Re: Only in america

If you read the thread, go here next.

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Not to downplay RacerX's link, but it still bears truth that the American legal system is a bit off their rockers...

I mean, where else can a woman sue McDonalds because *she* spilled hot coffee on herself?

X, aaaarrrrrggggghhhhhhh

you ruined my fun, and now that the cat is out of the bag I cannot in all likelihood convince the masses that they were fake and that I knew it

the email was sent to me from a very gullible young lady that I know who works at the local tech school. upon explaining it to her she was very embarrassed that she fell for it

I then explained that the first response to something outrageous should be proof, or at least an article in a reliable news source (although the new york times thing is an exception)

I told her that she should not feel bad and that some very intelligent people that I know would probably believe them also. now it is unfair that I submitted them and that here at free-dc I am known as a nut but not a liar so in all fairness would probably be believed but I did say that there were some people that would search it out right away.

I did not guess you would X, my guess was moogie

and I did not have a source as you provided X but I just knew they could not be real or the stories were blown out of proportion and the facts were not included that would have made sense of these things.

please do not be angry at me I just wanted to give back some dignity to a very beautiful girl who I want to date :D

by the way I was supposed to get back to this sooner but I got fired by my drunk boss at 1am this morning or was that yesterday, oh well, and have been trying to figure out my situation

don't worry I am doing good and everything happens for a reason

thanks X you rock

Heh, well, after I read that I was wandering through another forum (this morning)and saw something regarding the same subject. I didn't say anything because it was bringing folks to the board to post, and the posts were about a topic that is definitely prominent in the US today. Let's face it, Americans are suit happy.

I guess this is a good a place as any to dispell the rumor..I did not inhale..erm..oops, that's another rumor. :blush:

DP: Not to pick on you, it's only fair that I point out something about the so-called coffee case. This is what I found on another forum.

The "coffee case" after which these awards are named is famous.....but once you know the facts the lawsuit does not seem quite so frivolous....

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.

as to the rest.....they're not true!

See here.

A99: I never considered you a liar, nor do I now. You were just having some fun. :) I even posted about it on my blog before I researched it so now I need to go fix it. :)

I'm sorry about your job guy. :( Any chance that once he sobers up, he'll unfire you?

Good luck and keep us posted. :kiss:

Sorry, mate. I did not wish to seem as if I was taking a shot at you. I just have this aversion to the way most people spout off stuff that they get via email or on the internet as if it were truth without ever researching to see.

I guess I just watched too much of the super friends when I was younger. You know that whole line about Truth, justice and peace for all mankind got to me

I knew you would check it out moogie :D

sorry it was just quick humiliation test and was not meant to cause any trouble:(

quick back-round on situation:

boss had been drinking in machine shop since 5 or 6pm which was not unusual my boss

we tend to look the other way because in the past it has not been a problem and although not normal in the industry it is a very laid-back atmosphere and we all do our part to keep it safe and we all kept an eye on him.

unfortunately he failed to go home at 9 or 10pm like usual and myself and another were in the shop finishing some important customer parts. mr sunshine then became a nuisance and I let him in on some opinions I have about stupidity and the the uneducated morons who practice it

at which time he became angry with my view of the world and he proceeded to fire the only CNC operator he has.

we will see what happens but it is a good profession and has lots of opportunities so I am not worried

but thanks moogie

I've also found it tricky when you allow your boss to know what you really think about him or her.

I always put it as constructive criticism, can't see why they always seem to get upset.

It's like the saying as you climb up the ladder of work the people looking down on you tend to REALLY look down on you. All those going up seem to see, is a load of assholes.

lol :rotfl: