1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

U.S. Air passengers already hinting at litigation

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by hondo, Jan 27, 2009.

  1. Two minutes for instigating, hb, and you're back out there, grinding.
     
  2. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    She opened coffee between her legs. And, I guaran-fucking-tee you it wasn't any hotter than the Earl Grey I get from Starbucks.

    You simply think she should have won the suit.

    It's no urban myth.
     
  3. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

    Clearly, you've seen my Tiger Williams-esque hands.
     
  4. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

    Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] also known as the “McDonald's coffee case,” is a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.86 million to a woman who burned herself with hot coffee. The trial judge reduced the total award to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The case entered popular understanding as an example of frivolous litigation;[2] ABC News calls the case “the poster child of excessive lawsuits.”[3]
    Liebeck's attorneys argued that McDonald's coffee was "defective", claiming that it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other place. Moreover, McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than the $640,000 ultimately awarded.[4] Reformers defend the popular understanding of the case as materially accurate; note that the vast majority of judges to consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury; and argue that McDonald's refusal to offer more than a nuisance settlement reflects the meritless nature of the suit rather than any wrongdoing.[5][6]

    ------


    Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds (as a reference, the boiling point of water is 212 °F or 100 °C). Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false.[10])
     
  5. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    From your own link:

     
  6. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    What is more logical.....

    Coffee should be piping hot and could burn you to some extent?

    Or...

    You should pull the top off a cup of coffee while it is between your knees?
     
  7. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    There is no safety equipment you can install on a jet that will prevent birds from being sucked into the engine.

    Well, unless you strap this guy to the wings

    [​IMG]
     
  8. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    This case apparently being on the level of Plessie v Ferguson. Poor McDonald's. :'(
     
  9. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    McDonald's coffee used to be so hot it would burn your tongue, whether you opened it between your pants or not.

    No reason for it.
     
  10. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Won't work. It's rabbit season.
     
  11. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Duck season!
     
  12. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    But he's a vegetarian, right?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page