the McDonald's lawyers blatantly harrassed the woman in court. McDonald's deserved to lose money over the issue for that alone, irregardless of who was "at fault" for the hot coffee. Also, I am fairly certain that the woman was in a parked car in the passenger seat, not driving, when it occured. It really is a terrible example of excessive litigous suits...

Here is a web site you should read:

http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbus..._mcdonalds.htm

Imperious_Leader · #3 March 8th, 2005, 12:28 AM

Thanks for the link Imperator.....I stand corrected she was not driving and the car was parked.I checked your link then googled the lawsuit.All the sites I ckecked seem to agree.That said I still don't consider sticking a hot cup of coffee between your legs and poping the lid off to be very bright,though I will admit to having done it[not while driving] , however if I had spilled it on my ....well you know my first thought ...after I stopped screaming would be wow that was really stupid of me not I going to blame someone else for my being stupid.Anyway I feel for her but she still don't deserve a cent .

Atrocities · #4 March 8th, 2005, 12:33 AM

The facts vary, but the linked to sight should be considered the best source for info.

EDITED: No point in reposting the info that the site Fyron linked to did so well.

I challenge any one of you to face the same situation and then NOT sue for pain and sufforing, medical, and emotional distress.

luke_slovakian · #5 March 8th, 2005, 01:10 AM

Ok first how is it 180 degrees? boiling is 100 degrees....oh wait farenhite:-d dumb us temp and their "americain" talk and the ganster talking like, "hey foo, move fool, foo" US US what are we ever turning into

Imperious_Leader · #6 March 8th, 2005, 01:43 AM

Sorry AT on this we'll have to agree to disagree . I simply can not see how anyone myself included can stick a hot cup of coffee between their legs open it up and not accept responsibility for the risk they are taking.After all it is really a question of degree [pardon the pun]do you have a reasonable degree of expectation of not burning your self by taking the lid off the coffee?Answer no.Coffee is hot if she had spilled coffee that was only 120F would she have been burned? answer yes.So did she have a reasonable expectation of not being burned? Answer no.The sevarity of the burn is not relavant.She had no reasonable expcation of not being burned so , in doing what she did she must accept responsibility for the risk.If the coffee had only been 120F and had only caused first degree burns instead of third degree burns would she still have had pain and suffering medical bills? What she did and I and probable most of you have done is not without risk , alot of things in life are not , but if we ignore the risk and do it anyway we shouldn't be rewarded for it.A few years ago someone talked me into going sky diving...Before my first jump I had to sign a ton of papers saying that if I got killed they couldn't be held responsible.I thought it was crazy how could any rational person jump out of a perfectly good airplane and not accept that there was risk involved but they had to cover themselves just incase someone got killed or injured one wouldn't want the greving family to claim that the deceased didn't understand that dropping from 10,000 Ft could cause signifigant injury would one?
As to your question about who wouldn't sue....in a society where no accepts responsibility for what they do but instead blame how they were raised or the violent games they play or the music that was on the raido their mother , father , God ,the devil,or whatever other crack pot excuse they can think up.....most would sue .

Fyron · #7 March 8th, 2005, 02:00 AM

She did not sue them for spilling the coffee. She sued them because it was dangerously hot. There is a _huge_ distinction that you seem to be missing. Coffee that will cause 3rd degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds is way, way too hot to be serving at a fast food restaurant. McDonald's had been warned for 10 years that it was dangerously hot, and yet they chose to do nothing. McDonald's _had_ been negligent in this case, and they deserved to pay her medical bills. This was really all she was after...

Atrocities · #8 March 8th, 2005, 02:13 AM

I agree that you should not be aloud to sue over your own supidity, however in this instance, it is a commonly known and often performed practice of people, especially people who drive cars. McDonalds new that this could happen and did nothing. Therefore they assumed the major portion of the risk.

In contrast, it is not socially accpetable, nor was it even conceivable that people would want to jump from parking garage to parking garage. In that case the garage is not at fault as they could not have concieved that any one would be so stupid.

Atrocities · #9 March 8th, 2005, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
She did not sue them for spilling the coffee. She sued them because it was dangerously hot. There is a _huge_ distinction that you seem to be missing. Coffee that will cause 3rd degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds is way, way too hot to be serving at a fast food restaurant. McDonald's had been warned for 10 years that it was dangerously hot, and yet they chose to do nothing. McDonald's _had_ been negligent in this case, and they deserved to pay her medical bills. This was really all she was after...

Thank you Fyron. You explained it very well.

Now if she had dilibrately taken the top off and pured the coffee into her lap, knowing how hot it was, then yes I would have to say that she would have no case. And believe me people did that after this case was filed.

luke_slovakian · #10 March 8th, 2005, 02:18 AM

ok the boiling point in farenheite is 212*, so if the coffee is 180 that makes it hot But not burning hot. Mcdonalds should of not been because it was her fault. I mean i will carry a starbucks drink on a roller coaster with me

. So i spilled some on me darn darn now ill sue. It is really stupid. And the 180* is maybe 5* hotter than normal coffee