Ridiculous Lawsuits
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
Ridiculous Lawsuits
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 07331.html
Amazingly, not all of these are from the USA.
Amazingly, not all of these are from the USA.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:03 am
- Location: Portland, Maine USA
- Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12942
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
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.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.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 10572
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:51 pm
- Location: Up above the streets and houses
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?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.
Businesswoman of the year.
- Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12942
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
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.CrazyHorse wrote: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?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.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28832
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43356
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
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?
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
They should go to the zinc bar into manchester. Their tiny expresso cups have taken a number of people's fingertips off.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.
Nat Lofthouse:
“in my day, there were plenty of fellas who would kick your b****cks off. The difference was that at the end of the match they would shake your hand and help you look for them!”
“in my day, there were plenty of fellas who would kick your b****cks off. The difference was that at the end of the match they would shake your hand and help you look for them!”
-
- Hopeful
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 8:39 pm
- Location: Maidenhead
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.
To get their own back, the insurance company brought an action against him for criminal damage and he was jailed.
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 15355
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:42 pm
- Location: Vagantes numquam erramus
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)
Last edited by Lord Kangana on Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.
How about this one which was reported today:
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/06/17/str ... than-this/
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/06/17/str ... than-this/
-
- Legend
- Posts: 8454
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
- Location: Trotter Shop
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.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?
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...
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.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12942
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
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).Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:She spent a week in hospital in Fort William?Montreal Wanderer wrote:The woman spend a week in hospital with third degree burns where the sun don't shine.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
- Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12942
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
It would take quite an additive to stop water vapourizing above 100 celsius. However, I check the tempratures on wiki and discover: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)
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.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
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.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.
They could, of course, be both.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43356
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
We're quite familiar with the term Monty. Probably originated over here anyway.Montreal Wanderer wrote: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).Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:She spent a week in hospital in Fort William?Montreal Wanderer wrote:The woman spend a week in hospital with third degree burns where the sun don't shine.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12942
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
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.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.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28832
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
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).Montreal Wanderer wrote:they are allowed to use electricity, just not turn it on or off
But that's a well-worn discussion for a different thread, and it's time for me dinner.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests