i know a few people from local restaurants, and they have said that they keep their coffee between 160-185 degrees.... jmman also said that his chain of restaurants did the same...
<< << Hahahahahaha I dont think so. If you dat old, maybe u shouldnt be drinking coffee. bwahahah >>
thankyou for sharing the most ignorant thought i seen in weeks. >>
Yep, I agee, and he did it in typical BOBBY RIBS style. While I may start some stupid threads at least I don't act like a complete jackass in every thread I post in, such as this individual does.
GF, I expected this kind of sympathetic fluff from you.
As opposed to the ignorant statements we have grown accustomed to from you Pamchenko, I will take being a sympathetic fluff anyday.
yakko: The coffee was that hot, McDonalds admitted it publicy. So even though you yourself have not seen it, does not make it any less true. And she was burnt horribly, look for any news stories about the case. My point is, they should have paid her medical, and settled the case for $20,000. They are the ones who did not take responsibility for their actions.
As opposed to the ignorant statements we have grown accustomed to from you Pamchenko, I will take being a sympathetic fluff anyday.
yakko: The coffee was that hot, McDonalds admitted it publicy. So even though you yourself have not seen it, does not make it any less true. And she was burnt horribly, look for any news stories about the case. My point is, they should have paid her medical, and settled the case for $20,000. They are the ones who did not take responsibility for their actions.
Even if it was that hot I fail to see where it was their responsibilty for her putting it between her legs.
I am not saying she was the brightest bulb in the box, for holding it there. But to receive third degree burns from coffee? Come on, that is so hot nobody could drink it like that.
And btw, you don't worry about what I am smoking, cause you will just want me to share it.
And btw, you don't worry about what I am smoking, cause you will just want me to share it.
Dedpuhl says it's human nature to blame others. It's obviously human nature for Mc Donnalds to try to avoid the consequences of pig headedness. They had hundreds of cases like this that they refused to allow to modify their behavior. It's an easy argument to say that Mc Donalds is stupid and should pay for their stupidity. The important point to remember is that there is a war going on in this country between consumer rights to legal redress and businesses that doesn't want personal responsibility to apply to them. In this war business has vast resources which they devote to propagandizing horror stories of lawyer abuse to generate a hostile mentality in the general public. That's a function of right wing hate radio, for example. It's so much fun to laugh and make snide remarks about some 'stupid old woman', to pump up especially the limpid psyche of today's young males, cut off as they are from any feelings of true self importance. I't so great to walk around with the fantasy that WE aren't so stupid as to spill hot coffee on ourselves and way too macho to blame somebody if we did. Get real guys, you're all headed for stupid old-man-hood.
A society needs balance in law. Making the loosing party pay for court costs would shift that balance too far one way because the average person could not take any risk of loosing. Lawyers on the other side play another kind of game. Delay delay delay, appeal appeal appeal until the person is exhausted or dies.
All of the cases that shinerburke lists are important cases of society attempting to maintain balance. You have to remember that people are all the same. There are as many irresponsible morons on any side of any issue as on the other. Because business can't procede with reckless abandon, we are all saver, especially our children, for whom we have designed so many protections. Remember, the flip side of being motivated by profit is being motivated by fear of loss.
If some airliner flys over and some joker pulls the plug on the toilets and your girlfriend-wife is killed by a hundred tons of sh!t falling through the roof, I want to hear the story about how sh!t happens.
A society needs balance in law. Making the loosing party pay for court costs would shift that balance too far one way because the average person could not take any risk of loosing. Lawyers on the other side play another kind of game. Delay delay delay, appeal appeal appeal until the person is exhausted or dies.
All of the cases that shinerburke lists are important cases of society attempting to maintain balance. You have to remember that people are all the same. There are as many irresponsible morons on any side of any issue as on the other. Because business can't procede with reckless abandon, we are all saver, especially our children, for whom we have designed so many protections. Remember, the flip side of being motivated by profit is being motivated by fear of loss.
If some airliner flys over and some joker pulls the plug on the toilets and your girlfriend-wife is killed by a hundred tons of sh!t falling through the roof, I want to hear the story about how sh!t happens.
Moonbeam, just when I though you were on the right track, you post something like this...."A society needs balance in law. Making the loosing party pay for court costs would shift that balance too far one way because the average person could not take any risk of loosing. Lawyers on the other side play another kind of game. Delay delay delay, appeal appeal appeal until the person is exhausted or dies. "
The majority of countries out there have this exact type of tort system. The loser pays for legal fees in the event of a loss. It is only fair!! Let me tell you about a case I unfortunately was involved in. I accidentally scraped a lady's car door. The damage was minor, and my insurance paid all of the costs. About 4 months later, a process server came to my door, and guess what, I was getting sued for 50k. According to the papers, the lady had a severe wrist injury and needed surgery. After months of litigation(and huge legal fees), the case was settled for 37k. Now lets look at the facts of the case. I was going less than 5 miles an hour. The supposed impact did not even move her car. She testified as to that. The injury was consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome. She worked in a repetitive type job and in fact had the same surgery on her other wrist 7 years prior. But do to the mounting legal fees and the uncertainty of a jury trial, the case was settled. She hit the lottery.
This is what is wrong with our legal system. Here is a thoughful analysis of where we went astray....
text
The majority of countries out there have this exact type of tort system. The loser pays for legal fees in the event of a loss. It is only fair!! Let me tell you about a case I unfortunately was involved in. I accidentally scraped a lady's car door. The damage was minor, and my insurance paid all of the costs. About 4 months later, a process server came to my door, and guess what, I was getting sued for 50k. According to the papers, the lady had a severe wrist injury and needed surgery. After months of litigation(and huge legal fees), the case was settled for 37k. Now lets look at the facts of the case. I was going less than 5 miles an hour. The supposed impact did not even move her car. She testified as to that. The injury was consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome. She worked in a repetitive type job and in fact had the same surgery on her other wrist 7 years prior. But do to the mounting legal fees and the uncertainty of a jury trial, the case was settled. She hit the lottery.
This is what is wrong with our legal system. Here is a thoughful analysis of where we went astray....
text
Moonbeam,
<< If some airliner flys over and some joker pulls the plug on the toilets and your girlfriend-wife is killed by a hundred tons of sh!t falling through the roof, I want to hear the story about how sh!t happens. >>
Where did you get this from. This analogy is nowhere close to what happened so it is irrelevant. There is no balance to be acheived in this situation. She screwed up and made someone else take responsibilty. That is wrong. No business should be responsible for an individuals actions.
<< If some airliner flys over and some joker pulls the plug on the toilets and your girlfriend-wife is killed by a hundred tons of sh!t falling through the roof, I want to hear the story about how sh!t happens. >>
Where did you get this from. This analogy is nowhere close to what happened so it is irrelevant. There is no balance to be acheived in this situation. She screwed up and made someone else take responsibilty. That is wrong. No business should be responsible for an individuals actions.
So girlfriday, if I buy a cucumber and shove it up my ass, I guess its ok to sue the store I bought it from? "But it was too wide for my ass, they should sell them smaller! I wan't them to pay my medical bills because they sell cucumbers that are too big!"
Its the same as what you are saying. The coffee was too hot for skin? Then don't stick it between your legs while driving.
Its the same as what you are saying. The coffee was too hot for skin? Then don't stick it between your legs while driving.
Piku: All I ask is if you do that and you do decide to sue somebody, please keep it to yourself. Sharing is not always caring, no matter what Barney says. And no, if you decide to shove a cucumber in a spot it was never intended to be, then too bad, suffer. You cannot compare that to a woman being burnt by trying to make herself a cup of coffee. If she had shoved it up there, then I would have no pity for her. BTW, you have a sick mind.....
Here in Canada, if you have a house party where alcohol is served and somebody in the party gets drunk, and causes damage to themselves or to somebody else, you're partially responsible. Apparently you're supposed to keep an eye on all your party members and ensure they don't get drunk because when you're drunk you lack good judgment.
This doesn't make any sense to me. Drunk drivers who have caused themselves harm have successfully sued the hosts of the party where they got drunk. IMHO, what the hell are you doing at a party with your own car when you know you're going to drink alcohol to excess? Do the words designated driver ring a bell? You make the judgment to be a designated driver or not way before you're drunk...which is why all of this legislation doesn't make sense.
As far as the coffee lady situation I strongly disagree with the court's decision. As somebody pointed out, attending to your coffee by placing it between your fragile, elderly legs in a car seat which is not level, is not a good thing. You learn this when you are two years old and learning how to pour things or how to drink from cups.
If I run with scissors with the blades pointed up, and fall, stabbing myself - can I sue the scissor manufacturer for not making the pointed edge blunt? It's my own damn fault - not the fall mind you which is accidental - but I shouldn't be running with the blades pointed up...they should be in the grasp of my hands, pointed down. Every junior kindergarten child is taught this!
-GL
This doesn't make any sense to me. Drunk drivers who have caused themselves harm have successfully sued the hosts of the party where they got drunk. IMHO, what the hell are you doing at a party with your own car when you know you're going to drink alcohol to excess? Do the words designated driver ring a bell? You make the judgment to be a designated driver or not way before you're drunk...which is why all of this legislation doesn't make sense.
As far as the coffee lady situation I strongly disagree with the court's decision. As somebody pointed out, attending to your coffee by placing it between your fragile, elderly legs in a car seat which is not level, is not a good thing. You learn this when you are two years old and learning how to pour things or how to drink from cups.
If I run with scissors with the blades pointed up, and fall, stabbing myself - can I sue the scissor manufacturer for not making the pointed edge blunt? It's my own damn fault - not the fall mind you which is accidental - but I shouldn't be running with the blades pointed up...they should be in the grasp of my hands, pointed down. Every junior kindergarten child is taught this!
-GL
ya it was a dumb example, but the fact remains, your only supposed to use things for their intended purpose. If you don't follow directions you deserve any pain or suffering you go through. If that was an actual cup holder and something similar happened she would have my sympathy, but it was her freaking lap.
Its like making a candle holder out of cardboard, and bitching when your house burns down.
Its like making a candle holder out of cardboard, and bitching when your house burns down.
Jmman, I don't think this is an argument that can be won anecdotally. The case you site is outrageous. What ever the car company it was that calculated the cost of lawsuits from exploding gas tanks ahd decided they would be cheeper that fixing the problem is terrible too. I am suggesting that we need to TRY to balance justice. The insurance companies settle because it's cheeper. What does that do, incourage frivolous lawsuits, right? We live in an imperfect world and have a justice system that is way too expensive and way too slow. It is a compromize of competing interests. We have a jury system that found in favor of the McDonalds lady and, I bet, would have thrown yours out on her ear. All I'm saying is that it's all about whose ox gets gored. We are a statisitcal collective. Sometimes it's the man in the saddle and sometimes the saddle on the man.
My point is that we have tried to build a society that has some inherent justice. Maybe we weave down the line, sometimes too much to the right, and sometimes too much to the left. If you are the man in the saddle and use that to stack everything in favor of men in saddles, you will regret it if you fall off. That is why I want to look at this, not through a magnifine glass, but from a distance with a broader perspective. I would not oppose measures to reduce the frivolous, but not measures that would preclude just claims. Justice in not something the parties themselves will have sufficient objectivity to determine.
My point is that we have tried to build a society that has some inherent justice. Maybe we weave down the line, sometimes too much to the right, and sometimes too much to the left. If you are the man in the saddle and use that to stack everything in favor of men in saddles, you will regret it if you fall off. That is why I want to look at this, not through a magnifine glass, but from a distance with a broader perspective. I would not oppose measures to reduce the frivolous, but not measures that would preclude just claims. Justice in not something the parties themselves will have sufficient objectivity to determine.
Has anyone thought that McD's has kept the coffee that hot due to public demand? If 90% of the population wants the coffee at 170 then why lower it to 130?
Scott,
Because, thanks to stupid legal decisions like this, society has to cater to the lowest common denominator instead of the more advanced standard.
-GL
Because, thanks to stupid legal decisions like this, society has to cater to the lowest common denominator instead of the more advanced standard.
-GL
America is a blame-ridden culture, simple as that. As far as the woman goes, I can sympathize with the pain that she went through, but I wouldn't hold McDonald's responsible for it. Even non-180 degree coffee would've burned her had she been holding it between her legs and spilled it. Perhaps not as bad, but there still would've been some serious pain.
Moon, why don't you read the article that I posted above. You are missing the point. Nobody is saying that justified lawsuits should be prevented, but our system is broken in the respect that too many crap cases are brought forward.
Here is a small quote: "Under the loser-pays rule, which is in effect in almost every common-law jurisdiction outside the United States, the party that loses in court pays the victor's fees and expenses based on a schedule set by the court. The advantages of the loser-pays rule are manifold. Most obviously, it discourages speculative litigation. A claimant who knows that he is going to be responsible for the defendant's reasonable legal costs is going to hesitate before pursuing a longshot case, even if the potential payoff is large. "
This has nothing to do with justice, but with preventing injustice through frivolous crap lawsuits.
Here is a small quote: "Under the loser-pays rule, which is in effect in almost every common-law jurisdiction outside the United States, the party that loses in court pays the victor's fees and expenses based on a schedule set by the court. The advantages of the loser-pays rule are manifold. Most obviously, it discourages speculative litigation. A claimant who knows that he is going to be responsible for the defendant's reasonable legal costs is going to hesitate before pursuing a longshot case, even if the potential payoff is large. "
This has nothing to do with justice, but with preventing injustice through frivolous crap lawsuits.
Jmman, amen on that.
Too bad it won't happen anytime soon since Lawyers must have a BIG lobby.
Heck, most of the congressmen/senators are lawyers...
Too bad it won't happen anytime soon since Lawyers must have a BIG lobby.
Heck, most of the congressmen/senators are lawyers...
Jmman, Your article was written by men in the saddle. The net is stuffed with the opposing view. I am not opposed to improvement. I just think that almost all redress, not just frivolous redress would be the result. This is a solution from one side. A better one would be a compromise with imput from the other side.
Moon, why don't you post some links for the rest of us to see then, if the net is so full of people proclaiming that our legal system is perfect(or simply that tort reform is bogus). Anyways, I don't call a law professor "the guy in the saddle". I doubt he has any real agenda to promote. He is simply comparing our system with the rest of the world. Lastly, this article was posted in a nonpartisan public policy journal. As far as my lawsuit is concerned, do you consider the result justice? Those kind of cases are happening everyday. And guess who is paying for those judgements? The insurance company? WRONG!! Each and everyone of us that drives a car, or pays for insurance of any kind. Insurance rates go up for all of us. Personally, I do not care to pay for other people to rip off and manipulate the system. If you would care to donate your $$$ to take care of "losers" like that, that is your business....
The main reason is the lobbying by attorneys groups, etc. They are the real losers in this matter, not people who have a legitimate claim against someone else. As far as adoption of the "loser pays" policy, experiments are already taking place in a couple of states:
"The possibility of moving to a loser-pays system has recently received a great deal of attention in the United States. Oregon and Oklahoma have even undertaken limited experiments with a loser-pays fees system. It seems that it is only a matter of time before broader loser-pays experiments are undertaken. "
"The possibility of moving to a loser-pays system has recently received a great deal of attention in the United States. Oregon and Oklahoma have even undertaken limited experiments with a loser-pays fees system. It seems that it is only a matter of time before broader loser-pays experiments are undertaken. "
Shinerburke:
As GF has adequately demonstrated your whole case rests on no facts, no understanding of the laws involved, and no apparent reasoning. Perhaps you might dredge up some better examples of lack of personal responsibility?
But if you are going to do that, why don't you tell us why you are engaging in this bit of obvious political/social rhetoric? Do you see our culture crumbling at your feet? Are we a nation of laggards and sloths who blame everyone else for our failings? Is this an endemic problem peculiar to America? Or is this just another evacuation in a Libertarian Bowel Movement?
As GF has adequately demonstrated your whole case rests on no facts, no understanding of the laws involved, and no apparent reasoning. Perhaps you might dredge up some better examples of lack of personal responsibility?
But if you are going to do that, why don't you tell us why you are engaging in this bit of obvious political/social rhetoric? Do you see our culture crumbling at your feet? Are we a nation of laggards and sloths who blame everyone else for our failings? Is this an endemic problem peculiar to America? Or is this just another evacuation in a Libertarian Bowel Movement?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter