$200m Lawsuit against boat maker

[dannc]

McDonald's had lots of lawsuits over the hot coffee as I remember it but McD's kept the coffee too hot to drink. Why?

McDonald's offered free coffee refills. By keeping the coffee to hot to drink, they minimized having to pay for free coffee.

This was purely a money game where McDonalds had an advertising campaign to provide free refills, which the company did not want to pay for, so they served hot coffee that was not possible to drink without causing burns. The "leaders" of McDonalds did not give a rats a...s about burning people even though they knew what was happening. It was about saving the price of a cup of coffee...

At the time of the lady's lawsuit I went to a McD's for breakfast and ordered coffee. The coffee was so hot it burned my lips and tongue. There was no way anyone could drink the coffee and not get burned. I had never been served coffee that was scalding before but McDonalds sure did.

After I got burned, I went and asked for a cup of ICE. The McD employee did not blink an eye as to why I needed ice for breakfast. She knew why. Even after dumping ice into the coffee it still was too hot to drink and I did not finish the coffee until I was well down the road.

Mission accomplished McDonald's. I did not ask for a free fill.

I did not step into a McDs for years after that incident and I seldom visit now. Burn me once.....

Later,
Dan

 

[bfloyd4445]

I'd assign blame to her too, but wouldn't hold McDonald's blameless. Every expert consulted showed the temperatures too hot and there were regular burns. There are limits and they're capable of knowing and limiting. Combined with a styrofoam cup, just worse. Yes, companies should have to pay for trying to reach customer demands they know are unreasonable. There is such a thing as Corporate Responsibility.

The Judge essentially assigned her 80% of the fault.

Maybe we can sue our boat manufacturers then for damage caused by salt water that we all have to endure? There are no warning stickers and manufacturers are aware of the problem. Laws now require disclousure of know issues or if you don't be willing to pay for damages caused by the known issue.,...this is all crazyness

 

[BruceK]

Juries often get it right. There was the country town jury in a sheep stealing case, in town where everyone knows everyone, which ruled "Not guilty but he has to give back the sheep". Sent back to the jury room to reconsider their conflicted findings, they returned with "Guilty, but he can keep the sheep".
Anyway, I`d struggle to call what MacDonald's claims is coffee, is coffee. Except in McCafe, once in Switzerland, the only time I entered a Mc Cafe.

 

[hollywood8118]

3/4 of the blame was the operator.. let's not forget that tid bit.

If the outrageous jury awards keep coming they will be making boats foolproof for morons like this and the rest of us can kiss the fun in boating goodbye.
Hollywood

 

[bfloyd4445]

3/4 of the blame was the operator.. let's not forget that tid bit.

If the outrageous jury awards keep coming they will be making boats foolproof for morons like this and the rest of us can kiss the fun in boating goodbye.
Hollywood

chuckle....will there will never be a moron proof anything. Would be nice to remove them all from Washington

 

[BruceK]

chuckle....will there will never be a moron proof anything. Would be nice to remove them all from Washington

Congratulations, you already did that!

 

[catalinajack]

chuckle....will there will never be a moron proof anything. Would be nice to remove them all from Washington

I saw a picture of a septic pump-out tank truck on Facebook recently on the back of which had the following words painted, "This truck filled with the promises of politicians."

 

[PPandE]

"Make something idiot-proof, and they will build a better idiot." ~unknown

 

[dannc]

I saw a picture of a septic pump-out tank truck on Facebook recently on the back of which had the following words painted, "This truck filled with the promises of politicians."

Quite a few of our local septic tank trucks have similar sayings.

The pumper we use has a really, really, really nice truck that he keeps in a heated garage and the truck is spotless.

Later,
Dan

 

[bfloyd4445]

Congratulations, you already did that!

The craziness of the world today makes the barren outback of your continent more attractive with each passing day....

 

[Seevee]

I have and i see no fault on McDonalds side. McDonalds did not place the coffee between the ladies lkegs the lady did that. The most often requested item from my customers was to make sure the coffee was piping hot. For some it can never be to hot. The fact is you can't please everyone and no company should have to pay for doing their best to try and please all. In my opinion the lady should not have recieved anythin g as it was she that held the cup between her legs instead of inside the drink holders in her car.

Absolutely agree. If the lady couldn't handle hot coffee she should have NOT ordered it.



When do we stop this nonsense, isn't anyone responsible for their own actions. Slip on their floor, choke on the burger, freeze your lips on the ice cream, crash in the drive thru .... and on and on.



McD is NOT responsible.

 

[bfloyd4445]

Absolutely agree. If the lady couldn't handle hot coffee she should have NOT ordered it.



When do we stop this nonsense, isn't anyone responsible for their own actions. Slip on their floor, choke on the burger, freeze your lips on the ice cream, crash in the drive thru .... and on and on.



McD is NOT responsible.

Trouble is with the me generation everything is someone elses fault.

 

[Benthic2]

Another example is the families of the Sandy Hook school shooting victims are suing the maker of the gun used. That was a horrific tragedy, (and I don't want to turn the thread into a gun control debate), but the gun functioned exactly as it was intended. I think its an abuse of the legal system to sue a company who's product was not defective. As much as I feel for those families I really hope their suit is not successful.

 

[bfloyd4445]

Another example is the families of the Sandy Hook school shooting victims are suing the maker of the gun used. That was a horrific tragedy, (and I don't want to turn the thread into a gun control debate), but the gun functioned exactly as it was intended. I think its an abuse of the legal system to sue a company who's product was not defective. As much as I feel for those families I really hope their suit is not successful.

That is an example of what i was talking about.......

 

[FF]

COFFEE , in any eatery look at the coffee machine.
The water that passes thru the grounds is usually 160F or so .

This is to make the brew less bitter
AS a pot is made it is placed on a heating coil to being the temperature up to what the customers expect.

Remember some will dump sugar and milk into their cup, which will lower the temperature .

Hot coffee pleases more folks than warm .

The better question is if someone is unskilled enough to be befuddled with a cup of hot coffee ,
should they be allowed to operate a 2 ton vehicle on public roads?

 

[ctjstr]

Another example is the families of the Sandy Hook school shooting victims are suing the maker of the gun used. That was a horrific tragedy, (and I don't want to turn the thread into a gun control debate), but the gun functioned exactly as it was intended. I think its an abuse of the legal system to sue a company who's product was not defective. As much as I feel for those families I really hope their suit is not successful.

their claim has nothing to do with the rifle being defective. The issue is how it was marketed and to whom it was sold. (one of their ads suggested that purchasing one of their rifles would allow you to "consider your manhood restored." Completely different than claiming a defect.

Product liability cases are far more difficult and expensive to prove than is being implied in most of the posts here. Its akin to suggesting that medical malpractice cases are simple or easy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Folks can make their own choice about whether that is good or bad, but for sure, its not "simple".

 

[Benthic2]

.....their claim has nothing to do with the rifle being defective. The issue is how it was marketed and to whom it was sold. ...

Thanks for a more detailed explanation but it still seems like a open and shut case to me that never should have been allowed to proceed for 2 main reasons.

1. The shooter killed the gun owner and stoler her guns. The guns were not sold to him at all. That should be the end of it right there.

2. It's marketing....puffery..and everyone knows that. Can I sue Budweiser because when I ordered a Bud I didn't end up with the Budweiser Bikini Babes ? ( ...although after too many I might end up with something closer to a Clydesdale....) Can I sue Nike if I buy a pair of Air Jordans and can't dunk a basketball or make it to the NBA, or Ford if I don't get 58 miles per gallon ??? Of course not.....that's what marketing is all about and any reasonable person knows that.

This is a case of: a horrible tragedy, overwhelming public sentiment and very deep pockets. If you want to assign blame for this there are 25 other entities that are more responsible than Remmington and Glock, but none with deeper pockets.

I am sure you are correct in saying that corporate liability is not simple, but that's the problem here. Any system that says a boat operator is 75% at fault but still awards $200 million dollars from the manufacturer is seriously flawed. If 99.99% of the products work the way they are intended, and your product is the same as all the others, the blame is not the manufacturers, whether the product is a skiboat, a hot coffee, or a gas can.

The country's largest maker of gas cans filed for bankruptcy because their liability insurance got too expensive. Why ? Because people were pouring gasoline on open fires. The danger there is operator error and there is even a label on the cans that says don't do that. Common sense says don't do that. But people did, and some lawyers heard about it, and thought "Ka-Ching".

I think the individual needs protection from unscrupulous companies and when fault is found punishment is warranted. ( Ford Pinto/Explorer, Phillip Morris, JNJ(talc)) I do not subscribe to the "What's good for General Motors is good for America" philosophy but things have gotten out of hand and I think a correction is needed.

 

[BandB]

I do not subscribe to the "What's good for General Motors is good for America" philosophy but things have gotten out of hand and I think a correction is needed.

I don't think any of us can really say what was appropriate in this case as we weren't there for the testimony.

However, I do agree with you on correction on liability and especially punitive amounts. Some states have tried on certain things. For instance some have tried to put limits on doctor's liability. However, there's one huge missing dollar amount that we're hesitant to place. What is the value of a life? Until we're willing to place and limit such a value it remains infinite. Should it be expected earning ability or something determined by age? Then punitive damages. Should they be limited to a multiple of actual damages and, if so, what multiple?

The family is never going to collect more than a small percentage of the award but going to be a lot of time, effort, and legal fees reaching that final number. It all results in less money to the family.

Unfortunately, just in the US, you have fifty states with different laws, all needing to be changed. They all involve a critical judgement though that people are disinclined to make and that is to legally limit the value of a life or of a lifetime of pain and suffering.

 

[Benthic2]

There's a very interesting podcast on that done by one of the guys behind the book series "Freakonomics: A rogue economist looks at the hidden side of everything"

It's a great podcast that I'd highly recommend as well as the books...but this particular episode deals with the value of a life and part of it is an interview with the lawyer who had to answer that very question for the 9/11 victim's families.

You an listen or read the transcrip here:

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/kenneth-feinberg/

 

[BandB]

There's a very interesting podcast on that done by one of the guys behind the book series "Freakonomics: A rogue economist looks at the hidden side of everything"

It's a great podcast that I'd highly recommend as well as the books...but this particular episode deals with the value of a life and part of it is an interview with the lawyer who had to answer that very question for the 9/11 victim's families.

You an listen or read the transcrip here:

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/kenneth-feinberg/

We both read it. Very good. Very moving. Tears on the woman who needed the check within 30 days because she was dying. Not good bedtime reading but it does point out the challenge. Sadly, it works better in events like that with a known fund and not using insurers and lawyers.

There were two parts so much true in situations like this thread. First was that a jury will give more than what was offered and often what is asked for. Second was after you value the loss income, then the emotional side's role in determining what to pay. You're going to consider your lost loved one of value beyond true reason. Money won't replace them or make it all right. However, money is what we deal with.

 

[Benthic2]

It was interesting to consider is a bus boy worth more than a banker...while I know the lost earnings are greater the concept is uncomfortable for me. I find the conflict between the emotional and the rational very thought provoking. Not all of their podcasts are so heavy, but they are always interesting.

 

[BandB]

It was interesting to consider is a bus boy worth more than a banker...while I know the lost earnings are greater the concept is uncomfortable for me. I find the conflict between the emotional and the rational very thought provoking. Not all of their podcasts are so heavy, but they are always interesting.

And that's what the jury was faced with, the value of a life. Then the financial punishment of those they thought contributed. Jury ignores all calculations. Ultimately, jury decisions get cast aside and others figure it out. Jury wasn't thinking of the difference between $10 million and $200 million. I doubt any jury member could even understand that difference in what it would mean to the family, but they wanted to get the attention of the builder so picked a number they thought would do so. I'm sure it worked for that purpose. Think about it, would a reasonable amount have even phased the builder? Would an amount 100% covered by insurance have done so? It's a bit like "ok, I've got your attention, now lets work this out." I can assure you while one team of people was then working to resolve the litigation, there was another team within the builder then talking about their responsibility and what to do to improve safety. The jurors didn't think the plaintiff would ever see $200 million, but they did think they'd get the attention of the defendant. Was that their job? Not as assigned but jurors often go beyond the assigned job and then courts sometimes correct. Jurors do a lot of things outside the published law. Think of jury nullification. But all these things get our attention. Had the jury just awarded a few million we wouldn't be talking about this on TF and we wouldn't be discussing how to prevent in the future.