The stupidity of the American public

[Quincy]

So....

Coffee made with boiling water. Who'd have thunk? 

←

Actually the temperature that coffee is brewed at is below boiling. Depending on who you believe, it should be done at no higher than 200 degrees Fahrenheit to as low as 185.

So when you get a really hot cup, the person probably did use boiling water.

[Randy Twizzle]

[kinuta]

Almost all the department stores here have bright yellow lines painted around the edges of each step on the escalators, accompanied by a constantly repeated announcement warning us simpletons not to step out of the yellow lines

( regardless of the fact that it is impossible without inventing extra dimensional physics or wotnot ) as ' it is dangerous '.

Every morning when I have a shave I turn up the water temperature to the highest setting and a voice announces( in Japanese) that ' extremely hot water will run'. Drives me mad but I don't know how to disable the thing

Edited August 16, 2005 by kinuta

[Jazzmoose]

Here's another link dealing with the point Ray was making.

[Claude]

Jurors ultimately awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and about $2.7 million in punitive damages. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," one of the jurors told the Journal. "Their callous disregard was very upsetting," another said.

Soon after the verdict, the trial judge slashed the punitive damages by more than 80% to $480,000. Then the case settled for an undisclosed amount.

One thing I don't understand is punitive damages. It's OK to make a company pay if it did not respect it's reasonable obligations, but why should the penalty be awarded to the victim? The victim must be compensated for it's real damages, whereas penalties should go to the government budget.

[tjobbe]

the only comment I can think of is:

You have way to much Lawyers over there

Cheers, Tjobbe

[Dave James]

Punitive damages are the only reason the legal community is interested in cases like this. It's where the real money is...especially if you tie into an operation like McDonald's that has very deep pockets. Punitive awards are designed to punish the perpetrator for having the timerity to serve hot coffee without telling its customers that the coffee is hot.

Also, with regard to the argument about the temperature of the coffee, does that mean that if it had been brewed at "only" 185-200 degrees, this would never have been a problem? Who put the balm on, indeed!

Up over and out.

[Big Wheel]

Punitive damages are the only reason the legal community is interested in cases like this.  It's where the real money is...especially if you tie into an operation like McDonald's that has very deep pockets.  Punitive awards are designed to punish the perpetrator for having the timerity to serve hot coffee without telling its customers that the coffee is hot.

Also, with regard to the argument about the temperature of the coffee, does that mean that if it had been brewed at "only" 185-200 degrees, this would never have been a problem?  Who put the balm on, indeed!     

Up over and out.

←

Well, it means that there's a somewhat lower chance of getting third-degree burns.

According to members of the jury, the punitive damages were awarded not because of the circumstances of the spill, but rather because of McDonald's actions afterward. The jury felt that McDonald's had treated her like crap and blown her off when she asked for recourse. A $20,000 medical bill is pennies to a company that sells $1.3 million in coffee every day, and they wouldn't even offer her that.

Edited August 16, 2005 by Big Wheel

[Dr. Rat]

Punitive damages are the only reason the legal community is interested in cases like this.  It's where the real money is...especially if you tie into an operation like McDonald's that has very deep pockets.  Punitive awards are designed to punish the perpetrator for having the timerity to serve hot coffee without telling its customers that the coffee is hot.

Also, with regard to the argument about the temperature of the coffee, does that mean that if it had been brewed at "only" 185-200 degrees, this would never have been a problem?  Who put the balm on, indeed!     

Up over and out.

←

Well, it means that there's a somewhat lower chance of getting third-degree burns.

According to members of the jury, the punitive damages were awarded not because of the circumstances of the spill, but rather because of McDonald's actions afterward. The jury felt that McDonald's had treated her like crap and blown her off when she asked for recourse. A $20,000 medical bill is pennies to a company that sells $1.3 million in coffee every day, and they wouldn't even offer her that.

←

They don't have to pay simply becuase they have the money. They have to pay if they are at fault.

Coffee is brewed at or near 200 degrees, that's how you're supposed to make coffee. At what temperature was McD's holding this coffee?

--eric

[Big Wheel]

I'm not necessarily endorsing the reasoning of the jury, but that was their reasoning. The jury seemed to think that fault was well established, and threw in the punitive damages for what McD's did afterward--for instance, testifying that they refused to lower brewing/holding temperatures even after all these complaints had been filed. It wasn't just the lowball offer.

The coffee was being held at at least 180 degrees, I believe. Now, that may be how "coffee is supposed to be made," but most Americans still don't make coffee at this temperature, nor do they know that this is the recommended temperature for best taste. It's not unreasonable to think that a McDonald's customer expects the coffee to be roughly the same temperature as a home-brewed cup, instead of about 50 degrees hotter.

Some info on the case: link

[Dr. Rat]

I'm not necessarily endorsing the reasoning of the jury, but that was their reasoning. The jury seemed to think that fault was well established, and threw in the punitive damages for what McD's did afterward--for instance, testifying that they refused to lower brewing/holding temperatures even after all these complaints had been filed. It wasn't just the lowball offer.

The coffee was being held at at least 180 degrees, I believe. Now, that may be how "coffee is supposed to be made," but most Americans still don't make coffee at this temperature, nor do they know that this is the recommended temperature for best taste. It's not unreasonable to think that a McDonald's customer expects the coffee to be roughly the same temperature as a home-brewed cup, instead of about 50 degrees hotter.

Some info on the case: link

←

I don't see what the costumer's expectations as to temperature have to do with this case. She wasn't intentionally bathing in the coffee, she accidentally spilled it on herself through her own negligence. It just so happened that it did more damage than it would have otherwise because it was as hot as advertized rather than being tepid.

I'd be far more ready to blame McD's for serving hot product in a flimsy cup to people in moving vehicles. That seems like it could be negligence. Refusing to play down to customers expectation of mediocrity shouldn't be negligence.

Who'd have thought McD's would be holding the line against enforced mediocrity?

--eric

[Big Wheel]

I'm not necessarily endorsing the reasoning of the jury, but that was their reasoning. The jury seemed to think that fault was well established, and threw in the punitive damages for what McD's did afterward--for instance, testifying that they refused to lower brewing/holding temperatures even after all these complaints had been filed. It wasn't just the lowball offer.

The coffee was being held at at least 180 degrees, I believe. Now, that may be how "coffee is supposed to be made," but most Americans still don't make coffee at this temperature, nor do they know that this is the recommended temperature for best taste. It's not unreasonable to think that a McDonald's customer expects the coffee to be roughly the same temperature as a home-brewed cup, instead of about 50 degrees hotter.

Some info on the case: link

←

I don't see what the costumer's expectations as to temperature have to do with this case. She wasn't intentionally bathing in the coffee, she accidentally spilled it on herself through her own negligence. It just so happened that it did more damage than it would have otherwise because it was as hot as advertized rather than being tepid.

I'd be far more ready to blame McD's for serving hot product in a flimsy cup to people in moving vehicles. That seems like it could be negligence. Refusing to play down to customers expectation of mediocrity shouldn't be negligence.

Who'd have thought McD's would be holding the line against enforced mediocrity?

--eric

←

Nobody who died in a Ford Pinto explosion intentionally crashed their car. Some of them were involved in accidents that were entirely their fault, they just did more damage than they would have otherwise. Should Ford have been entirely absolved of responsibility in these cases?

I think expectations matter because they play an important role in how the consumer assesses risk, regardless of how they are using the product. No other car I've driven has been known to explode when rear-ended--why should I exercise particular caution when driving a Pinto, if Ford didn't inform me of the risk?

(And how hot was the coffee advertised? I don't recall any ads saying "DELICIOUS MCDONALD'S 185 DEGREE COFFEE." Ad copy like "piping hot" is open to interpretation--if you consider the coffee you make in your house piping hot, why should it occur to you that McDonald's definition is different?)

Edited August 16, 2005 by Big Wheel

[BERIGAN]

Coffee does NOT have to be that hot...when I would cover occasionally in the cafe at the bookstores I have worked at in the past, the Lattes and stuff would only be heated(steamed) up to around 160-170...still too hot to really drink right away....I think if anyone here dropped a cup of coffee on their genitals and burned the shit out of their penis, they would think there was a difference between "hot" and scalding.

Edited August 16, 2005 by BERIGAN

[Michael Fitzgerald]

I got a chuckle from the use of the phrase "their penis" - surely "his penis" is the right phrase, by definition, for "anyone" - and I'm not just talking about the singular possessive of "mankind"......

In the end, what has McDonald's done about this? Put a written notice on the cup? Is it only in English? And what about the illiterate population? Are they now not allowed to eat at McDonald's? Shoot, for every software installation I'm required to check an "I Agree" box - I think every McDonald's coffee-drinker needs to sign a waiver before taking delivery of said very hot cup.

Mike

[Jazzmoose]

Personally, I feel that if a company is selling cups of coffee at a drive through window, one should have a reasonable expectation that the container that holds the coffee up to the task at hand...

[RDK]

Conveniently enough, I just read this today...

Legal Urban Legends Hold Sway

Tall tales of outrageous jury awards have helped bolster business-led campaigns to overhaul the civil justice system.

By Myron Levin, Times Staff Writer

Merv Grazinski set his Winnebago on cruise control, slid away from the wheel and went back to fix a cup of coffee.

You can guess what happened next: The rudderless, driverless Winnebago crashed.

Grazinski blamed the manufacturer for not warning against such a maneuver in the owner's manual. He sued and won $1.75 million.

His jackpot would seem to erase any doubt that the legal system has lost its mind. Indeed, the Grazinski case has been cited often as evidence of the need to limit lawsuits and jury awards.

There's just one problem: The story is a complete fabrication.

It is one of the more comical tales in an anthology of legal urban legends that have circulated widely on the Internet, regaling millions with examples of cluelessness and greed being richly rewarded by the courts. These fables have also been widely disseminated by columnists and pundits who, in their haste to expose the gullibility of juries, did not verify the stories and were taken in themselves.

Although the origins of the tales are unknown, some observers, including George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, say their wide acceptance has helped to rally public opinion behind business-led campaigns to overhaul the civil justice system by restricting some types of lawsuits and capping damage awards.

"I am astonished how successful these urban legends have been in influencing policy," Turley said. "The people that created these stories did so with remarkable skill."

The tales are making the rounds at a time when business lobbyists and conservative politicians seem to have gained the upper hand in their drive to rein in lawsuits — a campaign that they call tort reform but that trial lawyers and consumer groups say is an assault on the legal rights of ordinary people.

According to the American Tort Reform Assn. — which is backed by insurance, drug, auto and other major industries — 49 states have enacted at least one measure on the group's wish list over the last two decades, including limits on punitive damages and caps on awards for pain and suffering in medical malpractice claims.

In February, President Bush signed a federal law that will make it harder to bring class-action suits in state courts.

And some polls suggest that there is public support for further change.

For example, a survey conducted for the American Tort Reform Assn. in 2003 found that by a ratio of 2 to 1, respondents believed that lawsuits were harming the economy and stifling job creation. In a survey released in June by Common Good, a conservative legal reform group, 83% of respondents said it was too easy to file invalid lawsuits, and 55% agreed with the statement that "many people use the justice system almost like a lottery — they start lawsuits to see if they can win millions."

Such fears, fanned by anecdotes like the Grazinski tale, have no empirical basis, said Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice and Democracy, a consumer group that opposes the agenda of the business groups. "The data tends not to support the allegation that there is an out-of-control crisis with the legal system," she said.

She and others point to surveys by the National Center for State Courts and the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics showing an apparent decline in personal injury suits and in the size of jury awards to successful plaintiffs.

But advocates of reining in lawsuits say there is no need to invent fictitious examples of legal abuse. "All false stories should be exposed," said Victor Schwartz, general counsel of the tort reform association. But "you don't have to go to the surreal" to find dubious verdicts, he added.

The group's website includes a link to what it says are real but "Looney Lawsuits," including a recent case in which a Portland, Ore., jury awarded $1.6 million to a woman who was seriously disfigured in a botched liposuction surgery. The jury imposed the judgment on the publisher of a phone directory after concluding that the company had knowingly allowed a dermatologist to falsely advertise himself as a board certified plastic surgeon.

Whether it's the rich detail of the phony yarns that resonates or the fact that people are prepared to think the worst of the legal system, the bogus tales have attracted crowds of believers.

The first time he heard of the Grazinski case, Cornell University law professor Theodore Eisenberg was a guest on a Rochester, N.Y., radio talk show. Annoyed by Eisenberg's defense of the justice system, a caller flung the Winnebago windfall in his face.

"You're saying the system's not crazy," Eisenberg recalled the man saying, "but what about this case?"

Besides the Grazinski saga, there's the mythical case of Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pa., who got into an argument with her boyfriend in a restaurant, threw a drink at him and then broke her tailbone when she slipped on the wet spot on the floor. Naturally, Carson sued — and won $113,500.

Then there's Kara Walton, a Delaware woman so eager to avoid a $3.50 cover charge that she tried sneaking into a nightclub through a bathroom window but fell and lost a couple of teeth. Walton sued and won $12,000 plus payment of dental bills.

A database search shows the Grazinski, Carson and Walton tales have been cited as true by a wide range of media outlets, including CNN; U.S. News & World Report; the American Spectator; the Oakland Tribune; the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram; the Deseret News of Salt Lake City; the Akron Beacon-Journal; the Greensboro, N.C., News & Record; and the Augusta, Ga., Chronicle.

Some later issued corrections. Chuck Thomas, a columnist for the Ventura County Star, offered a mea culpa in a follow-up column, anointing himself winner of the "Chucklehead Award."

Wide acceptance of the myths has been an eye-opener for Sheila Davis, public relations manager for Winnebago Industries in Forest City, Iowa. Davis says she has repeatedly had to explain that, no, there was no Grazinski lawsuit, and, no, the company did not have to change the owner's manual to avoid a swarm of copycat claims.

"Unfortunately, we do have some people who write about it and don't call us," Davis said.

The cases are often listed together on Internet postings as winners of the "Stella Awards," — supposedly a dubious achievement list of the nation's most outrageous and ridiculous lawsuits. Although entirely fictitious, the Stellas take their name from the real-life case of 79-year-old Stella Liebeck, whose hot-coffee case against McDonald's became the poster child for frivolous claims.

According to popular accounts of the lawsuit, Liebeck coaxed nearly $3 million from an Albuquerque jury in 1994 after being scalded by McDonald's coffee she spilled on herself while riding in a car. These are the story's best-known elements, but filling in the missing facts puts the case in a different light.

Trial testimony showed that at 180 to 190 degrees, McDonald's coffee was much hotter than that served by other restaurants or by people in their homes. The fast-food chain had received at least 700 complaints about hot coffee in the previous decade and had paid more than half a million dollars in settlements, according to trial testimony cited by the Wall Street Journal.

Liebeck's injuries were hardly minor. She suffered third-degree burns on her thighs and groin area, was hospitalized for a week and had to undergo painful skin grafts. Before filing a lawsuit, she wrote McDonald's requesting that it lower the temperature of its coffee and cover her uninsured medical bills and incidental costs of about $20,000. McDonald's offered $800.

Later, as the case neared trial, a mediator recommended that McDonald's pay a settlement of $225,000. The company refused.

Jurors ultimately awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and about $2.7 million in punitive damages. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," one of the jurors told the Journal. "Their callous disregard was very upsetting," another said.

Soon after the verdict, the trial judge slashed the punitive damages by more than 80% to $480,000. Then the case settled for an undisclosed amount.

"The irony about the McDonald's case is that it actually, in my view, was a meaningful and worthy lawsuit," George Washington University's Turley said. Yet advocates and pundits have "made it synonymous with court abuse."

Unlike the popular version of the McDonald's case, the Stella Awards push mythmaking past mere exaggeration.

Barbara Mikkelson of Agoura Hills, who with her husband, David, operates a website dedicated to debunking urban legends (www.snopes.com), says the Stellas have sometimes appeared with an e-mail chain letter in which the mythical law firm of Hogelman, Hogelman & Thomas exhorts people to "assist our law offices in a tort reform program" by publicizing "insane jury awards." Mikkelson noted that with the way information travels on the Internet, it would be impossible to determine the original authors.

Randy Cassingham, a Colorado resident who also debunks the Stellas on his website http://www.stellaawards.com , says he is angry about the tales — not only because they are false but also because they divert attention from what he believe are real abuses in the legal system.

According to Cassingham, the Stellas allow trial lawyers to say, "See, there is no problem with frivolous lawsuits. Our opponents have to make up cases to make a point."

Although business groups are obvious beneficiaries of the fables, Schwartz of the tort reform association said his group had had nothing to do with them and was careful to verify all of its claims. "We try to be absolutely accurate in anything we're presenting," including examples of outrageous suits, Schwartz said.

In fact, Schwartz said, over-the-top self-promotion by some trial lawyers have made the best case for the need for change. "Their ads making things seem as if it's just free money" have done "more to convince the American public that we have jackpot justice than anything put out by any tort reform organization — including the 'looney lawsuits' stories," he said.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tort...1,1359149.story

[Free For All]

That motor home story was included in this set of "urban legend" type stories recently sent to me-

ONE- Recently, when I went to McDonald's I saw on the menu that you could have an order of 6, 9 or 12 Chicken McNuggets I asked for a half dozen nuggets. "We don't have half dozen nuggets," said the teenager at the counter. "You don't?" I replied. "We only have six, nine, or twelve," was the reply. "So I can't order a half dozen nuggets, but I can order six?" "That's right." So I shook my head and ordered six McNuggets.

TWO- I was checking out at the local Wal-Mart with just a few items and the lady behind me put her things on the belt close to mine. I picked up one of those "dividers" that they keep by the cash register and placed it between our things so they wouldn't get mixed. After the girl had scanned all of my items, she picked up the "divider", looking it all over for the bar code so she could scan it. Not finding the bar code she said to me, "Do you know how much this is?" I said to her "I've changed my mind, I don't think I'll buy that today." She said "OK," and I paid her for the things and left. She had no clue to what had just happened.

THREE- A lady at work was seen putting a credit card into her floppy drive and pulling it out very quickly. When I inquired as to what she was doing, she said she was shopping on the Internet and they kept asking for a credit card number, so she was using the ATM "thingy."

FOUR- I recently saw a distraught young lady weeping beside her car. "Do you need some help?" I asked. She replied, "I knew I should have replaced the battery to this remote door unlocker. Now I can't get into my car. Do you think they (pointing to a distant convenience store) would have a battery to fit this?" "Hmmm, I dunno. Do you have an alarm, too?" I asked. "No, just this remote thingy," she answered, handing it and the car keys to me . As I took the key and manually unlocked the door, I replied, "Why don't you drive over there and check about the batteries. It's a long walk."

FIVE- Several years ago, we had an Intern who was none too swift. One day she was typing and turned to a secretary and said, "I'm almost out of typing paper. What do I do?" "Just use copier machine paper," the secretary told her. With that, the intern took her last remaining blank piece of paper, put it on the photocopier and proceeded to make five "blank" copies.

SIX- I was in a car dealership a while ago, when a large motor home was towed into the garage. The front of the vehicle was in dire need of repair and the whole thing generally looked like an extra in "Twister." I asked the manager what had happened. He told me that the driver had set the "cruise control" and then went in the back to make a sandwich.

SEVEN- My neighbor works in the operations department in the central office of a large bank. Employees in the field call him when they have problems with their computers. One night he got a call from a woman in one of the branch banks who had this question: "I've got smoke coming from the back of my terminal. Do you guys have a fire downtown?"

EIGHT- Police in Radnor, Pa., interrogated a suspect by placing a metal colander on his head and connecting it with wires to a photocopy machine. The message "He's lying" was placed in the copier, and police pressed the copy button each time they thought the suspect wasn't telling the truth. Believing the "lie detector" was working, the suspect confessed.

NINE- A mother calls 911 very worried asking the dispatcher if she needs to take her kid to the emergency room, the kid was eating ants. The dispatcher tells her to give the kid some Benadryl and should be fine. The mother says, "I just gave him some ant killer....." Dispatcher: "Rush him in to emergency!"

[Dan Gould]

Had to find and bump up this thread after I opened up my new GE Mouse I bought last night. Attached to the cord were these words, which I found absolutely staggering:

Warning: This product contains chemicals, including lead, known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. Wash hands after handling.

(italics mine)

Medical science hasn't determined that the level of chemicals or lead is sufficient to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA has. And because of that highly dubious finding, and the litigious nature of our society, GE had to add that warning. Unbelievable.

You can't imagine how relieved I am to live in Florida, where, obviously, I'm safe from any such "threat" - and you can't imagine how relieved I am not to be living in California, for other reasons.

[BruceH]

Had to find and bump up this thread after I opened up my new GE Mouse I bought last night. Attached to the cord were these words, which I found absolutely staggering:

Warning: This product contains chemicals, including lead, known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. Wash hands after handling.

(italics mine)

Medical science hasn't determined that the level of chemicals or lead is sufficient to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA has. And because of that highly dubious finding, and the litigious nature of our society, GE had to add that warning. Unbelievable.

You can't imagine how relieved I am to live in Florida, where, obviously, I'm safe from any such "threat" - and you can't imagine how relieved I am not to be living in California, for other reasons.

Me too.

[Big Wheel]

Had to find and bump up this thread after I opened up my new GE Mouse I bought last night. Attached to the cord were these words, which I found absolutely staggering:

Warning: This product contains chemicals, including lead, known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. Wash hands after handling.

(italics mine)

Medical science hasn't determined that the level of chemicals or lead is sufficient to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA has. And because of that highly dubious finding, and the litigious nature of our society, GE had to add that warning. Unbelievable.

You can't imagine how relieved I am to live in Florida, where, obviously, I'm safe from any such "threat" - and you can't imagine how relieved I am not to be living in California, for other reasons.

pssst....there are things out there called search engines. They help you find, you know, actual information about things. So you don't have to languish in ignorance. Information like this:

The environmental organizations promoting the initiative were concerned that no federal regulatory agency had taken action on more than one-third of the chemicals which had tested positive for carcinogenicity in National Toxicology Program bioassays.4 Even less regulatory attention had been given to reproductive toxicants.5 In an effort to forestall prolonged procedural debates over whether specific substances deserved regulation, Proposition 65 applies automatically to all substances that have been identified as carcinogens or reproductive toxicants by certain authoritative scientific or regulatory organizations. By requiring regulation once scientists reach consensus that a substance is a hazard, this approach immediately extends the scope of existing controls and ensures that the regulatory process does not lag behind scientific awareness of chemical hazards.

IOW, California adopted Proposition 65, which requires this text on certain products, because people had reason to be concerned that the federal government wasn't going far enough to regulate toxic substances. Note that the level of whatever substance it is does matter - businesses can become exempt from the warning if they can show that no significant risk results from exposure. But probably a lot of businesses are too lazy to do this, so they just slap the warning label on there instead. I think shifting the burden of proof from government regulators to businesses is a good thing.