I don't buy it

[Anonymous]

So warning labels are proof that idiots need instructions/explainations. Think about it.. warning labels are there because someone tried it. LOL

Incorrectamundo, they are there because someone didn't accept the personal responsibility of their actions and sued.

I've done LOTS of crazy & stupid things over my life, but I always accepted the consequences of those decisions.

 

[AtlantaSteve]

Oh lord, the McDonalds lady again.

She initially asked for a pittance(I think around 20k, for medical and time off work ONLY), because the coffee burns she got caused third degree crotch burns, to 6% of her body, and lesser burns to 16% of her body. She was in the hospital 2 weeks getting skin grafts. TWO WEEKS. This isn't "Ouch the coffee burned me." this is "My life was threatened by these burns." She lost 20lbs, which was 20% of her body weight before entering the hospital.

During the trial, it was shown that McDonalds coffee was served much hotter than normal, because doing so allowed them to get more "beverage" out of the coffee grounds. It was also shown that McDonalds had so many burn reports per year, and decided that the cost of paying off the injured was lower than the cost of changing the temperature, so they accepted the burn injuries. McDonalds admitted that they had received over 700 burn reports, settling in some cases for 500,000 dollars, and that if someone immediately drank their coffee as they served it, it would cause burns to the tongue and throat.

The Jury found that McDonald's actions were so reckless and negligent, that even though the woman had sued for less, they awarded her the 2.6 million to punish McDonalds. IN this case, the punitive charges were left up to the jury. The Judge immediately lowered their awarding to 640k, and both the old lady and McDonalds appealed the ruling.

Before an appeal decision was made, they settled with her for an undisclosed sum.

Should anyone go around being careless with coffee? No of course not. (in fact, the Jury found her 20% negligent) It was an accident. She put the coffee in between her legs to add the cream and sugar, and spilled it when she tried to remove the lid. But by the same token, Third Degree Burn causing liquids should not be served, especially when the corporation KNOWS the liquids they are serving are going to burn people, but decide to do so to save a few bucks. That part was not an accident.

The warning on the cup is there BECAUSE of that lady, if I'm not mistaken.

With due respect, you are mistaken. There was a warning on her cup, but the jury found it was too small and insufficient. You can't say "Warning Pintos might explode" and then put out a car that might explode...you still are required to produce a reasonably safe product.

 

[AtlantaSteve]

So, the next time I break bones while water skiing, I can just say I wasn't warned that it's dangerous and sue the Army C.O.E. (who built the lake), Mastercraft boats, Masterline ropes, BP (gas in boat) and Ford (truck that towed boat to lake).

No but I bet that if you found out Mastercraft chose a gas line that was 30% cheaper that MIGHT melt if the engine gets a little higher than normal and cause a fire, and you were out, and forgot to pay attention to the engine temp, and the hose melted and your boat caught on fire and you went to the hospital for a few months? I doubt you'd say "totally my bad."

 

[70 StangMan]

So, the next time I break bones while water skiing, I can just say I wasn't warned that it's dangerous and sue the Army C.O.E. (who built the lake), Mastercraft boats, Masterline ropes, BP (gas in boat) and Ford (truck that towed boat to lake).

Don't forget the balloon shorts manufacture.

 

[Kats66Pny]

If I 'accidently' spill coffee on my girly nether region while pouring it from my Mr Coffee coffee pot, can I sue them? There are no warning labels that say not to pout it on yourself. :confu :sarc

As for the McD lady..didnt that happen like 20 yrs ago? I barely remember it but think I was in middle school when it happened. lol If the coffee was scolding then yeah, McDs fault.. but atleast they admitted she was partiually to blame. Who the heck puts HOT coffee near their crotch?! :hide

 

[70 StangMan]

Who the heck puts HOT coffee near their crotch?! :hide

Well, not real Hot.

 

[Anonymous]

Don't forget the balloon shorts manufacture.

:stfu

 

[Horseplay]

With due respect, you are mistaken. There was a warning on her cup, but the jury found it was too small and insufficient. You can't say "Warning Pintos might explode" and then put out a car that might explode...you still are required to produce a reasonably safe product.

Man, you lawyers sure take the fun out of these discussions!

I figured I was wading into the unknown a bit by guessing there was not a warning on their cups prior. Nonetheless, the real point of my comment was that almost all the stupid warnings we see on things today are the product of complaints/lawsuits. You argue some very valid points but to stay on the other side of this one for a moment, just having a warning label on something does not put the full liability and responsibility on the manufacturer/seller. Unfortunately, as you stated earlier, these parties often opt to just pay out behind the scenes rather than go to court as it is usually cheaper for them. For those in the right, it is just sad that things have reached this level. Like Mark said, personal responsibility seems to be a forgotten concept.

 

[Anonymous]

No but I bet that if you found out Mastercraft chose a gas line that was 30% cheaper that MIGHT melt if the engine gets a little higher than normal and cause a fire, and you were out, and forgot to pay attention to the engine temp, and the hose melted and your boat caught on fire and you went to the hospital for a few months? I doubt you'd say "totally my bad."

Now you're just making stuff up. Mastercraft builds quality boats. If you would have used Correct Craft or Moomba, you might have a leg to stand on.

 

[AtlantaSteve]

You argue some very valid points but to stay on the other side of this one for a moment, just having a warning label on something does not put the full liability and responsibility on the manufacturer/seller.

Agreed. Warnings do not absolve manufacturers. And by the same token, the lack of warning does not make the individual blameless, either. You should just KNOW not to use a toaster in the tub, or a lawn mower to trim your shrubs, warning or no.

But for the record, not ALL warnings are because someone did something stupid...there are now people whose entire job it is to guess what the stupid are going to do...unfortunately for them, the stupid just keep getting more and more clever!

 

[apollard]

Oh lord, the McDonalds lady again.

She initially asked for a pittance(I think around 20k, for medical and time off work ONLY), because the coffee burns she got caused third degree crotch burns, to 6% of her body, and lesser burns to 16% of her body. She was in the hospital 2 weeks getting skin grafts. TWO WEEKS. This isn't "Ouch the coffee burned me." this is "My life was threatened by these burns." She lost 20lbs, which was 20% of her body weight before entering the hospital.

During the trial, it was shown that McDonalds coffee was served much hotter than normal, because doing so allowed them to get more "beverage" out of the coffee grounds. It was also shown that McDonalds had so many burn reports per year, and decided that the cost of paying off the injured was lower than the cost of changing the temperature, so they accepted the burn injuries. McDonalds admitted that they had received over 700 burn reports, settling in some cases for 500,000 dollars, and that if someone immediately drank their coffee as they served it, it would cause burns to the tongue and throat.

Since this is a case studied in corporate ethics classes, I'll just add a couple of things I learned.

Not only did McD admit they knew about the issue during the trial, there were internal memos dating back a at least decade stating they knew the coffes was 20* greater than the accepted industry standard and calculating th level at which claims payout would be less than the profit gained. They also had several people internally trying to raise a red flag and saying "this isn't right, we shouldn't be doing this". Basically, "yeah we are burning people (not all of whom were careless) but as long as only x number file claims, we are better off".

The lady admitted at trial (and before) that she shared some of th blame, that it was a silly thing to do.

She didn't want to sue, it was her last resort. She called the company to inform them of the accident, and THEY helped her file a claim for the medical bills. Then, they lost it - it was later found between a desk and the wall. Since they couldn't find her claim, she called a lawyer. The lawyer contacted them, and they stonewalled him. So he filed. Upon legal discovery he found the internal documents, and McD had basically lost their case for themselves before it was ever filed. I can only say they had some dumbass legal advice, there was no way to win that case - they provided the other sides case for them.

90% of the news media reports show none of this information. Before we studied the case, we watched a news show (20/20 IIRC), and voted - the vast majority thought she should get nothing. Then we stiudied the evidence from the court. The result flipped - and this from a bunch of heartless, awful corporate executive types who only want to exploit workers and pollute the environment.

 

[AtlantaSteve]

Thanks for the follow up, Andre!

Yeah, the news media has a "story" to tell, and they try really hard not to let facts get in the way of that.

As someone who tries to give both sides of the story a fair hearing before making a decision (a decision which I'm always willing to reverse once better facts are brought to light) I've often bemoaned that there's no longer an "objective" media.

But doing some light reading about "the good old days" finds that there was NEVER an objective media. Back in the before times, in the long long ago, towns would have two papers, heck they were often the "Whateverville Democrat" and the "Whateverville Republican" They both intentionally told their side of the story. The problem I have with a biased media organization (say, Fox or MSNBC, or, well, ANY of them) is that they build these echo chambers where they just feedback, and everyone gets the story they want, without any of the sticky details that might make them question their opinions. (just like nobody questions their opinion on whether this old lady deserved a penny.)

But when done right, when you have multiple media organizations, each telling their side of the story, instead of some liberal yahoo at the NY Times thinking he's being "objective", then you really CAN weigh the evidence. Sure, the best way is to go to the primary sources, but we don't all have time for that for all issues we encounter. So you have to learn to read between the lines, which is not an exact science (Which explains why Jack and I can read one thing in an article, and everyone else reads something else, and yet at other times both Jack and I read completely different things)

So maybe if we can learn not to get caught in the feedback cycle of the carefully constructed echo-chambers, maybe a biased media IS the way to go, especially in the age of the Internet. The trick is learning to doubt yourself, and digging deeper, and not taking "known truths" as knowns.

I'm not saying the only reading of the McDonalds trial is my reading. If someone *cough*mark*cough* still thinks she deserves not one penny, then that's their prerogative. What I *AM* saying is that most people have no clue about the mitigating circumstances of the case, and thus won't make an informed opinion.

BTW, what you want to bet McDonalds is a sponsor of ABCNews? That's another media bias that drives me nuts...bias for corporate advertising dollars.

 

[apollard]

The other case we study is the Tylenol case - remember the tainted capsules? That is a textbook case of how a company handled it's crisis perfectly, and ended up with more brand loyalty and sales because it protected the public and was honest. All without media consultants telling them what to do (in fact, the advice they got was contrary to what they actually did). The story as told by the people in the room at the time say they discussed the motto General Johnson, the founder had - and decided to pull everything, everywhere. Much of the news media spuns it as government pressure, yet they reacted before the government even mentioned it - all because of the cluture and ethics in place before the crisis.