Woman That Found Finger In Chili Arrested

[arnisador]

I'm pleasantly surprised to see serious sentences. A lot of franchisees lost a lot of money on this attempted scam.

 

[Ping898]

I'm pleasantly surprised to see serious sentences. A lot of franchisees lost a lot of money on this attempted scam.

Ditto!!!

They really got what they deserved!

 

[jdinca]

Wow! Nine years just for giving somebody the finger?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I can't believe what I just read.

Sorry to hear that your father's Wendy's establishment isn't doing so hot right now, but there are going to be times when profits aren't that great. A Consumer Report about fast food cooking practices could easily cause more loss in revenue then some woman pulling a scam. It's part of owning a major franchise, particularly a fast food one. Besides, with how addicted Americans are to fast food, I'm sure business will be picking back up pretty quick.

And too many lawyers? Because one person pulls a scam through a lawsuit there are now too many lawyers trying to sue? That's the solution, let's get rid of lawyers so nobody can sue corporate America anymore. I'm sure businesses like Wendy's will still worry about customer satisfaction then. Do me a favor: do a little research and show me just how many actual lawsuits in the past, oh let's say 20 years actually consist of scam suits? Not crap you heard about from friends or joke emails, actual cases you've found. You might be surprised by how few there are.

Somebody must be going to lawschool!

It's always interesting to watch the blood-pressure of an attorney rise the moment anyone suggests anything that might interfer with their livelihood. Lawyers are what make America great....just ask them. Of course, as we all know, attorney's have only our best interest at heart......so long as we can pay the bill. All clients are innocent....until proven broke.

*PS---Don't sue me!

 

[Shu2jack]

But it will go on, remember that one lady who sued McDonalds because she spilled hot coffee on herself and WON! Another lady in Britian tried to do the same thing and lost because the judge said she should've known the tea was going to be hot and the whole thing was stupid.
Judges are also part of the problem for as long as they continue to award to the plaintiff and not the defendant. The American Judge who awarded the coffee suit should've known not to do so. Why he did it is unknown and may never be.

I agree that some one should not win a court case because they spilt something on themselves, but in that case I think McDonalds had it coming. McDonalds served their coffee at very high temperatures, they had lots of complaints over how hot the coffee was, I believe court action was taken in a couple cases, and McDonalds still didn't lower the temperature of the coffee. I don't think the judge gave the money to the money because she stupidly spilt something on herself, I think the judge gave her the money to tell McDonalds that if they don't start putting their coffee at a reasonable temperature as to not give people 2nd and 3rd degree burns that they will start losing a lot of money through court.


Also, while I am not a lawyer, and don't plan on being one, they are all not horrible, greedy people. They are like cops. If you get pulled over by a police officers, they are frigging jerks. If the officer saves your life or captures a dangerous person, then they are heros. Lawyers are simply doing their job.

 

[FearlessFreep]

For what it's worth, every time I've been pulled over by a cop it's because I did something that deserved it and I try to just treat it like he's just doing his job and doesn't need crap from me so I'm pretty good natured about it, because if I'd be doing what I was supposed to, he wouldn't be bugging me, so why take it out on him.

But I don't think McDs coffee was any hotter than many others I've seen.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I agree that some one should not win a court case because they spilt something on themselves, but in that case I think McDonalds had it coming. McDonalds served their coffee at very high temperatures, they had lots of complaints over how hot the coffee was, I believe court action was taken in a couple cases, and McDonalds still didn't lower the temperature of the coffee. I don't think the judge gave the money to the money because she stupidly spilt something on herself, I think the judge gave her the money to tell McDonalds that if they don't start putting their coffee at a reasonable temperature as to not give people 2nd and 3rd degree burns that they will start losing a lot of money through court.


Also, while I am not a lawyer, and don't plan on being one, they are all not horrible, greedy people. They are like cops. If you get pulled over by a police officers, they are frigging jerks. If the officer saves your life or captures a dangerous person, then they are heros. Lawyers are simply doing their job.

I thought the case that won lots of money from McD's was a woman who complained it was not hot enough. They gave her a different cup and she still complained. So they put it into the microwave, this is why she got the money. The temperature was not a standard process set by the local management or by the process of the main corporation. It is when you deviate that you get into the most amount of trouble.

So if you can convince someone to do something out of the normal process, and then get hurt by it you can make lots of money.

 

[FearlessFreep]

A lot of franchisees lost a lot of money on this attempted scam.

I was contemplating the other day. Wondering just how much money has been spent, or wasted, over the last decade or so on making just about *every single thing* you can buy off the shelf and ingest 'tamper proof' because of that one incident with the Extra Strength Tylenol awhile back

 

[Shu2jack]

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0122-11.htm

Here's what the talk show pundits and columnists neglected to mention about the McDonalds coffee burn case:
79 year old Stella Liebeck suffered third degree burns on her groin and inner thighs while trying to add sugar to her coffee at a McDonalds drive through. Third degree burns are the most serious kind of burn. McDonalds knew it had a problem. There were at least 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents at McDonalds before Liebeck's case. McDonalds had settled many claim before but refused Liebeck's request for $20,000 compensation, forcing the case into court. Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. McDonalds knew its coffee was exceptionally hot but testified that they had never consulted with burn specialist. The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees.

And so the jury came back with a decision- $160,000 for compensatory damages.

But because McDonalds was guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct" punitive damages were also applied. The jury set the award at $2.7 million. The judge then reduced the fine to less than half a million. Ms. Liebeck then settled with McDonalds for a sum reported to be much less than a half million dollars. McDonald's coffee is now sold at the same temperature as most other restaurants.

The jury decided that the woman should receive money for damage done, not the judge. The judge tacked on additional money to get the point across to McDonalds. 700 filed complaints is too many.

 

[Rich Parsons]

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0122-11.htm




The jury decided that the woman should receive money for damage done, not the judge. The judge tacked on additional money to get the point across to McDonalds. 700 filed complaints is too many.

Were the complaints before of after the initial case? Was this an issue of someone, lawyer, looking for more ammunition in court and wiht a jury or were the complaint cases actually filed all independantly and then, a court case was brought forward.

Curious.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I agree that some one should not win a court case because they spilt something on themselves, but in that case I think McDonalds had it coming. McDonalds served their coffee at very high temperatures, they had lots of complaints over how hot the coffee was, I believe court action was taken in a couple cases, and McDonalds still didn't lower the temperature of the coffee. I don't think the judge gave the money to the money because she stupidly spilt something on herself, I think the judge gave her the money to tell McDonalds that if they don't start putting their coffee at a reasonable temperature as to not give people 2nd and 3rd degree burns that they will start losing a lot of money through court.


Also, while I am not a lawyer, and don't plan on being one, they are all not horrible, greedy people. They are like cops. If you get pulled over by a police officers, they are frigging jerks. If the officer saves your life or captures a dangerous person, then they are heros. Lawyers are simply doing their job.

Unlike 'Cops', however, most lawyers are simply doing a job for money. Cops as a rule don't require payment in advance before helping you.

As for hot coffee....what is it about the word's 'Hot Coffee' don't they understand. What is a 'reasonable temperature' for 'hot coffee'. The whole argument reeks of creative attorney speak.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Stupid question maybe but with as many orders McDonald's servces in *a day*, wouldn't they end up having over 700 complaints about just about *anything*? I mean, that many people going through and that many orders and that many 'things' going on, they probably have 700 complaints about the color of ketchup, just sitting there waiting to be used as evidence if someone makes a case of it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Stupid question maybe but with as many orders McDonald's servces in *a day*, wouldn't they end up having over 700 complaints about just about *anything*? I mean, that many people going through and that many orders and that many 'things' going on, they probably have 700 complaints about the color of ketchup, just sitting there waiting to be used as evidence if someone makes a case of it.

Of course. They probably have all kinds of complaints, both real and imagined. Many of those complaints involve poor quality food preparation. I'm sure they get complaints about the coffee being too hot, too big, too small, too strong, too weak.

What's more, it's not hard for an attorney, to paraphrase Bill Clinton supporters, 'To drag a $10.00 bill through a trailer park, and find someone who's complained about hot coffee'.

In the case of hot coffee, however, it's hard to argue, when you order 'hot coffee' that what you got was, in fact 'HOT COFFEE'.

 

[Shu2jack]

Were the complaints before of after the initial case? Was this an issue of someone, lawyer, looking for more ammunition in court and wiht a jury or were the complaint cases actually filed all independantly and then, a court case was brought forward.

Curious.

From the article,

There were at least 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents at McDonalds before Liebeck's case. McDonalds had settled many claim before but refused Liebeck's request for $20,000 compensation, forcing the case into court.

I believe most, if not all, of the 700 cases were settled before the case in question. Or did I misunderstand your question?

Stupid question maybe but with as many orders McDonald's servces in *a day*, wouldn't they end up having over 700 complaints about just about *anything*? I mean, that many people going through and that many orders and that many 'things' going on, they probably have 700 complaints about the color of ketchup, just sitting there waiting to be used as evidence if someone makes a case of it.

Last time I checked, the color of the ketchup is not a danger to your health, it will not give you 2nd or 3rd degree burns in seconds upon skin contact, you were probably not warned by another organization that you should change the color of your ketchup, and 700 of those complaints were "court worthy" or needed to be settled.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I believe most, if not all, of the 700 cases were settled before the case in question. Or did I misunderstand your question?

So we know that at least 700 Americans found this to be a very useful way to generate a little revenue.

Last time I checked, the color of the ketchup is not a danger to your health, it will not give you 2nd or 3rd degree burns in seconds upon skin contact, you were probably not warned by another organization that you should change the color of your ketchup, and 700 of those complaints were "court worthy" or needed to be settled.

Nor is hot coffee, so long as you don't spill it on yourself. If you can't handle hot coffee, drink something else. If you order hot coffee, exactly how do you expect it to arrive? My guess would be 'hot'.

The idea that we've become a society where we have to put warning labels for adults on 'hot coffee' proclaiming it to, in fact, be 'hot' really reduces my opinion of our society.

Perhaps we need to put warning signs near highways, warning crossing pedestrians that cars may be travelling 'fast'.

What's more, the only people ultimately profiting are attorney's, who get their share off the top. Of a $1Million judgement, the alleged victim probably gets $20,000.00 after attorney's fees. This is a quite profitable parasitical industry.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Last time I checked, the color of the ketchup is not a danger to your health,

I was being facetious to illustrate the point that if you found what you thought to be a rationale for suing a company that does as much business as McDs, you could probably find at least 700 complaints about it from others, so the numberof complaints doesn't really mean much.

But you know what? When I make tea, I use boiling water. When I make instant coffee, I use boiling water. When I make hot chocolate, I use boiling water. Hard to get much hotter than that, but who do I sue when I get burnt? Well, in the first place no one because I take responsibility for my own actions but in the second place no one because I've been drinking hot beverages long enough not to burn myself...

 

[Jonathan Randall]

So we know that at least 700 Americans found this to be a very useful way to generate a little revenue.

Nor is hot coffee, so long as you don't spill it on yourself. If you can't handle hot coffee, drink something else. If you order hot coffee, exactly how do you expect it to arrive? My guess would be 'hot'.

The idea that we've become a society where we have to put warning labels for adults on 'hot coffee' proclaiming it to, in fact, be 'hot' really reduces my opinion of our society.

Perhaps we need to put warning signs near highways, warning crossing pedestrians that cars may be travelling 'fast'.

Generally I agree with your point. However, after doing some research on the case in question - the coffee truly was too hot and was in fact dangerous when spilled. Most coffee, such as Starbucks, hurts when you spill it on you. However, the fast food restaurant in question kept their coffee so hot at the time that spilling it (perhaps the lid wasn't put on well at the counter, or the cup itself leaks) was dangerous. I worked fast food and at the University's Student Union preparing and serving coffe and the coffee then was WAY too hot. Dangerously so. Now restaurants, cafes and coffee shops store their coffee at a reasonable temperature.

There are so many frivolous lawsuits out there that are so ridiculous and extortionious that it is tempting to use this case as a signature example, as I used to do myself. However, after some research, I found that in this case I was mistaken. Restaurants have no business serving coffee that is so hot, undrinkably so, that if you spill it on you you are guaranteed a severe burn.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Generally I agree with your point. However, after doing some research on the case in question - the coffee truly was too hot and was in fact dangerous when spilled. Most coffee, such as Starbucks, hurts when you spill it on you. However, the fast food restaurant in question kept their coffee so hot at the time that spilling it (perhaps the lid wasn't put on well at the counter, or the cup itself leaks) was dangerous. I worked fast food and at the University's Student Union preparing and serving coffe and the coffee then was WAY too hot. Dangerously so. Now restaurants, cafes and coffee shops store their coffee at a reasonable temperature.

That's merely an indication at how successful attorney's have been at selling their frivolous law suits as 'reasonable'. What is a 'dangerous' coffee temperature? Is it hotter than your brew it at home? If I spill coffee on you, I might be liable, but if you spill on yourself i'm liable too?

There are so many frivolous lawsuits out there that are so ridiculous and extortionious that it is tempting to use this case as a signature example, as I used to do myself. However, after some research, I found that in this case I was mistaken. Restaurants have no business serving coffee that is so hot, undrinkably so, that if you spill it on you you are guaranteed a severe burn.

Either don't get the coffee there, or don't spill it.

Again, what is the temperature of 'dangerous coffee'? Is that hotter than I brew it at home? Is it boiling? How many degrees between 'dangerous coffee' and 'safe coffee'? What if I want really hot coffee? Am I to be denied the coffee temperature I prefer because some idiot can't keep from spilling stuff on himself?

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I believe, IIRC, that it was put into the cup at over 170 degrees fahranheit (an undrinkable temperature). After the lawsuit the chains dropped the stored temperature to 130 fahranheit - still very hot but drinkable and not an outright hazard to any but the most careless. No lawyer sold me on this, I did some research and came to my own conculsion based upon my experience as a worker in fast food places and college cafeterias that dispensed coffee at a ridiculous and hazardous temperature.

 

[Shu2jack]

We can agure about the case back and forth all we want, but it was a JURY that decided to award the woman the money. Not a lawyer and not the judge. The judge tacked on additional money because McDonalds knew of the health risk and did nothing about it.