Wal-Mart sued for improperly assembled bicycle

SMS

Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:vWl7k.16525$co7.2784@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>>> As a cyclist who drives infrequently but takes driving seriously my
>>> personal opinion is that every ditz brain who drives a motor vehicle
>>> while drinking a beverage should be boiled in oil. A cup of hot water
>>> is a good start.
>>
>> The woman in the McDonald's case wasn't the driver, she was a passenger.
>>
>
> What should we with all the people who drink a beverage while riding a
> bike?

If it's coffee, call them very intelligent.

SMS

still just me wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:58:50 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but it's just such a good anti-lawyer sound bite that the the
>> neo-con radio talks show hosts, and even the late night TV talk show
>> hosts couldn't resist taking the whole incident completely out of context.
>>
>> The woman who was burned was a passenger, not the driver, McDonald's
>> _knew_ that they were serving coffee far too hot to drink when served
>> having received more than 700 claims for burns prior to this case, and
>> they lied about the reason they serve it so hot. The jury reduced the
>> compensatory award of $200K by 20% to $160K because they found the
>> plaintiff 20% liable. The judge reduced the punitive award against
>> McDonald's from $2.7 million to $480K, and the two parties settled for
>> an undisclosed amount. McDonald's reduced the temperature of the coffee
>> they served from 180 degrees to around 160 degrees.
>
> SMS:
>
> We've just been round and round on this.
>
> Apparently there are those here who believe that anything a vendor
> sells is "buyer beware" with no corporate responsibility or liability
> at any level.

It's also that some people just enjoy bashing lawyers without first
getting any of the facts. Juries tend to take their responsibilities
very seriously, and they don't assign blame without supporting evidence.

SMS

still just me wrote:

> SMS:
>
> We've just been round and round on this.
>
> Apparently there are those here who believe that anything a vendor
> sells is "buyer beware" with no corporate responsibility or liability
> at any level.

Unfortunately this seems to be the case. Naturally they'll support
Wal-Mart's right to improperly assemble bicycles, since obviously the
purchaser should be aware that the product being sold is unsafe to use
despite the store's claim of being "professionally assembled."

The truth is that there's a balance between personal responsibility and
the responsibility of the retailer. Wal-Mart and McDonald's both were
irresponsible.

Tom Kunich

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:qmx7k.10910$uE5.5896@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> Juries tend to take their responsibilities very seriously, and they don't
> assign blame without supporting evidence.

I wonder if you've ever been on a jury. In my several experiences on juries,
they were more interested in "doing good" than in discovering truth.

SMS

* * Chas wrote:

> The US is the most litigatious culture in the world.

Not even close, at least per capita. Yet another urban legend.

I believe in strongly
> prosecuting companies and individuals who consciously market defective
> goods or services but a reasonable amount of common sense needs to
> prevail.

Yes, that's what happened in the McDonald's coffee case. It'll be
interesting to see what happens in the Wal-Mart case, but of course it
will be settled out of court and the settlement will probably be kept
secret.

What you need to understand is that the promulgation of these legal
legends is a carefully orchestrated campaign by business groups that are
anxious to cap punitive damages even when a jury finds them liable.

Reading the comments about the McDonald's case in this thread, makes it
clear that they've been able to sway opinions of many people that lack
critical thinking skills.

Tom Kunich

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:J0A7k.8799$ZE5.8307@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> Reading the comments about the McDonald's case in this thread, makes it
> clear that they've been able to sway opinions of many people that lack
> critical thinking skills.

Let's see - McDonalds sold hot coffee as hot coffee. Someone spilled it on
themselves and due to their age and infirmity was more badly burned than a
normal healthy person would have been. So despite the fact that they assumed
responsibility for trying to drink hot coffee in a moving vehicle they sued
for being injured by doing something that was patently dangerous to a more
or less extent.

Yeah, it is others who are lacking critical thinking skills and not you.

SMS

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:J0A7k.8799$ZE5.8307@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> Reading the comments about the McDonald's case in this thread, makes
>> it clear that they've been able to sway opinions of many people that
>> lack critical thinking skills.
>
> Let's see - McDonalds sold hot coffee as hot coffee. Someone spilled it
> on themselves and due to their age and infirmity was more badly burned
> than a normal healthy person would have been. So despite the fact that
> they assumed responsibility for trying to drink hot coffee in a moving
> vehicle they sued for being injured by doing something that was patently
> dangerous to a more or less extent.


Yes, that's a prime example of what I was referring to in regard to the
lack of critical thinking skills. However it's understandable as so many
people have jumped on the anti-lawyer bandwagon, falling for the lies of
the tort-reform groups (and the McDonald's coffee case is but one of
many cases that are intentionally lied about), that otherwise
intelligent people seem to lose all sense when it comes to lawyers. Just
in this thread we've seen statements that she was the driver (she
wasn't) and that the car was moving, as you stated (it wasn't).

Many people are determined to believe that it had to be some lack of
common sense that caused the injury, totally ignoring the facts of the case.

The fact is that the McDonald's coffee was not just hot, it was
scalding. It was being served at a temperature far higher than other
take-out restaurants and coffee houses.

McDonald's knew that the coffee was too hot. During discovery they were
forced to disclose that more than 700 people had filed claims against
them for burns, not just to their skin, but to their mouth and throat as
well.

McDonald's admitted that the temperature they serve coffee at is too hot
to drink, claiming that the coffee is not consumed at the time of
purchase, but is transported some distance by which time it has cooled
to drinking temperature. However they admitted that the coffee sold for
in-store consumption was also served at the higher temperature, and they
also admitted that their own research showed that customer intend to
consume it immediately, even when purchased to go, and that customers
routinely request some ice to cool the coffee down.

The jury award for punitive damages was very high, reflecting their
disgust with the conduct of McDonald's, but of course these punitive
awards are usually reduced by the judge, and this is what happened in
this case. Also, instead of an appeal, they ended up settling out of
court so we'll never know the amount that McDonald's paid.

Also, don't forget that all that the plaintiff requested, prior to the
lawsuit, was $20,000 for medical bills (McDonald's offered $800).

Frank Krygowski

On Jun 22, 7:19 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >news:J0A7k.8799$ZE5.8307@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> >> Reading the comments about the McDonald's case in this thread, makes
> >> it clear that they've been able to sway opinions of many people that
> >> lack critical thinking skills.
>
> > Let's see - McDonalds sold hot coffee as hot coffee. Someone spilled it
> > on themselves and due to their age and infirmity was more badly burned
> > than a normal healthy person would have been. So despite the fact that
> > they assumed responsibility for trying to drink hot coffee in a moving
> > vehicle they sued for being injured by doing something that was patently
> > dangerous to a more or less extent.
>
> Yes, that's a prime example of what I was referring to in regard to the
> lack of critical thinking skills. However it's understandable as so many
> people have jumped on the anti-lawyer bandwagon, falling for the lies of
> the tort-reform groups (and the McDonald's coffee case is but one of
> many cases that are intentionally lied about), that otherwise
> intelligent people seem to lose all sense when it comes to lawyers. Just
> in this thread we've seen statements that she was the driver (she
> wasn't) and that the car was moving, as you stated (it wasn't).
>
> Many people are determined to believe that it had to be some lack of
> common sense that caused the injury, totally ignoring the facts of the case.
>
> The fact is that the McDonald's coffee was not just hot, it was
> scalding. It was being served at a temperature far higher than other
> take-out restaurants and coffee houses.
>
> McDonald's knew that the coffee was too hot. During discovery they were
> forced to disclose that more than 700 people had filed claims against
> them for burns, not just to their skin, but to their mouth and throat as
> well.
>
> McDonald's admitted that the temperature they serve coffee at is too hot
> to drink, claiming that the coffee is not consumed at the time of
> purchase, but is transported some distance by which time it has cooled
> to drinking temperature. However they admitted that the coffee sold for
> in-store consumption was also served at the higher temperature, and they
> also admitted that their own research showed that customer intend to
> consume it immediately, even when purchased to go, and that customers
> routinely request some ice to cool the coffee down.
>
> The jury award for punitive damages was very high, reflecting their
> disgust with the conduct of McDonald's, but of course these punitive
> awards are usually reduced by the judge, and this is what happened in
> this case. Also, instead of an appeal, they ended up settling out of
> court so we'll never know the amount that McDonald's paid.
>
> Also, don't forget that all that the plaintiff requested, prior to the
> lawsuit, was $20,000 for medical bills (McDonald's offered $800).

"SMS," every point you made has been discussed and countered
previously. You're wasting time.

Likewise, you waste time with your high-handed proclamations that
anyone who disagrees with you lacks critical thinking skills.

You have _not_ demonstrated exceptional skills at critical thinking;
and your opinions are _not_ the final word on any particular subject,
no matter what your ego tells you.

- Frank Krygowski

SMS

A Muzi wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> FWIW, I know a person who sat down to a plate of hot pasta, took in a
>>> large mouthful, and badly scalded the roof of her mouth. She did
>>> visit an ER for the injury. But she never considered suing. She just
>>> accepted her responsibility for the incident. Which is, I believe,
>>> what most people do.
>
> still just me wrote:
>> Was the pasta at 160 degrees? Did she have $10,000 in medical bills as
>> a result?
>
> Once Carl clarified that she wasn't driving, who cares?
>
> Whether we have opinions about personal responsibility, money grubbing
> coffee vendors, how hot is hot or what have you, it really does not bear
> on our area.
>
> I have a particularly rabid response to behemoth pilots trying to aim
> their vehicles inside the lane stripes while drinking beverages,
> watching video and gesticulating on the phone. But even I know that her
> case was not remarkable in any respect (award reduced later). If you
> want to pursue that sort of thing, there are astounding verdicts, few of
> which bear on the technical aspects of cycling.

Actually there are astoundingly few astounding verdicts and awards but
the organizations pushing to eliminate businesses liability for
negligence make the most of them, and are often successful in misleading
the public as to what happened. You'd be surprised at how many people
think that in the McDonald's coffee case a) the woman was driving at the
time, b) the vehicle was moving at the time, c) McDonald's was serving
the coffee at the temperature at which coffee is normally served.

It's amazing to see otherwise intelligent people willing to jump on an
anti-lawyer bandwagon, mouthing platitudes about personal responsibility
and common sense without making even the slightest effort to actually
examine the facts of the case, and the evidence that the jury was
presented with.

The lack of critical thinking skills is often scary. In what other
aspects of their lives do these same people fail to look at factual
evidence before making judgments? You can actually see just in this
newsgroup that the people that dismiss all the evidence regarding things
like ER data on crash tests for helmets, and whole-country data on
injury and death rates versus helmet wearing rates, are the same ones
willing to believe anything the so-called tort-reform people say about
the McDonald's case.

Tom Kunich

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4oU7k.11047$uE5.10217@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
> c) McDonald's was serving the coffee at the temperature at which coffee is
> normally served.

By all means I have to see how you're going to explain that one - coffee is
made with boiling water - that's 212 degrees for the uninitiated. That means
that you're trying to imply that coffee is usually cooled before serving it.

Jay Beattie

On Jun 23, 2:23*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4oU7k.11047$uE5.10217@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> > c) McDonald's was serving the coffee at the temperature at which coffeeis
> > normally served.
>
> By all means I have to see how you're going to explain that one - coffee is
> made with boiling water - that's 212 degrees for the uninitiated. That means
> that you're trying to imply that coffee is usually cooled before serving it.

Apparently it is -- and the perfect serving temperature is around 175
degrees according to the coffee afficianados. From what I read on the
internet about the McDonalds case, the local take out joints were
serving their coffee about 20 degrees below McDonald's -- but there
were also customers who bought McDonald's coffee specifically because
it was really hot. McDonald's market niche was really hot coffee.

My take is that McDonald's could have won or at least could have kept
damages down if it had not pissed off the jury. I know nothing of
what happened at trial, but from reading the accounts, it sounds like
some defense attorney went too far in slamming the plaintiff -- an old
lady. Bad litigation strategy. -- Jay Beattie.

SMS

Jay Beattie wrote:

> Apparently it is -- and the perfect serving temperature is around 175
> degrees according to the coffee afficianados. From what I read on the
> internet about the McDonalds case, the local take out joints were
> serving their coffee about 20 degrees below McDonald's -- but there
> were also customers who bought McDonald's coffee specifically because
> it was really hot. McDonald's market niche was really hot coffee.

By the time the water goes through the filter and drips into the pot it
is much lower than boiling temperature. To serve it at 180 degrees it
would have to be intentionally heated back up to a higher temperature.

> My take is that McDonald's could have won or at least could have kept
> damages down if it had not pissed off the jury. I know nothing of
> what happened at trial, but from reading the accounts, it sounds like
> some defense attorney went too far in slamming the plaintiff -- an old
> lady. Bad litigation strategy.

The defense attorneys probably assumed that they could pull the "common
sense" anti-lawyer schtick on the jury, given the pre-trial publicity
that ridiculed the plaintiff, often without understanding what really
happened.

Tom Kunich

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:WgY7k.11144$uE5.6866@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> By the time the water goes through the filter and drips into the pot it is
> much lower than boiling temperature. To serve it at 180 degrees it would
> have to be intentionally heated back up to a higher temperature.

You mean like most coffee makers with a burner below the pot?

> The defense attorneys probably assumed

Do I detect an assumption on your part?

SMS

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:WgY7k.11144$uE5.6866@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> By the time the water goes through the filter and drips into the pot
>> it is much lower than boiling temperature. To serve it at 180 degrees
>> it would have to be intentionally heated back up to a higher temperature.
>
> You mean like most coffee makers with a burner below the pot?

The home coffee makers with non-adjustable temperature warming plates
don't keep the coffee at anywhere close to 180 degrees. They keep it at
around 150-160 degrees which is the optimal temperature for coffee that
will be consumed upon being poured. A few of the higher end models have
adjustable temperature warming plates that can raise or lower the
temperature but higher temperatures will give the coffee a burnt taste
after not very long of a time.

>> The defense attorneys probably assumed
>
> Do I detect an assumption on your part?

Yes, I don't know why the defense attorneys would choose the approach
they did, so it's an assumption as to why they acted the way they did.
Other than a belief that the jury was made up of people so exceptionally
stupid and simplistic that they'd fall for the talk-show babble about
the foolish, irresponsible, stupid, driver who held coffee between her
legs, adding 1/2 & 1/2 and sugar to the cup while she drove down the
road (none of which is true, but all of which was making the rounds of
the radio talk shows at the time). However I read nothing of the defense
attorneys bring up the spaghetti defense!