Ridiculous Lawsuits

ratbert · Post by **ratbert** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:35 pm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 07331.html

Amazingly, not all of these are from the USA.

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:37 pm

what about this one?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/ju ... teen-novel

americantrotter · Post by **americantrotter** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:08 pm

As usual they trot out the McDonald's coffee case. Despite the fact that McDonald's were negligent for serving ridiculously hot coffee. Plus the award was reduced, so the system worked.

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:45 pm

americantrotter wrote:As usual they trot out the McDonald's coffee case. Despite the fact that McDonald's were negligent for serving ridiculously hot coffee. Plus the award was reduced, so the system worked.

Not really - the lady originally wanted $20,000 to cover her medical expenses ($11k) and suffering. McDonald's refused offering only $800. Eventually her lawyer got rich as did McDonald's attorneys. Not a good system really. I don't think the final settlement is actually known as it was out of court before the appeal.

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:45 pm

americantrotter wrote:As usual they trot out the McDonald's coffee case. Despite the fact that McDonald's were negligent for serving ridiculously hot coffee. Plus the award was reduced, so the system worked.

Eh? How is one negligent for serving coffee at the temperature it's supposed to be served at? Or did they somehow manage to superheat it to 1000°C?

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:47 pm

CrazyHorse wrote:
americantrotter wrote:As usual they trot out the McDonald's coffee case. Despite the fact that McDonald's were negligent for serving ridiculously hot coffee. Plus the award was reduced, so the system worked.
Eh? How is one negligent for serving coffee at the temperature it's supposed to be served at? Or did they somehow manage to superheat it to 1000°C?

It was much hotter than most other outlets served it and there had been many previous cases of scalded customers. The woman spend a week in hospital with third degree burns where the sun don't shine. Still it must have been below 100C I would imagine.

Dave Sutton's barnet · Post by **Dave Sutton's barnet** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:54 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:The woman spend a week in hospital with third degree burns where the sun don't shine.

She spent a week in hospital in Fort William?

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:14 pm

Almost as daft as the families of three murdering gun criminals in Manchester sueing the police today for publishing posters of them and infringing their own human rights. Or is it just me....because "compensation" was mentioned? Wonder if they get it will they in turn compensate the families of the victims?

jenkz · Post by **jenkz** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:06 pm

americantrotter wrote:As usual they trot out the McDonald's coffee case. Despite the fact that McDonald's were negligent for serving ridiculously hot coffee. Plus the award was reduced, so the system worked.

They should go to the zinc bar into manchester. Their tiny expresso cups have taken a number of people's fingertips off.

RealLifeHobbit · Post by **RealLifeHobbit** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:45 pm

My law tutor told me of one particular case in none other than the US of a lawyer who had bought some cigars and then insured them. The insurance included destruction by fire and so he claimed when he smoked them. The insurance company refused so he sued and won.

To get their own back, the insurance company brought an action against him for criminal damage and he was jailed.

Lord Kangana · Post by **Lord Kangana** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:18 pm

Just to help clarify, McDonalds used to advertise their super-heated coffee (don't ask me how, they were the ones advertising it) that was guaranteed hotter than anyone else's. That in a nutshell was the basis of the case, and has never been as hot since. I shed no tears for their loss. (and again, to answer Monty's point, my scratchy memory leads me to believe that it was 100+ temp. due to some additive or other)

Apathy · Post by **Apathy** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:20 pm

How about this one which was reported today:
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/06/17/str ... than-this/

William the White · Post by **William the White** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:49 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:Almost as daft as the families of three murdering gun criminals in Manchester sueing the police today for publishing posters of them and infringing their own human rights. Or is it just me....because "compensation" was mentioned? Wonder if they get it will they in turn compensate the families of the victims?

since the posters have now been withdrawn I suspect you at least have a point in pondering whether there might be a whiff of lucre on the air.

that said, punishing whole families for the sins of individual members is wrong - and stigmatising them could fall into this category - and that's a principle that shouldn't be breached - criminals are punished for being law breakers, not people who are related to them who aren't...

note - i said 'could' - for all I know everyone in the family may have a record as long as your arm...

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:02 am

Apathy wrote:How about this one which was reported today:
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/06/17/str ... than-this/

F*cking nut jobs. Nutters like that wind me up. Arguing down to trivialities irrelevant one liners form fairy tales. Case dismissed and all legal fees to be paid by them me hopes.

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:54 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Montreal Wanderer wrote:The woman spend a week in hospital with third degree burns where the sun don't shine.
She spent a week in hospital in Fort William?

Er no, and perhaps I may have used a North Americanism that means nothing in the UK. So, to borrow from another Monty, she had third degree burns on her naughty bits (though at her age I doubt they were that naughty).

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:58 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:Just to help clarify, McDonalds used to advertise their super-heated coffee (don't ask me how, they were the ones advertising it) that was guaranteed hotter than anyone else's. That in a nutshell was the basis of the case, and has never been as hot since. I shed no tears for their loss. (and again, to answer Monty's point, my scratchy memory leads me to believe that it was 100+ temp. due to some additive or other)

It would take quite an additive to stop water vapourizing above 100 celsius. However, I check the tempratures on wiki and discover:

During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that, because those who purchased the coffee typically wanted to drive a distance with the coffee, the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.

Tombwfc · Post by **Tombwfc** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Apathy wrote:How about this one which was reported today:
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/06/17/str ... than-this/

F*cking nut jobs. Nutters like that wind me up. Arguing down to trivialities irrelevant one liners form fairy tales. Case dismissed and all legal fees to be paid by them me hopes.

The fact that they are claiming 5k in damages would make them seem more just like a couple of chancers to me, as opposed to a pair of religious nutjobs.

They could, of course, be both.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:01 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Montreal Wanderer wrote:The woman spend a week in hospital with third degree burns where the sun don't shine.
She spent a week in hospital in Fort William?
Er no, and perhaps I may have used a North Americanism that means nothing in the UK. So, to borrow from another Monty, she had third degree burns on her naughty bits (though at her age I doubt they were that naughty).

We're quite familiar with the term Monty. Probably originated over here anyway.

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:11 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Apathy wrote:How about this one which was reported today:
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/06/17/str ... than-this/

F*cking nut jobs. Nutters like that wind me up. Arguing down to trivialities irrelevant one liners form fairy tales. Case dismissed and all legal fees to be paid by them me hopes.

I'm not sure it is that black and white, Prufers. The Orthodox Jews of my acquaintanceship turn many things on before sundown on Friday - for example the TV - because they are allowed to use electricity, just not turn it on or off. I suppose they believe that by moving with motion detectors around they are actually turning an electrical system on. It would probably take their Rabbi to rule that their actions were not responsible for the light coming on since it was something beyond their control - rather than a decision from Bournemouth Crown Court. Personally I'm not convinced that the spark electricity can produce is the same as setting a fire on the Sabbath (which is what is forbidden) and I think the elders should rethink some interpretations of rules elaborated before the invention of electricity. Still, I feel dismissing them as effing nut jobs is a little OTT.

Dave Sutton's barnet · Post by **Dave Sutton's barnet** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:24 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:they are allowed to use electricity, just not turn it on or off

Which kind of renders ridiculous the whole idea of kowtowing to screeds writ millennia ago, no? I understand those who attempt to stick to their religion's original orthodoxy, but it often ends up unintentionally laughable. Especially when certain types focus on their bugbears - say, sexuality - as opposed to the equally (if not more) forcefully condemned practices like planting crops side by side or touching pigskin (that's Simon Farnworth dead).

But that's a well-worn discussion for a different thread, and it's time for me dinner.

Connect with your social network account

Ridiculous Lawsuits

Ridiculous Lawsuits

Who is online