patrick.net

Homeboy says

What is your belief? That McDonald's made the coffee too hot because they wanted to injure people? Does that make any sense?

No, McDonald's did not want to injure anyone. However, they knew that they were going to injure people, but they chose to do nothing to prevent the injuries that the knew were going to happen.

leo707 says

Does this happen? Sure, but not as often as you might think.

Now you're just making things up. Appeal to emotion is a standard tactic for trial lawyers.

leo707 says

You are completely ignoring the other facts as to why Judge Scott referred to McDonald's conduct as, "willful, wanton, reckless and what the court finds was callous."

I am not ignoring anything. If anyone is ignoring things, it is YOU. You completely ignore the fact that the risk was statistically insignificant, and that there is no evidence whatsoever that McDonalds' risk was any greater than any other restaurant. Whenever people cite numbers without context, e.g. "700 complaints", you KNOW they are not making a rational analysis.

Homeboy says

What do you mean it isn't true that the judge struck down the award? You just said so yourself. Are you fucking high? The judge changing the award says EVERYTHING about the jury's decision. People here are saying the JUDGE made the original award. He did not. He actually REDUCED it. He thought it was wrong. If you can't understand that, you are a fucking idiot.

I am presenting FACTS here. YOU are the one pulling things out of his ass.

Reduced and struck down are two different things.

The judge who reduced the award made it clear that while he thought the award was too large, McDonald's was indeed at fault.

leo707 says

Judge Scott referred to McDonald's conduct as, "willful, wanton, reckless and what the court finds was callous."

leo707 says

No, McDonald's did not want to injure anyone. However, they knew that they were going to injure people, but they chose to do nothing to prevent the injuries that the knew were going to happen.

If you misuse a knife, you will injure yourself. Does a knife company have a duty to make their knives incapable of cutting human flesh? They "know" that it can happen. Does that automatically make them liable?

Homeboy says

I am not ignoring anything.

So, you are not ignoring the fact that Judge Scott called McDonald's conduct, "willful, wanton, reckless and what the court finds was callous?"

It seems pretty clear to me that you are ignoring anything that would lead one to the conclusion that McDonald's was acting willful, wanton, reckless and callous.

leo707 says

Reduced and struck down are two different things.

Semantics. He struck it down and replaced it with a lesser award. The parties ended up settling for an undisclosed amount. This is documented in many articles. I suggest you educate yourself.

leo707 says

It seems pretty clear to me that you are ignoring anything that would lead one to the conclusion that McDonald's was acting willful, wanton, reckless and callous.

Not ignoring - disagreeing. There is a difference. I think the judge was swayed by emotion just as the jury was. But not to the same degree.

YOU are the one who ignores facts.

I think the crux of the problem here is the assumption by several of you that if a company "knows" their product CAN injure a consumer, that they have a duty to discontinue making that product in its current form. This is not at all true. I can scarcely think of a product that WOULDN'T injure you under the right circumstances.

Homeboy says

I think the crux of the problem here is the assumption by several of you that if a company "knows" their product CAN injure a consumer, that they have a duty to discontinue making that product in its current form. This is not at all true.

No, but if a company acts in a willful, wanton, reckless and callous manor that ends up in the injury of a person then the company should be held liable. This is true.

Homeboy says

leo707 says

Reduced and struck down are two different things.

Semantics. He struck it down and replaced it with a lesser award. The parties ended up settling for an undisclosed amount. This is documented in many articles. I suggest you educate yourself.

No, in every court document is will never say "struck down and replaced" it will say "reduced." They are two different things.

Also, the compensatory award of $160k was never "struck down" or "reduced."

Homeboy says

leo707 says

It seems pretty clear to me that you are ignoring anything that would lead one to the conclusion that McDonald's was acting willful, wanton, reckless and callous.

Not ignoring - disagreeing. There is a difference.

YOU are the one who ignores facts.

Hmmm...when you imply that the Judge disagreed with the judgement against McDonald's it seems to me like you are ignoring the Judge's actual position on the matter.

leo707 says

Hmmm...when you imply that the Judge disagreed with the judgement against McDonald's it seems to me like you are ignoring the Judge's actual position on the matter.

Instead of repeated ad hominem, why don't you try making an actual argument? Too difficult?

It seems you admit that simply "knowing" there is a remote possibility that your product could cause an injury is not sufficient to establish liability. So now the ball is in your court. You need to provide further arguments.

Homeboy says

leo707 says

No, but if a company acts in a willful, wanton, reckless and callous manor that ends up in the injury of a person then the company should be held liable. This is true.

I agree. However, I disagree that McDonald's did so in this case. The only argument I have heard from any of you is that McDonald's "knew" their coffee could burn people. That is not a sufficient argument to establish negligence.

Judge Scott, and the jury certainly thought there was sufficient evidenced. While we were not privy to all the evidence given in court. From the trial summaries I have read I tend to agree that McDonald's is 80% at fault for the burns. However, had I been on the jury I may have thought differently.

Homeboy says

If you want to make a further argument, please do so. You would be the first.

Nah, I doubt that even if I could replay the entire week of court argument for you that it would change your mind. We can agree to disagree on this.

Homeboy says

leo707 says

Hmmm...when you imply that the Judge disagreed with the judgement against McDonald's it seems to me like you are ignoring the Judge's actual position on the matter.

Instead of repeated ad hominem, why don't you try making an actual argument? Too difficult?

Where is the ad hominem in my comment? Were you not implying that Judge Scott disagreed that McDonald's was at fault?

marcus says

Their coffee is hot enough to burn your mouth now. But I didn't say I thought it was good (because I don't). I also didn't call you a liar. I said that saying their coffee is lukewarm is a lie.

To call me a liar because you disagree on the exact meaning of the vague term "lukewarm" is the height of assholishness. You should consider the ramifications before you accuse someone of lying.

marcus says

Way too much emotion.

I think this is something you say simply when you are on the other "side" of the argument from someone. I am not being emotional at all. I am being logical and analytical. I am the only one here eschewing emotion in my analysis of this case, i.e. "Big corporation bad; sweet old lady good".

marcus says

Fact is I often agree with you, and you have some good points here.

But you're the one that's an obnoxious asshole, and you really should work on that.

I'm not really here to make friends; there are other "club" type forums for that. I am here to dispel ignorance, and there is a LOT of that. I think you are hardly one to talk. I do agree with your point of view more often than not, but that is only because you are a diehard liberal who marches in lockstep with whatever you believe is a "liberal" point of view. I am also a liberal, but tend to have some issues where I think outside the established patterns of being in one "camp" or the other. You, on the other hand, are extremely predictable. Even when I agree with you, I tend to dislike your combative and often condescending style, and I notice that you frequently seem to be at odds with other forum members. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

leo707 says

Where is the ad hominem in my comment? Were you not implying that Judge Scott disagreed that McDonald's was at fault?

You keep repeating that I "ignore" facts, rather than making your own arguments. Repeatedly attacking me does not further your point of view. Is that hard for you to understand?

leo707 says

Judge Scott, and the jury certainly thought there was sufficient evidenced. While we were not privy to all the evidence given in court. From the trial summaries I have read I tend to agree that McDonald's is 80% at fault for the burns. However, had I been on the jury I may have thought differently

So your entire argument, in a nutshell is "She won the case, therefore McDonald's is wrong".

O.K., I thought we might be discussing whether we agree or disagree with the decision. I kind of thought that was the whole point here. Apparently, I overestimated everyone.

leo707 says

Homeboy says

If you want to make a further argument, please do so. You would be the first.

Nah, I doubt that even if I could replay the entire week of court argument for you that it would change your mind. We can agree to disagree on this

Ah, more ad hominem, but complete inability to contribute anything of substance. Yep, I definitely overestimated you. I'll take that as capitulation on your part.

Homeboy says

I am not being emotional at all. I am being logical and analytical. I am the only one here eschewing emotion in my analysis of this case.

?

You should probably take a deep breath and self-reflect here.

Homeboy says

I am here to dispel ignorance, and there is a LOT of that.

You are in for a world of disappointment if this is your reason for being here, or anywhere on the intranet.

Everyone knows that if a court decision was made, it HAS to be correct (cough, cough) O.J. Simpson (cough, cough) Rodney King....

leo707 says

Homeboy says

I am not being emotional at all. I am being logical and analytical. I am the only one here eschewing emotion in my analysis of this case.

?

You should probably take a deep breath and self-reflect here.

Homeboy says

I am here to dispel ignorance, and there is a LOT of that.

You are in for a world of disappointment if this is your reason for being here, or anywhere on the intranet.

Ooh, and the lee707 ad hominem fest continues. You must think I have an awfully thin skin if you think you're gonna get to me with those pathetic schoolyard taunts. How sad for you.

Homeboy says

Ah, more ad hominem

Hmmm...I am not quite sure that you understand what "ad hominem" is.

leo707 says

Hmmm...I am not quite sure that you understand what "ad hominem" is.

It's the only thing you are capable of.

Well I have to go because I have a life. Keep those insults coming, guys. I know you don't have anything else to contribute.

Homeboy says

Ooh, and the lee707 ad hominem fest continues. You must think I have an awfully thin skin if you think you're gonna get to me with those pathetic schoolyard taunts.

I am sorry that you are feeling attacked; perhaps you do have a thin skin. I made the comment about self-reflection because clearly you are not aware of how emotional your posts read.

We covered this in my Econ and Law class, I believed the MSM version. The Prof - who was quite the Rational market theorist/neoliberal type - gave us the real background.

If I remember right, McDonald's basically paid little above her legal & medical costs when all was said and done, although the initial judgement was higher.

I also remember that famous Wyoming Lawyer mentioning that Juries are actually harder on the poor than the rich, but even when they give a remotely reasonable judgement, it usually gets eviserated on appeal.

Homeboy--

Just out of curiosity--are you stating:

1. That the judge/jury misapplied the law
2. That the law is incorrect

From the hospital cafeteria where grandma stayed.

The hospital must be trying to drum up business with these gross negligence corporate greed cups.

tatupu70 says

Just out of curiosity--are you stating:

1. That the judge/jury misapplied the law

2. That the law is incorrect

If I'm not mistaken he's just having a temper tantrum because people are pointing out how wrong he is.

Facts:

1) Coffee tastes best if it is not brewed for too long or at too hot a temperature. The negates his reasoning that supposedly McDonald was trying to serve coffee at the extremely scalding hot temperature that makes it taste best.
2) The temperature that Mcds sells their coffee now is not lukewarm by anyones definition, and is at least as hot if not hotter than the temp that starbucks and all the other high end coffee houses sell their drip coffee. But McDs no longer uses styrafoam, that's flimsy or the type of lids they did before. The current cups probably cost more and also probably don't keep the coffee hot as long. But that's an adjustment they were pretty much forced to make.

These two facts alone negate much of what seems to have been causing Homeboy's tantrum.

The true capitalist society would quarter and dismember her for even trying to sue and then thrown her "leftovers" into a coal mine...

Vaticanus says

From the hospital cafeteria where grandma stayed.

The hospital must be trying to drum up business with these gross negligence corporate greed cups.

How did they get the cup to stick to the wall like that?

Homeboy says

marcus says

Way too much emotion.

I think this is something you say simply when you are on the other "side" of the argument from someone.

No, it's the way I react when someone reacts to my stating a fact, that McDs does not serve their coffee lukewarm in this way...

And to call someone a liar just because you can't tell the difference between a good cup of coffee and a bad one is incredibly obnoxious

then after I clarify......

Homeboy says

To call me a liar because you disagree on the exact meaning of the vague term "lukewarm" is the height of assholishness. You should consider the ramifications before you accuse someone of lying.

I get it, when you lie, you can't handle being called on it. MAybe you wouldn't blow a gasket if I had just said that what you said was not true.

HAve you considered getting your medication adjusted ?

Homeboy says

I am not being emotional at all.

Bullshit. You are constantly 90% emotion, and not just in this thread.

You say I'm condescending. Yes with trolls like Fort Wayne, or Thommywong, and also sometimes with the Captain or even Bap who's a good ole boy, but trolls the liberals sometimes, and likes to state his point of view almost as a satire of himself. And I guess occasionally with Mish.

Homeboy says

I think outside the established patterns of being in one "camp" or the other. You, on the other hand, are extremely predictable.

No more predictable than you. When it comes to issues that I part company with some liberals on, such as some forms of affirmative action quotas for medical schools or law schools, I feel no desire show my cards on this one, because the trend is going the way that it should anyway. And also because it's an opinion that I share with racists.

I also have defended religion on several occasions which is out of step with the typical liberal.

You have such an extreme ego, that I tend to think that you might be the alter ego of another super arrogant poster to this forum that I won't name at this time. It's weird the way anonymity brings out such extreme displays of some peoples inner douche bag.

CDon says

The distinction here in the McDonalds case is (a) they knew there was a problem and (b) did not take reasonable/substantial efforts to fix it. Therefore, (c) punitive damages were allowed to be considered.

This makes sense.

Wouldn't it be cool if we lived in a world in which Homeboy could just admit he was wrong ?

CDon says

The distinction here in the McDonalds case is (a) they knew there was a problem and (b) did not take reasonable/substantial efforts to fix it. Therefore, (c) punitive damages were allowed to be considered.

But it WASN'T a problem. That's what I keep saying. This is from the attorney who argued the case:

http://www.mgrlaw.net/mcdonalds.htm

"McDonald's Corp. has known about this unacceptable risk for more than 10 years, and it was brought to its attention through other lawsuits, repeatedly, to no avail. (More than 700 reported claims from 1982-1992). McDonald's produced a witness who said this number of burned people was statistically "trivial"."

Now this is rather funny. He recounts the argument made by McDonalds' attorney as though it were absurd. But what is absurd about it? It is in fact an eminently logical argument. Let's do some math: one billion cups of coffee served each year, and 700 claims of burns in 10 years (also note that it doesn't say 700 claims of serious burns, so I assume he's including people who were only mildly burned). O.K., so that's 10 billion cups of coffee, divided by 700 equals 0.0000007. So you have a 0.00007% chance of being burned by a cup of McDonald's coffee. Can you even comprehend how small a number that is? How insignificant that risk is? If 10% of the people who buy McDonald's coffee are burned, that's a huge problem. If 0.00007% of people who buy McDonald's coffee are burned - not so much. You actually have a greater chance of dying in your bathtub than you have of getting burned by McDonald's coffee, yet nobody is clamoring to outlaw bathtubs. Obviously the math went over the head of the judge and the jury, but c'mon - you seem like a reasonably intelligent person. Please tell me you understand what I'm saying.

I can't even find the number of lawsuits that have been filed against McDonald's, but one source suggested literally millions of lawsuits. At any rate, I'm sure the number is huge. I'm reasonably certain that 700 would be only a drop in the bucket. Everyone, yourself included, is failing to understand the immense size of that corporation.

marcus says

CDon says

The distinction here in the McDonalds case is (a) they knew there was a problem and (b) did not take reasonable/substantial efforts to fix it. Therefore, (c) punitive damages were allowed to be considered.

This makes sense.

Only on a very superficial level. It wasn't actually a problem, and it is entirely unreasonable to expect a company to take action for something that there was only a 0.00007% chance of happening.

Wouldn't it be cool if we lived in a world in which Homeboy could just admit he was wrong ?

Wouldn't it be nice if Marcus paid attention to the FACTS I am presenting, rather than limiting himself to a very simplistic and incomplete understanding of the issues?

marcus says

Homeboy says

I am not being emotional at all.

Bullshit. You are constantly 90% emotion, and not just in this thread.

"You're emotional"

"Actually, I'm being quite logical and reasonable"

"NUH UH!!! YOU'RE BEING EMOTIONAL!!!!!!"

LOL

marcus says

No, it's the way I react when someone reacts to my stating a fact, that McDs does not serve their coffee lukewarm in this way...

Really? You're gonna stick to this nitpick over the definition of a vague term like "lukewarm"? Oh God, how pathetic.

marcus says

You have such an extreme ego, that I tend to think that you might be the alter ego of another super arrogant poster to this forum that I won't name at this time.

Oh geez - now a sock puppet accusation. Seriously, Marcus - you have hit a new low. No, I don't have any alter egos here. I guess since I pretty much annihilated you with facts and logic, that's all you have left. You really ought to give up. You're just embarrassing yourself now.

humanity says

Facts:

1) Coffee tastes best if it is not brewed for too long or at too hot a temperature.

That is not a fact. You just made that up. I already posted TWO sources that say coffee MUST be brewed at 200 degrees for best taste.

To make up nonsense with no factual basis whatsoever, then accuse people of being "emotional" when they correct you, is the oldest and silliest ploy on the internet.

CDon says

Actually, it could be insignificant and you can still find liability for punitive damages.

You could, but you would be wrong.