NY Jury Duty

[+ purplekow]

Her multi-million dollar jury award was significantly reduced by a judge later

Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

Yes that is also so. But the jury found negligence related to the temperature of the coffee being too hot. Fact is,if you place a hot coffee cup between your legs and drive off, you need to consider that you are taking chance of getting burned. Was it really her thought that "geez coffee that is the correct degree of hotness is safe to place between my legs" This case is frequently cited as an example of frivolous lawsuit. I think it is more an example of people being rewarded for their own stupidity.

[MikeBiDude]

Yes that is also so. But the jury found negligence related to the temperature of the coffee being too hot. Fact is,if you place a hot coffee cup between your legs and drive off, you need to consider that you are taking chance of getting burned. Was it really her thought that "geez coffee that is the correct degree of hotness is safe to place between my legs" This case is frequently cited as an example of frivolous lawsuit. I think it is more an example of people being rewarded for their own stupidity.

Agree...I as just trying to keep the facts in focus.

 

Many liability laws suits occur when personal responsibility gets ignored.

[Good Grief]

 

Yes that is also so. But the jury found negligence related to the temperature of the coffee being too hot. Fact is,if you place a hot coffee cup between your legs and drive off, you need to consider that you are taking chance of getting burned. Was it really her thought that "geez coffee that is the correct degree of hotness is safe to place between my legs" This case is frequently cited as an example of frivolous lawsuit. I think it is more an example of people being rewarded for their own stupidity.

 

Agree...I as just trying to keep the facts in focus.

 

Many liability laws suits occur when personal responsibility gets ignored.

Yes that is also so. B

 

You guys do realize that this thread from 2004 was resurrected, only, to insert the above comic strip, right?

 

Though, comment as you wish...

[MikeBiDude]

[uSER=9945]

 

I love the smell of camphor.[/user]

You have resurrected no less than 3 threads with “jury” in the topic with the same comic strip posting.

 

Why?

[MikeBiDude]

You guys do realize that this thread from 2004 was resurrected, only, to insert the above comic strip, right?

 

Though, comment as you wish...

See my new post here, he’s has resurrected every thread with “jury” in the topic

 

Along with numerous “resurrections” elsewhere on the forum. Seems to be a hobby of his

[samhexum]

You have resurrected no less than 3 threads with “jury” in the topic with the same comic strip posting.

 

Why?

So future generations can enjoy it if they go click on any threads involving jury duty.

[Good Grief]

Thanks, so much??

 

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/panic.gif

[samhexum]

Thanks, so much??

 

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/panic.gif

 

 

[Nvr2Thick]

Yes that is also so. But the jury found negligence related to the temperature of the coffee being too hot. Fact is,if you place a hot coffee cup between your legs and drive off, you need to consider that you are taking chance of getting burned. Was it really her thought that "geez coffee that is the correct degree of hotness is safe to place between my legs" This case is frequently cited as an example of frivolous lawsuit. I think it is more an example of people being rewarded for their own stupidity.

 

It was an example of a case being grossly distorted by the media and pop culture. She didn't buy the coffee and drive off. The car was parked when she spilled the coffee while trying to pop the lid off. McDonalds had a policy of keeping their coffee so hot that it would generate third degree burns within seconds. Many restaurants had established a policy of keeping coffee at lower temperatures already due to safety concerns. McDonalds and the industry followed suit after the court case, not because it was a frivolous suit, but because it was a reasonable safety precaution when dispensing coffee in paper cups to drivers. Public opinion was distorted by everything from The Tonight Show monologue to amazingly inaccurate news reports at the local and national level. In order to perpetuate the story of a greedy old lady cashing in almost all reports neglected to mention that the victim had initially sued for medical costs, and escalated when McDonalds refused, for example. This story clearly illustrated the phenomena of "journalists" just passing along the same narrative over and over, without any research or validation.

[Islesguy]

Yes that is also so. But the jury found negligence related to the temperature of the coffee being too hot. Fact is,if you place a hot coffee cup between your legs and drive off, you need to consider that you are taking chance of getting burned. Was it really her thought that "geez coffee that is the correct degree of hotness is safe to place between my legs" This case is frequently cited as an example of frivolous lawsuit. I think it is more an example of people being rewarded for their own stupidity.

 

Tell me how someone can be driving a car from the passenger seat and when her grandson parked the car.

 

"Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe which did not have cup holders. Her grandson 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."

[+ purplekow]

Tell me how someone can be driving a car from the passenger seat and when her grandson parked the car.

 

"Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe which did not have cup holders. Her grandson 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."

I misrepresented the facts and that was unintentional but wrong. However it does beg the questions, why does one place hot coffee between one's legs to open it? and when does personal accountability start?

Now if she had ordered ice coffee and burned herself as a result of getting a wrong order, I would point the finger of blame in another direction. She ordered hot coffee. She got hot coffee. She knew it was hot. In placing the coffee between her legs, she did not take appropriate precautions to insure her own safety. Her own actions caused the spill. The jury disagreed with this line of thinking. She got burned and so did McDonald's.

[+ Funguy]

@Funguy , you commented on a post from 2004...

 

Not really sure why this whole thing was lifted from mothballs - @samhexum ?

 

Didn't even look to see!

LOL!

[Islesguy]

I misrepresented the facts and that was unintentional but wrong. However it does beg the questions, why does one place hot coffee between one's legs to open it? and when does personal accountability start?

Now if she had ordered ice coffee and burned herself as a result of getting a wrong order, I would point the finger of blame in another direction. She ordered hot coffee. She got hot coffee. She knew it was hot. In placing the coffee between her legs, she did not take appropriate precautions to insure her own safety. Her own actions caused the spill. The jury disagreed with this line of thinking. She got burned and so did McDonald's.

I have no interest in arguing about the case as I have argued about it with lawyer friends ad naseum. I only wanted to make sure if we are going to talk about it, we have the facts correct.

[Guest]

RE: Slackers

 

Doug's account is reasonably accurate, unfortunately. If I had my way slackers who ignore a jury summons would get the logical penalty -- they would be denied their right to trial by jury if charged with a crime in the future. People who refuse to serve on a jury shouldn't expect to be able to demand that others serve on a jury when they want one.

 

That actually sounds pretty reasonable. Some of us don't believe in juries, especially for civil cases. I would gladly give up my right to a jury for civil cases if I could be excused from jury duty. Of course, I never get picked anyway, when I tell the judge that I don't believe in limiting my fact-finding to what's presented in court. Still have to waste the day going down. In Israel, if you don't sign up as an organ donor, you're on the bottom of the list if you ever need an organ. That's especially apt, since being an organ donor doesn't involve any sacrifice whatsoever--not a second of time nor a single cent financially.

[Guest]

If you are commenting on the infamous McDonald's case, you should know that the plaintiff/victim spent several months in a burn unit and required multiple skin grafts - all for that too-hot cup of coffee!!

 

I don't think people are arguing that the plaintiff wasn't seriously injured. The issue is asking others to pay for one's own stupidity.

[Nvr2Thick]

I misrepresented the facts and that was unintentional but wrong. However it does beg the questions, why does one place hot coffee between one's legs to open it? and when does personal accountability start?

Now if she had ordered ice coffee and burned herself as a result of getting a wrong order, I would point the finger of blame in another direction. She ordered hot coffee. She got hot coffee. She knew it was hot. In placing the coffee between her legs, she did not take appropriate precautions to insure her own safety. Her own actions caused the spill. The jury disagreed with this line of thinking. She got burned and so did McDonald's.

 

Depending on the situation in a car, I've placed a cup of coffee on my thigh and peeled the lid off to add cream and sugar. I grip the cup tightly, but I've splashed a bit of coffee on my leg if the lid suddenly slipped free of the ridge of the cup. If I had done this in a McDonalds parking lot in the early '80s I would have had third degree burns on my leg. I myself, and most people I know would expect to be uncomfortable hot as a result of spilling take-out coffee, but most would not expect it to cause permanent scarring and an extended hospital stay.

 

You're missing the entire point of the case. The question wasn't about who caused the spill; it was about the temperature at which hot coffee should be served. Accidents are going to happen when people are served hot beverages. Is it reasonable to expect that hot coffee should be so dangerously hot that it causes third degree burns almost immediately? Imagine you're at a restaurant and you, or your date, or your server accidentally nudge the table and spill coffee into your lap. Would you expect third degree burns? Would you expect to have to tear off your pants and underwear immediately to prevent critical injury? This case was about whether a restaurant can serve food that represents a substantial burn hazard. The jury didn't disagree with your line of thinking -- they held the plaintiff 20% liable because she spilled the coffee on herself, and held McDonalds 80% liable because the coffee was so hot that it could immediately cause catastrophic burns.

 

Obviously you're forming your opinions from memory of the case. The public's collective memory has been distorted by misrepresentation through corporations and the media. You should read the entire Wikipedia article and follow some of the referenced sources. There's far more to this case than who is responsible for spilling coffee.

[Rudynate]

Depending on the situation in a car, I've placed a cup of coffee on my thigh and peeled the lid off to add cream and sugar. I grip the cup tightly, but I've splashed a bit of coffee on my leg if the lid suddenly slipped free of the ridge of the cup. If I had done this in a McDonalds parking lot in the early '80s I would have had third degree burns on my leg. I myself, and most people I know would expect to be uncomfortable hot as a result of spilling take-out coffee, but most would not expect it to cause permanent scarring and an extended hospital stay.

 

You're missing the entire point of the case. The question wasn't about who caused the spill; it was about the temperature at which hot coffee should be served. Accidents are going to happen when people are served hot beverages. Is it reasonable to expect that hot coffee should be so dangerously hot that it causes third degree burns almost immediately? Imagine you're at a restaurant and you, or your date, or your server accidentally nudge the table and spill coffee into your lap. Would you expect third degree burns? Would you expect to have to tear off your pants and underwear immediately to prevent critical injury? This case was about whether a restaurant can serve food that represents a substantial burn hazard. The jury didn't disagree with your line of thinking -- they held the plaintiff 20% liable because she spilled the coffee on herself, and held McDonalds 80% liable because the coffee was so hot that it could immediately cause catastrophic burns.

 

Obviously you're forming your opinions from memory of the case. The public's collective memory has been distorted by misrepresentation through corporations and the media. You should read the entire Wikipedia article and follow some of the referenced sources. There's far more to this case than who is responsible for spilling coffee.

 

 

Torts -law school first year - Negligence is all about what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances.

[+ pitman]

Depending on the situation in a car, I've placed a cup of coffee on my thigh and peeled the lid off to add cream and sugar. I grip the cup tightly, but I've splashed a bit of coffee on my leg if the lid suddenly slipped free of the ridge of the cup. If I had done this in a McDonalds parking lot in the early '80s I would have had third degree burns on my leg. I myself, and most people I know would expect to be uncomfortable hot as a result of spilling take-out coffee, but most would not expect it to cause permanent scarring and an extended hospital stay.

 

You're missing the entire point of the case. The question wasn't about who caused the spill; it was about the temperature at which hot coffee should be served. Accidents are going to happen when people are served hot beverages. Is it reasonable to expect that hot coffee should be so dangerously hot that it causes third degree burns almost immediately? Imagine you're at a restaurant and you, or your date, or your server accidentally nudge the table and spill coffee into your lap. Would you expect third degree burns? Would you expect to have to tear off your pants and underwear immediately to prevent critical injury? This case was about whether a restaurant can serve food that represents a substantial burn hazard. The jury didn't disagree with your line of thinking -- they held the plaintiff 20% liable because she spilled the coffee on herself, and held McDonalds 80% liable because the coffee was so hot that it could immediately cause catastrophic burns.

 

Obviously you're forming your opinions from memory of the case. The public's collective memory has been distorted by misrepresentation through corporations and the media. You should read the entire Wikipedia article and follow some of the referenced sources. There's far more to this case than who is responsible for spilling coffee.

It should be noted that prior to this case, there had been 700 cases of reported burns from McDonalds coffee, and the company had paid more that $500,000 in settlements for these cases, apparently not enough to cause them to reevaluate their policy.

[Nvr2Thick]

Torts -law school first year - Negligence is all about what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances.

 

So, the question is: Would a reasonable person heat coffee to such a high temperature as to be able to cause third degree burns, and then put in a paper to-go cup and give it to a customer.

[Rudynate]

So, the question is: Would a reasonable person heat coffee to such a high temperature as to be able to cause third degree burns, and then put in a paper to-go cup and give it to a customer.

 

Exactly. The jury also found that a reasonable person wouldn't have held a disposable cup of hot coffee between his/her legs as they opened it while they were driving, so they mitigated the damages by 20%.

[MikeBiDude]

It should be noted that prior to this case, there had been 700 cases of reported burns from McDonalds coffee, and the company had paid more that $500,000 in settlements for these cases, apparently not enough to cause them to reevaluate their policy.

I wonder what teeny-tiny percentage of McDonald’s overall customer count that 700 cases and $500k in settlements was. And...how many daily complaints about cold coffee?

[Nvr2Thick]

Exactly. The jury also found that a reasonable person wouldn't have held a disposable cup of hot coffee between his/her legs as they opened it while they were driving, so they mitigated the damages by 20%.

 

True, except to this day people perpetuate the false narrative that she opened it while she was driving.

[Rudynate]

True, except to this day people perpetuate the false narrative that she opened it while she was driving.

 

 

I never paid that much attention to it. I think I remember that the coffee was at 180 degrees - close to boiling.

[Nvr2Thick]

I wonder what teeny-tiny percentage of McDonald’s overall customer count that 700 cases and $500k in settlements was. And...how many daily complaints about cold coffee?

 

I'm eagerly awaiting car cupholders with microwave drink warmers.

[+ quoththeraven]

I misrepresented the facts and that was unintentional but wrong. However it does beg the questions, why does one place hot coffee between one's legs to open it? and when does personal accountability start?

Now if she had ordered ice coffee and burned herself as a result of getting a wrong order, I would point the finger of blame in another direction. She ordered hot coffee. She got hot coffee. She knew it was hot. In placing the coffee between her legs, she did not take appropriate precautions to insure her own safety. Her own actions caused the spill. The jury disagreed with this line of thinking. She got burned and so did McDonald's.

The extreme temperature of the coffee was a contributing factor. Given that competitors had already changed practices to mitigate the possibility of burns, it's not unreasonable to hold McDonald's liable. And it's possible the plaintiff's contribution was why the award was reduced.

 

Besides, in a vehicle with no cupholders, where do you suggest she put the cup if she needs to use both hands? On the floor where it might also spill? I'm having a hard time thinking of other alternatives to what she did.

 

People spilling hot beverages and burning themselves is a foreseeable risk. That makes them potentially subject to tort liability. That should be no surprise to them.

 

It's a shame the facts of this case have been simplified, misrepresented and widely broadcast to score points.