did this woman not think to check the lid before handing it over? did she not think to read the passage that says: 'caution: HOT'?
I mean come on already. Geez.
Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:18 pm
by Stroodles
This person gets +3 fail.
+1 for being dumber then hell.
+2 for trying to sue for it
+3 for cramping the style of the previous person who did this. Honestly, it was vaguely funny, but only the first time.
Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:01 pm
by Blaze
+3 for cramping the style of the previous person who did this.
Or the lack thereof. Sadly, the world is full of greedy idiots.
Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:07 am
by Sirius
Some people might be interested to read the story of what actually happened last time. McD's only got taken to court because it wouldn't admit to being even partly to blame.
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:02 pm
by snoopy
Sorry, this is kinda off topic.
I keep on reading the subject, and imagining someone either in a Mcdonalds coffee cup Halloween costume, or wearing one of those hats with the two cans and the straw, only with Mcd coffee instead of beer... \"coffee suit.\"
On topic: Lothar once summarized the first lawsuit pretty well, and it made sense that McD would have to pay up after you know all of the details.
That is all.
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:49 pm
by Ferno
well, thing is once they hand the coffee to you, it's wholly your responsibility. If you spill it, that's your fault. Something that really should have been taught to both of them by age three.
Personal responsibility really should be brought back, instead of trying to find a way to make a quick buck.
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:53 pm
by AlphaDoG
I'll sue you!
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:31 am
by Sirius
There definitely is something to be said for being careful with coffee, but at the same time I can kind of forgive the quick buck thing if the accident cost you $11,000 in hospital expenses.
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:43 am
by BUBBALOU
This is where \"If Stupid was Painful\" Works
What's next someone will sue 7-Eleven because a Slurpee gave them a brain freeze......
Re:
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:07 am
by Lothar
snoopy wrote:Lothar once summarized the first lawsuit pretty well, and it made sense that McD would have to pay up after you know all of the details.
The key to the first suit is that McDonalds was making their takeout coffee dangerously hot (way too hot to drink right away, and hotter than other places served their coffee) despite having had previous incidents where too-hot coffee was burning people, and despite having been warned by various safety experts and consultants.
It was only a matter of time before somebody got burned very badly. Which is exactly what happened. We're not talking "red skin, put some aloe on it" burns; we're talking "requires surgery, need tissue grafts" burns.
I don't know if the current suit is anything like the previous one. If it is, then McDonalds will likely have to pay out another huge settlement, as it would demonstrate gross negligence. If not, then it'll be dismissed soon enough. So I'm content to sit back and let the courts figure it out.
Re:
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:43 am
by Gekko71
Lothar wrote:
snoopy wrote:Lothar once summarized the first lawsuit pretty well, and it made sense that McD would have to pay up after you know all of the details.
The key to the first suit is that McDonalds was making their takeout coffee dangerously hot (way too hot to drink right away, and hotter than other places served their coffee) despite having had previous incidents where too-hot coffee was burning people, and despite having been warned by various safety experts and consultants.
What's ironic to me is that both coffee and milk start to burn once you get them over 75 degrees centigrade (167 deg. F). They were therefore deliberately making crap coffee! Having drunk their coffee before, this explains a lot.
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:39 pm
by Avder
Having actually gone through and read all the details of the original hot coffee case and found that case to have a lot of merit, I am going to wait to see what evidence is presented against McDonalds before I make any judgments about this case.
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:58 am
by Isaac
I'm suing GE because my stove cooks stuff too hot and burns my face.
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:51 am
by Sirius
You actually have control over that. If your stove is defective, perhaps. If it's merely able to be dangerous if you use it improperly, it's not the same thing at all.
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:06 am
by Isaac
NO! NOthing's mY fault!!! It never iz! It never will be!
