patrick.net

PCGyver says

errc says

They already sucked

Which airline doesn't suck? Eastern, Pan-Am, Braniff ...

Which domestic carrier doesn't suck? None. A lot of the foreign flag carriers are very good.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

It's telling that McDonalds was the Outlier, I guess it could be argued it was for their customers, but everybody else was serving at 140.

Just as UA is now engaging in a dirty public relations campaign against the paying passenger who was injured, so too McD's did the same against the customer who got 3rd degree burns from coffee hotter than any other fast food chain, hotter than any consumer kitchen brewer could possibly make, and served in a cheap, flimsy cup that the company knew had scalded hundreds of other customers. The McD's plaintiff had retired and wanted to buy a small house, but incurred more than $100k in medical bills. Her lawyer offered to settle for medical bills and to waive his own fee if the company would simply cover the medical bills, but McD's refused, and then lied in court. If some customers want a cup that can keep coffee hot for 20 minutes, they can bring a Thermos or similar container, or McD's could sell those and charge extra for them. Instead, McD's chose to scald customers with possibly the world's hottest coffee, sold to customers sitting in cars, and delivered in flimsy cups that could not safely contain it.

Regarding the UA passenger, he has reportedly a complicated personal history. "The Louisville Courier-Journal and other news organizations reported Monday that Dao had previously been convicted of six felonies related to his medical practice in 2004, in which he was accused of illegally prescribing painkillers to a patient in exchange for sex.

According to publicly available state licensing records reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, Dao has a history of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, for which he has received treatment. A 2011 psychological evaluation of Dao concluded that he "lacked the foundation to navigate difficult situations, both inter-personally and in a complex profession.
***
Regulators cleared Dao to return to medical practice in 2015, in which he was initially restricted to working one day a week, supervised by another doctor.”

That might explain why he needed to get to Louisville that day.

YesYNot says

People seem to be all over on this issue.

Is anyone thinking that United is not going to be paying the Doctor a significant sum for what happened, and rightfully so ? Maybe United in turn sues the security company for handling it's request incorrectly.

But I doubt anyone thinks the doctor was not mistreated.

It might be okay to drag a protester out of a public protest or out of a Trump rally, but this is different.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

They can always nuke it at their destination.

Not too many people have microwaves in the cars. And even if that were an option, I don't see why a restaurant is guilty of negligence is they listen to a larger group of people saying "make the damn coffee hot!" rather than a smaller group of people saying "the coffee's too damn hot!". Taken to the logical conclusion, one would fault the restaurant if they served the coffee above room temperature, if your solution is to have the customer heat up the coffee.

Now, I'd be willing to fault McDonald's if there were any regulations existing at the time that said food and beverages should be no hotter than N degrees. However, that's a conversation the public needs to have. I sincerely doubt that if Starbucks or Ben and Jerry served boiling tea or coffee people would fault them with neglect. Those two companies are much better liked by the public, and rightfully so, but that's irrelevant.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

There were actually many other incidents at McDs over scalding coffee prior to the lady getting burned. "They knew".

Yes, they knew that. I'm not refuting that fact. I'm refuting that simply knowing that some people burn themselves does not mean McDonald's is at fault for continuing to serve hot coffee. It is quite possible to burn yourself on a hot plate handed to you by a waiter at a fancy restaurant. That's why the waiter tells you, "Be careful, the plate is hot.". There are certainly more than zero persons who have burned themselves despite that warning. Does that make any restaurant serving food on hot plates liable?

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Most people want to drink their coffee the moment they get it or at least within a minute.. They don't want to wait 5-10 min to take sip due to the heat.

I sincerely doubt that McDonald's served very hot coffee just because they wanted to burn people. That would make no sense. The only explanation for McDonald's serving coffee at the temperatures it did was because a lot of people wanted it that way. Otherwise it would be a really bad business decision. Why would McDonald's spend money heating the coffee up more if it caused fewer people to want to buy their coffee? In any case, this point is irrelevant to whether or not the restaurant should be held liable for burns.

The main problem I have with this case is that it treats McDonald's different from all other entities (restaurants, businesses, individuals). Is GE liable if you burn yourself on a stove they built? Is Stiletto liable if you cut yourself on one of their knives? Is Remington liable if you cut yourself on one of their razors? Is Smith and Wesson liable if you are shot by one of their guns? Is Ford liable if you get killed in a car crash while not wearing your seat belt or by driving your car into a lake while wearing your seat belt? How are all these situations different from McDonald's?

Perhaps there should be a regulation on food temperature, but since there wasn't at the time of the case, I think it's unreasonable to fault anyone for not following such a regulation. And if I were at a nice little restaurant or coffee place, I'd want boiling water to brew my black tea with. I guess if I spilled it on my pants, the restaurant would be liable, so I won't even have the option of brewing tea with boiling water. The lack of trust in the customer's competency to handle hot food means none of us can ever have that option again. So there is a cost to this case.

For the record, I prefer Wawa and Dunkin Doughnuts coffee, which is served at a lower temperature. You still can burn yourself though, even if not as severely. I guess there would still be some liability to those companies if we were to be consistent. I don't think people are consistent though because they hate McDonald's, and rightfully so, but not on this particular issue.

Today's important stories....USA bombs Syria, North Korea playing with missles, Trump going to start world war 3, coffee too hot at McDonalds..

komputodo says

Today's important stories....USA bombs Syria, North Korea playing with missles, Trump going to start world war 3, coffee too hot at McDonalds..

Dr Dao isn't a victim of jackboot abuse and poor corporate profiteering practices, he's a pole smuggling DRUGGIE!

Ironman says

It's amazing what topics the Libbies obsess about... They must have too much time on their hands.

Yeah, because a multi-million dollar lawsuit payout that sets a legal precedent that applies to all businesses and possibly individuals is a completely trivial matter, as is the legal question of what constitutes liability for causing injuries. I mean, it's not like courts are important in our society, not nearly as important as petting zoos.

#rechargableBatteriesDumbass

Dan8267 says

Perhaps there should be a regulation on food temperature, but since there wasn't at the time of the case,

There was Dan, Common Law Precedence had "Beverages/Food must be served at a temperature immediately consumable upon delivery without harm" for centuries, and McD's was duly warned repeatedly by their Legal Department.

Burns had happened before. No consumer coffee machine makes coffee that hot. As it drips through the filter, it cools and it isn't boiling to start with.

@Curious2 has it right, buy a Thermos, hell McD's could sell a Thermos. You can't drink anything hotter than 140 without burning yourself.

Dan8267 says

Does that make any restaurant serving food on hot plates liable?

No, the ancient rule applies to the food and beverages itself.

I much prefer Dunkin Donuts, and you don't have to wait 5 minutes to begin drinking the coffee like you did at McD's.

I remember the same time they promoted the coffee to Seniors to get them in there to have Koffee Klatches and buy a McMuffin or two, so probably Coffee was made the wrong way and that's how the old folks like it, burnt perculator style. McD's was famous for bad coffee, and I remember saying in the early 90s, sorry, but I had to have coffee, even though it's shitty McD's.

I also remember those cups were flimsy as hell, and burning my lips and fingers on the lid.

marcus says

Well, I don't get your contention that maximizing the number of passengers on planes is about greed or increasing profits.

It's not about maximizing the number of passengers on planes. You could make that point if people who missed their flights got refunds, but they don't. It's about selling tickets and not providing the service. The airlines want to get paid twice for a seat and only put one person in it. That's gambling plain and simple.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

No, the ancient rule applies to the food and beverages itself.

Well that's just silly. What's the difference between burning yourself with food vs with a plate? Same effect.

Here's is the Attorney and Dao's Daughter speaking:
www.youtube.com/embed/IKQvSSF0gEs

Not only are they gonna sue United, but the City of Chicago. Apparently Tom Demetrio is a tough cookie who wins big cases. Admiralty Law is pretty clear United and the Cops screwed up Big League. Dao's gonna get millions upon millions.

Dan8267 says

Well that's just silly. What's the difference between burning yourself with food vs with a plate? Same effect.

Yeah, There's all kinds of weird "logic" in the Common law.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Common law

It's going to become a textbook case on how to court bad publicity even if a corporation is legally or technically "right". Hard to believe such a thing could happen in this date of social media.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

www.youtube.com/embed/IKQvSSF0gEs

Not only are they gonna sue United, but the City of Chicago. Apparently Tom Demetrio is a tough cookie who wins big cases. Admiralty Law is pretty clear United and the Cops screwed up Big League. Dao's gonna get millions upon millions.

Good. The only thing that keeps the power in line is fear of losing power and money.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apos-apos-involuntarily-bumped-flight-160757342.html

Here's what you get if you're involuntarily bumped from a flight

Under Department of Transportation rules, the compensation you're entitled to for being involuntarily bumped from a flight varies by the extent of the delay:

If the airline can make alternate arrangements that get you to your final destination within one hour of your original arrival time, no compensation is required.

Between one to two hours of your original arrival time on domestic flights, or one to four hours on international flights: 200 percent of your one-way fare, up to a maximum $675.

More than two hours later than your original arrival time on domestic flights, or more than four hours late on international flights: 400 percent of your one-way fare, up to a maximum $1,350.

If your ticket does not show a fare (for example, a frequent flyer award ticket or a ticket issued by a consolidator), your denied boarding compensation is based on the lowest cash, check or credit card payment charged for a ticket in the same class of service (e.g., coach, first class) on that flight, according to the rules.

Airlines are required to pay out that compensation in cash.

PCGyver says

So who's going to win this case. Sucks to be you Dr. Feel good, if this turns out to be true.

Irrelevant. Even if the airline is required to bump persons, they cannot assault people. They must compensate, not use violence. And the airline and airport did. The thugs who committed assault weren't even cops. They had no legal authority.

So yes, the doctor has a damn good case and a sympathetic jury may award him tens of millions. Juries don't have to act rationally, and they don't have to follow the law. Juries are immune to prosecution for voting any way regardless of their decision, the case, and the law. Juries do not even have to give reason for their decision, and they certainly don't have to be honest and forthright with those decision. They just say they are for or against the plaintiff and the amount they reward him.

Furthermore, the last thing United Airlines wants is a prolong civil trial. It would be cheaper to simply pay the victim ten million dollars. Even ignoring all the legal cost, the publicity makes this case a loss from the start for United. Even a slight shift in public perception of the airlines would cost more than a damn generous settlement.

from now on passengers will refuse to be bumped in the hope to get assaulted and win millions

Once your ass hits a seat you paid for it's yours, fuck the airlines if they had a real problem they should have handled it before they boarded.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-demetrio-aviation-lawyer-0428-biz-20170427-story.html

The United victim has the same lawyers as me. I wish they could settle my case in a month.

United victim settled for an undisclosed amount? How much would you take to be treated in such a way? I'd probably settle for $150k. This guy probably got many times more.