Accidentally shot himself twice in 15 years.

[marshaul]

why else would you parrot false information about an elderly lady who did exactly what libertarians say you should do? by taking the matter to civil court to be arbitrated?

I for one have little interest in questioning the judgment of a jury in a tort case. That's kind of, you know, the way tort works.

I'm not a big believer in regulation. But the potential for somebody to convince a jury that your practices are tortious is supposed to be the incentivizing factor to safer behavior.

Perhaps McDonalds could have discovered a market demand for having coffee available at different temperatures; I don't know. Tort law at least leaves such possibilities open, which regulations rarely do.

 

[JustaShooter]

I grind cheap store bought beans kept frozen. Weigh them to 0.05 oz, 2.50 oz to 55 oz water to make 50 oz coffee (the extra 5 oz stay in the wet grounds). The water is poured over the grounds at 185°F through 100 gram filter paper and then into a thermos decanter.

I've always found that coffee made from water less than about 200°F did not have as good of a good flavor - it lacks the richness I expect from a good cup of coffee. Depending on the bean, roast, and grind it may taste OK when made with a lower temperature but still tastes better when made hotter. You should try upping the water temperature about 10 degrees and see what you think.

 

[OC for ME]

Probably not, hence why I enrolled in a school to learn a job skill for a different career, but I love your enthusiasm...

Stella Leibeck was not driving a car, her daughter was, and the car was parked, no one alleged otherwise. oh and mcdonalds also testified on the stand that their own consumer surveys showed that more customers wanted to drink their coffee right away, not take it elsewhere but I see you have little use for actual facts.

Good example of libertarians real agenda....first they demand any regulations to protect the public or workers be repealed and claim it should all be civil torts, then when someone files a civil claim and wins they scream that we need tort reform, they will stop at nothing to shield big business from any liability at all.....

at least we can agree that the glock is a good gun that's perfectly safe for everyday carry.

So, she is double the idiot, with even fewer excuses to excuse how she spilled hot coffee onto herself. I find it interesting that a jury sides with her, given the facts of the case. Simply, the coffee was too hot, in the jury's mind from a personal point of view, and the photos cinched the deal for her.

Her own negligent acts, that directly contributed to her ordeal, were excused. How many cups of hot hot coffee were served every day from that store, yet she is the only one, it seems, harmed by that McDonald's evil act.

Her lawyer was very good indeed.

McDonald's needs to get them some new lawyers.

I wonder if the firearm type in the op will ever be learned. Certainly there must be a OCDO member who is close to the story. I did not purchase a Glock for the simple fact that a piece of fabric could contribute to a discharge.

 

[marshaul]

So, she is double the idiot, with even fewer excuses to excuse how she spilled hot coffee onto herself. I find it interesting that a jury sides with her, given the facts of the case. Simply, the coffee was too hot, in the jury's mind from a personal point of view, and the photos cinched the deal for her.

Her own negligent acts, that directly contributed to her ordeal, were excused. How many cups of hot hot coffee were served every day from that store, yet she is the only one, it seems, harmed by that McDonald's evil act.

Her lawyer was very good indeed.

McDonald's needs to get them some new lawyers.

I wonder if the firearm type in the op will ever be learned. Certainly there must be a OCDO member who is close to the story. I did not purchase a Glock for the simple fact that a piece of fabric could contribute to a discharge.

McDonald's is a big boy. They can handle the liability they assume – whether or not you agree with its assignation – without a concerted defense from armchair third parties.

That was kind of my point earlier. Tort is, and must be, pretty much solely up to a jury to find. That means the risk of what happened to McDonald's is inherent and unavoidable. To mitigate the risk one must behave in a way which reduces the exceptionality of one's potentially-dangerous actions.

I find it noteworthy that McDonalds is not providing the option of choosing hot(ter) coffee despite the claimed rampant market demand for such.

I'm not convinced this case falls outside the intended function of tort, regardless of the woman's undeniable stupidity & carelessness.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I did not purchase a Glock for the simple fact that a piece of fabric could contribute to a discharge.

I highly doubt fabric had anything to do with the discharge.

 

[OC for ME]

McDonald's is a big boy. They can handle the liability they assume – whether or not you agree with its assignation – without a concerted defense from armchair third parties.

That was kind of my point earlier. Tort is, and must be, pretty much solely up to a jury to find. That means the risk of what happened to McDonald's is inherent and unavoidable. To mitigate the risk one must behave in a way which reduces the exceptionality of one's potentially-dangerous actions.

I find it noteworthy that McDonalds is not providing the option of choosing hot(ter) coffee despite the claimed rampant market demand for such.

I'm not convinced this case falls outside the intended function of tort, regardless of the woman's undeniable stupidity & carelessness.

The jury knew that the coffee was really hot, the photos spoke for themselves, and that Micky D's has deep pockets. The woman's undeniable stupidity & carelessness was excused because Micky D's is a big boy.

A customer could choke to death on a Big Mac too. A jury would need to decide the liability in such an incident no matter how many Big Macs were consumed before a customer succumbed to their undeniable stupidity & carelessness.

 

[marshaul]

A customer could choke to death on a Big Mac too. A jury would need to decide the liability in such an incident no matter how many Big Macs were consumed before a customer succumbed to their undeniable stupidity & carelessness.

Sure. But could you convince a jury that the risk of choking on a Big Mac is significantly greater than for other similar types of food? Methinks not. That would seem to be the pertinent question apropos the coffee case.

The mere (im)probability seems to be of lessened relevance. Does the extreme improbability of a bullet fired into the air striking a person mitigate tortious liability in the event such a bullet actually does strike a person? Of course it does not.

So the question becomes: is being an outlier from standard practices – in a manner which quantifiably increases a known risk – tortious in the actual event of injuring deriving, in part, from those practices?

That's a matter for a jury to decide, and that's how tort works. If you don't want to assume that risk, don't serve the hottest coffee in town, or make damn sure that customers who get the hottest coffee in town have explicitly asked for it (say, offer "normal" temp by default).

I'm not convinced I see any problem here.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Sure. But could you convince a jury that the risk of choking on a Big Mac is significantly greater than for other similar types of food? Methinks not. That would seem to be the pertinent question apropos the coffee case.

The mere (im)probability seems to be of lessened relevance. Does the extreme improbability of a bullet fired into the air striking a person mitigate tortious liability in the event such a bullet actually does strike a person? Of course it does not.

So the question becomes: is being an outlier from standard practices – in a manner which quantifiably increases a known risk – tortious in the actual event of injuring deriving, in part, from those practices?

That's a matter for a jury to decide, and that's how tort works. If you don't want to assume that risk, don't serve the hottest coffee in town, or make damn sure that customers who get the hottest coffee in town have explicitly asked for it (say, offer "normal" temp by default).

I'm not convinced I see any problem here.

Let's substitute big macs for cars advertised and sold that will go over safe speeds. In fact the marketing campaign is often unsafe driving. And into the mix that people are injured daily if not hourly driving in the advertised fashion. Or should we substitute big mac for firearms. Hmmmmmm?

The jury ruled IMO out of sympathy for the old dumb bat. Not the first time a jury ruled on emotion rather than logic.

 

[marshaul]

Let's substitute big macs for cars advertised and sold that will go over safe speeds. In fact the marketing campaign is often unsafe driving. And into the mix that people are injured daily if not hourly driving in the advertised fashion. Or should we substitute big mac for firearms. Hmmmmmm?

The jury ruled IMO out of sympathy for the old dumb bat. Not the first time a jury ruled on emotion rather than logic.

I don't think that's a reasonable comparison. The customer ultimately selects a vehicle for its speed capabilities (e.g. pays more for a "sports" model), and selects the actual operating speed when driving.

Firearms also don't make a good analogy. The way that firearms injure people is by shooting them, and shooting is the primary function of a firearm, and being dangerous is the primary function of shooting.

 

[OC for ME]

There is always a safe driving speed. That maximum speed that "should"not be exceeded based on the road, the vehicle's capabilities, and the vehicles condition, weather conditions notwithstanding.

She only got money because of the severity of the burn. The jury called it like they saw it. She got cash for her negligence. No big deal.

Micky Ds never felt a thing, they probably throw away that much money in food spoilage in a week.

The good sheriff will likely not pursue a tort against the gun manufacture because he screwed up. But, as a business I would not count on that.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I don't think that's a reasonable comparison. The customer ultimately selects a vehicle for its speed capabilities (e.g. pays more for a "sports" model), and selects the actual operating speed when driving.

Firearms also don't make a good analogy. The way that firearms injure people is by shooting them, and shooting is the primary function of a firearm, and being dangerous is the primary function of shooting.

Not as far as I see~~~All the three companies provide a possibly dangerous product that the public knows is dangerous. The difference is coffee is not advertised as dangerous, guns, and fast cars are. You analogy is wrong IMO, if it applies to coffee it applies to all. That is anti personal responsibility, and if became the norm would be the end of the 2A.

People felt sorry for the old stupid bat, the pictures helped with that sympathy. And as OC pointed out the award did not hurt McDonalds, and the jurors knew that. This was a ruling that was based on emotion and that is it.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I believe the lady was an idiot, but the jury made their decision, in a tempestuous sea of liberty that will happen.

I would hope the jury were properly chosen and instructed I bet if anything this would be were the fault lies. (other than the person spilling coffee on herself)

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I highly doubt fabric had anything to do with the discharge.

I can't see how it would.

It would have to roll itself up go through the trigger guard and then put some form of resistance on the other side of the trigger guard.

Not thinking it is totally impossible, but to me very very highly unlikely.

 

[marshaul]

I believe the lady was an idiot, but the jury made their decision, in a tempestuous sea of liberty that will happen.

Yup.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I believe the lady was an idiot, but the jury made their decision, in a tempestuous sea of liberty that will happen.

I would hope the jury were properly chosen and instructed I bet if anything this would be were the fault lies. (other than the person spilling coffee on herself)

Juries on occasion are going to make bad decisions. Nothing is perfect.

But the attempt of some to claim she was not responsible for her own idiotic actions is downright foolish. Rulings like hers could be the death of gun ownership. This is what antis want, decisions based on emotion rather than logic and law. The 2A can easily be ignored on the basis of emotion. Any right can.

 

[OC for ME]

The jury absolved that woman of her own acts, that lead to her own injuries, that she herself caused to herself, through her own stupidity. How many cups of super heated coffee were served from that Micky Ds? How many other citizens were harmed by the super heated coffee?

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Archibald Stuart, December 23, 1791)

The jury got it wrong and screwed Micky Ds.

The nitwit chief won't be suing the clothing manufacturer, nor the firearm manufacturer. I'm wondering why the chief is not being prosecuted for the negligent discharge of a firearm on private property no less. Or any other possible law violations.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Juries on occasion are going to make bad decisions. Nothing is perfect.

But the attempt of some to claim she was not responsible for her own idiotic actions is downright foolish. Rulings like hers could be the death of gun ownership. This is what antis want, decisions based on emotion rather than logic and law. The 2A can easily be ignored on the basis of emotion. Any right can.

The jury absolved that woman of her own acts, that lead to her own injuries, that she herself caused to herself, through her own stupidity. How many cups of super heated coffee were served from that Micky Ds? How many other citizens were harmed by the super heated coffee?

The jury got it wrong and screwed Micky Ds.

The nitwit chief won't be suing the clothing manufacturer, nor the firearm manufacturer. I'm wondering why the chief is not being prosecuted for the negligent discharge of a firearm on private property no less. Or any other possible law violations.

I understand what you are saying and don't necessarily disagree, the problem as I see it isn't the jury, but the moral hazards provided by the "system".

The massive amount of insurance business is forced to pay, leaves a huge pile of funds for lawyers to go after.

The expense of appealing decisions set by the state make appealing a gamble many don't want to take.

The instructions given to juries and the way they are chosen leave a lot to be desired, who wants to bet MD's didn't have any of their peers on the panel?

Judges routinely disallow evidence that would show innocence because it doesn't meet some arbitrary court rule.

I am sure others could list more.

 

[OC for ME]

Basically, it was "common knowledge" that Micky Ds served super heated coffee and "everybody" (well not everybody, one nitwit claims she didn't know) knew that if you spilled your coffee bad things would happen (well, she obviously claims that she did not know that bad things would happen).

The chief should know that Glock are prone to having crap get stuck in the trigger area and thus increasing the risk of a discharge.....by the way, is the chief gunna be held to account for his negligence in causing a accident?