So the lawers win again.
01-20-2015, 02:21 PM
#11
Registered
I chimed in! 
Not all lawsuits are bad! (some are crazy, don't get me wrong) The family hired the lawyer, not the other way around. For the most part, there has to be something to it to keep the case going. Remember, there are damn good lawyers on the other side as well, and I will assure you, they tried EVERYTHING the law allows to get this case tossed early on the merits. The COURT believed there was enough there to take it to a jury and it moved forward. I'll repeat, there are damn good lawyers on the other side that know the law, know all the facts, and recommended to their clients to settle. Those in the trenches that know the facts made a decision on the facts. ALL this does not happen in a vacuum, and no Plaintiff's lawyer (of which I'm one) is magic. Competent, insightful, artful, but not magic. You can't take 12 citizens just like you guys, and make them see something that is not there.
Lawyers generally DON'T get paid if they pursue frivolous or groundless lawsuits. Most are on contingent fees. No win, no money! They spend hundreds of hours, pay staff salaries and generally pay all the upfront expenses of experts and investigation. A lawyer can easily have $100k tied up in a case like this before he walks in the door. You don't throw down that kind of money "just to see what happens", you do it because you're sure there's a problem. Sometimes our opinions are wrong, sometimes they are right, but they are never just a idiot lawsuits. If you're alive because a plate glass windshield didn't cut your head off, your car didn't burst into flames when you had a fender bender, airbags kept you brain inside your head in a head-on, don't thank GM. Thank an attorney.
Not all lawsuits are bad! (some are crazy, don't get me wrong) The family hired the lawyer, not the other way around. For the most part, there has to be something to it to keep the case going. Remember, there are damn good lawyers on the other side as well, and I will assure you, they tried EVERYTHING the law allows to get this case tossed early on the merits. The COURT believed there was enough there to take it to a jury and it moved forward. I'll repeat, there are damn good lawyers on the other side that know the law, know all the facts, and recommended to their clients to settle. Those in the trenches that know the facts made a decision on the facts. ALL this does not happen in a vacuum, and no Plaintiff's lawyer (of which I'm one) is magic. Competent, insightful, artful, but not magic. You can't take 12 citizens just like you guys, and make them see something that is not there.
Lawyers generally DON'T get paid if they pursue frivolous or groundless lawsuits. Most are on contingent fees. No win, no money! They spend hundreds of hours, pay staff salaries and generally pay all the upfront expenses of experts and investigation. A lawyer can easily have $100k tied up in a case like this before he walks in the door. You don't throw down that kind of money "just to see what happens", you do it because you're sure there's a problem. Sometimes our opinions are wrong, sometimes they are right, but they are never just a idiot lawsuits. If you're alive because a plate glass windshield didn't cut your head off, your car didn't burst into flames when you had a fender bender, airbags kept you brain inside your head in a head-on, don't thank GM. Thank an attorney.
Last edited by CDShack; 01-20-2015 at 02:36 PM.
01-20-2015, 02:25 PM
#12
VIP Member
In the interest of fairness though- regarding the Mickey D case, I was a believer like you until I came across a site with some in-depth info...
google it and find a photo... that woman was scalded-
big strips on both thighs as well as the sensitive parts. Skin grafts, multiple operations... she was phucked up and deserved a settlement.
01-20-2015, 02:27 PM
#13
Registered
And just so we're clear, if you put a label in a Superman cape the says "this cape does not enable wearer to fly" it wasn't going to stop the dope that jumped off the building. Sometime you can't fix stupid.
I hope maybe this can be used to make the sport safer.
I hope maybe this can be used to make the sport safer.
01-20-2015, 02:33 PM
#14
Registered
The gist of Mickey D was this: cup manufacturer had a temperature limit their cups would withstand before collapse. Coffee machine manufacturer had sold all Mickey Ds coffee machines that exceeded that temperature. Mickey D had apparently known for years about the problem, and over the protests of the cup manufacturer and the machine manufacturer, refused to buy the .78 cent part (plus 10 minute install) to change all their machines across the country. Much like the Ford Pinto logic, it was cheaper to pay claims then fix the problem.
The lady ordered coffee, as it was coming out the window, cup collapsed and she has years of surgeries and skin grafts on her private parts. Did she deserve something?
The lady ordered coffee, as it was coming out the window, cup collapsed and she has years of surgeries and skin grafts on her private parts. Did she deserve something?
Last edited by CDShack; 01-20-2015 at 02:42 PM.
01-20-2015, 02:41 PM
#15
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Slapout, Alabama
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The jist of Mickey D was this: cup manufacturer had a temperature limit their cups would withstand before collapse. Coffee machine manufacturer had sold all Mickey Ds coffee machines that exceeded that temperature. Mickey D had apparently known for years about the problem, and over the protests of the cup manufacturer and the machine manufacturer, refused to buy the .78 cent part (plus 10 minute install) to change all there machines across the country. Much like the Ford Pinto logic, it was cheaper to pay claims then fix the problem.
The lady ordered coffee, as it was coming out the window, cup collapsed and she has years of surgeries and skin grafts on her private parts. Did she deserve something?
The lady ordered coffee, as it was coming out the window, cup collapsed and she has years of surgeries and skin grafts on her private parts. Did she deserve something?
She did....All I heard about it over the years was radio disc jockey's and media types poking fun at it and I thought it was without merit....
Until one night I stumbled across a documentary about it and it completely changed my perspective..
01-20-2015, 03:01 PM
#16
The gist of Mickey D was this: cup manufacturer had a temperature limit their cups would withstand before collapse. Coffee machine manufacturer had sold all Mickey Ds coffee machines that exceeded that temperature. Mickey D had apparently known for years about the problem, and over the protests of the cup manufacturer and the machine manufacturer, refused to buy the .78 cent part (plus 10 minute install) to change all their machines across the country. Much like the Ford Pinto logic, it was cheaper to pay claims then fix the problem.
The lady ordered coffee, as it was coming out the window, cup collapsed and she has years of surgeries and skin grafts on her private parts. Did she deserve something?
The lady ordered coffee, as it was coming out the window, cup collapsed and she has years of surgeries and skin grafts on her private parts. Did she deserve something?
There are plenty of other truly wtf cases to point at. We need lots of reforms in this country.
01-20-2015, 03:02 PM
#17
Registered
I would never expect it would take over 9 minutes to get me out of a crashed race boat and I bet the racers did not expect that either.
Its so easy to say its silly but when someone dies because someone else did not do what they said they would do then there is a problem. If you can't hold anyone accountable what kind of world would that be?
Looking at the photos that Doc posted blew me away. I had no idea thats what happened. Hard to argue with the facts.
I hope we learn from this and not let it happen again.
MP[/QUOTE]
Without full disclosure we will never know.
Any EMT or firefighter knows that even under ideal circumstances it can take a while to remove someone from an accident-even having the best of equipment, and plenty of man power. 9 minutes would not be unusuall at a car accident scene. Attempting to remove someone who may be tangled in rigging, a steering wheel or oxygen hoses, while upside down, thru a 2'x2' hatch, and underwater must be extrememly difficult.
I've been an EMT who has volunteered locally on an ambulance, and has also volunteered at boat races. It looks easy on TV. On T.V., the EMT's responded in two minutes, pack the patient up and rush to the hospital. In reality, it is much more complicated. I feel bad for the diver who did his best to get Mr. Gratton out. I also feel bad for Mr. Gratton and his family. Maybe some new medical protocal's will come from this sad situation...more divers, EMT's, helicopters etc. We can only hope that any "mistakes", do not happen again!
Its so easy to say its silly but when someone dies because someone else did not do what they said they would do then there is a problem. If you can't hold anyone accountable what kind of world would that be?
Looking at the photos that Doc posted blew me away. I had no idea thats what happened. Hard to argue with the facts.
I hope we learn from this and not let it happen again.
MP[/QUOTE]
Without full disclosure we will never know.
Any EMT or firefighter knows that even under ideal circumstances it can take a while to remove someone from an accident-even having the best of equipment, and plenty of man power. 9 minutes would not be unusuall at a car accident scene. Attempting to remove someone who may be tangled in rigging, a steering wheel or oxygen hoses, while upside down, thru a 2'x2' hatch, and underwater must be extrememly difficult.
I've been an EMT who has volunteered locally on an ambulance, and has also volunteered at boat races. It looks easy on TV. On T.V., the EMT's responded in two minutes, pack the patient up and rush to the hospital. In reality, it is much more complicated. I feel bad for the diver who did his best to get Mr. Gratton out. I also feel bad for Mr. Gratton and his family. Maybe some new medical protocal's will come from this sad situation...more divers, EMT's, helicopters etc. We can only hope that any "mistakes", do not happen again!
01-20-2015, 03:12 PM
#19
Registered
Platinum MemberJoin Date: Jan 2006
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform. A New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment.
Liebeck's attorneys argued that at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C) McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than what the jury ultimately awarded.[2] The jury damages included $160,000[3] to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.
The case was said by some to be an example of frivolous litigation;[4] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits",[5] while the legal scholar Jonathan Turley argued that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".[6] In June 2011, HBO premiered Hot Coffee, a documentary that discussed in depth how the Liebeck case has centered in debates on tort reform.[7][8]
Burn incident[edit]
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[10]
Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for up to two years afterwards.[12][13]
Pre-trial[edit]
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.[14] Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". Previously, New Mexico had never found for a Plaintiff in a product liability suit. Two scheduled mediations were not attended by McDonald's. [15] McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.[2]
Trial and verdict[edit]
Liebeck's attorneys argued that at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C) McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than what the jury ultimately awarded.[2] The jury damages included $160,000[3] to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.
The case was said by some to be an example of frivolous litigation;[4] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits",[5] while the legal scholar Jonathan Turley argued that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".[6] In June 2011, HBO premiered Hot Coffee, a documentary that discussed in depth how the Liebeck case has centered in debates on tort reform.[7][8]
Burn incident[edit]
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[10]
Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for up to two years afterwards.[12][13]
Pre-trial[edit]
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.[14] Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". Previously, New Mexico had never found for a Plaintiff in a product liability suit. Two scheduled mediations were not attended by McDonald's. [15] McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.[2]
Trial and verdict[edit]
