It's truly a shame. Farming/ranching is not easy. I give them credit. The unfortunate part is probably all that land will now become a subdivision. [evil]
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Thursday Humor
- Thread starter Lynne
- Start date
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Lynne said:
Oh! I hear the sound of the RED BUTTON being pushed!
Since you brought up Stella Liebeck... here's the scoop: http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
This particular case does have some merit to it... Read and judge for yourself.
Ross
Well, that all works both ways.
A developer came into Stowe up here, and was trying to put a farmer out. The farmer retaliated by putting in pigs, next to the area being developed. The farmer got forced to stop, after the developer got shut down, IIRC.
Got to refer to the other side of the daughter's bike. It's got a bumper sticker:
"Don't complain about Farmers with your mouth full." Courtesy Halfway House Restaraunt, Shoream, NY.
I've posted the one on the opposite side before:
"Let the tree hugging bastards wipe themselves with their hands."
I put them on when I rode the bike (BMW K75S, no less), she's proudly kept them.
A developer came into Stowe up here, and was trying to put a farmer out. The farmer retaliated by putting in pigs, next to the area being developed. The farmer got forced to stop, after the developer got shut down, IIRC.
Got to refer to the other side of the daughter's bike. It's got a bumper sticker:
"Don't complain about Farmers with your mouth full." Courtesy Halfway House Restaraunt, Shoream, NY.
I've posted the one on the opposite side before:
"Let the tree hugging bastards wipe themselves with their hands."
I put them on when I rode the bike (BMW K75S, no less), she's proudly kept them.
I'm sorry it is like the idiot who sued the fast food places for getting fat and unhealthy. Common sense people,common sense,far too many don't have it anymore.
Hehehehe,pigs.I hoping to raise a couple again,hopefully next year to drive my neighbors nuts. [twisted] [twisted]
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
MrsWildweasel said:
OK, that case I'd probably laugh out of court, if I was on the jury. the difference being that anyone should know that eating all that fatty stuff with high calorie counts is not good... as opposed to not realizing that you can get severly burned by the coffee at the temp McD's was serving it.
Ross
Ross, at the time the coffee incident happened, the wife was working at a McD's.
The company would be completely responsible, IF the person at the window spilled the coffee, or put the lid on wrong.
What happened, was the woman spilled the coffee after she moved away from the window, then blamed it 100% on McD's.
I think they should've been found partially liable (their coffee was too hot), and they did turn down the temp of their coffee after. But 100% liable? Not to me. She should take some ownership for the situation, since she spilled it.
The appeals court reduced her settlement, but I don't remember how much. I do remember her originally getting an outrageous settlement from the trial.
The company would be completely responsible, IF the person at the window spilled the coffee, or put the lid on wrong.
What happened, was the woman spilled the coffee after she moved away from the window, then blamed it 100% on McD's.
I think they should've been found partially liable (their coffee was too hot), and they did turn down the temp of their coffee after. But 100% liable? Not to me. She should take some ownership for the situation, since she spilled it.
The appeals court reduced her settlement, but I don't remember how much. I do remember her originally getting an outrageous settlement from the trial.
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Nickle said:
Details are found by following the link in my previous post on this subject. I never said that McD's was totally liable; I just said that Stella wasn't totally at fault. The original finding was that she was 20% at fault.
Seems to me that it took both parties to cause the damage, but where McD 's had had a history of complaints because of the heat of their coffee (I remember hearing somewhere that McD's expected people to take the coffee away and drink it later, so that was why it was sold so hot), they're not completely blame free, either - they knew that burns could result from 185 degree liquid.
Of course, this is all from reading summaries much later - I wasn't in the court room at the time, and I try to keep an open mind because of that.
Ross
Then, it looks like we agree.
I looked into the details:
That sounds high, but not knowing the cost of her treatment, probably fair.
The $2.7 million in punitive damages is the part that I disagree with the most.
Damned lawyers.
I looked into the details:
That sounds high, but not knowing the cost of her treatment, probably fair.
The $2.7 million in punitive damages is the part that I disagree with the most.
Damned lawyers.
Should have been 50% at fault.
If we're going to insist on looking at both sides, then let's really look at both sides. Had McDonalds had complaints that their coffee was too hot? Of course they had. Then why did they do it, particularly since it costs them more money to serve it that way? It wasn't simply that they "thought" or "assumed" that people would take the coffee somewhere else to drink it. They had done customer surveys that indicated that, and they had received far more complaints about cold coffee than they ever received about "too hot" coffee. Can 185° coffee cause serious burns? Sure it can; then again so can 140° coffee, which the majority of people would consider luke warm.
The simple fact is that, unless you're talking about iced coffee, coffee that's warm enough to drink is hot enough to cause serious burns. It's as simple as that. Maybe they should have offered two different products: "Coffee that's hot enough to drink, but that can burn you if you spill it on youself (an exentuality for which you expresly assume all risks)" and "Safe coffee that's you'll almost certainly consider to be too cold (but then again that's what you specified)".
Ken
The simple fact is that, unless you're talking about iced coffee, coffee that's warm enough to drink is hot enough to cause serious burns. It's as simple as that. Maybe they should have offered two different products: "Coffee that's hot enough to drink, but that can burn you if you spill it on youself (an exentuality for which you expresly assume all risks)" and "Safe coffee that's you'll almost certainly consider to be too cold (but then again that's what you specified)".
Ken
I personally don't like frivolous lawsuits,and the way I see it is you order a cup of coffee You know it is going to be hot. Now you take that risk knowing that you have a cup of hot coffee. Is it really McD's fault you opened it and spilled it on you Not really. What ever happend to assuming responsibilty for ones own actions?
Similar threads
