nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t6lqev$fr2$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Over here anyone who tries to sue a company because they killed their cat
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> one of their magnetrons because previously drying the beast in an oven
>>>>>> worked fine would be "laughed", possibly literally, outof court. Our
>>>>>> legal
>>>>>> system (still) doesn't reward stupidity like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Give it time. USA culture, like McDonald's, spreads.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. The law here prevents that. It assumes people are reasonable in their
>>>> behaviour. So suing McDs because *you* spilled *your* hot coffee on *your*
>>>> lap is not reasonable behaviour.
>>>
>>> it is when mcdonald's, by their own admission, knowingly served food
>>> that was unfit for human consumption, in particular, coffee that was
>>> about 20-30 degrees hotter than other restaurants and could cause
>>> severe burns within seconds, without any warning of the danger.
>>
>> So just because other restaurants serve cold coffee, they should do the
>> same? lol
>
> nobody was serving cold coffee.

ok. Luke warm.

> it's very simple: mcdonald's sold a product they knew could (and did)
> cause injuries, which occurred at the rate of approximately once every
> 5 days, and did absolutely nothing to mitigate it. they did not even
> test for its safety.

People choke on food all the time. Is that a dangerous product? Should
restaurants be forced to liquidise all food? Just in case.

> that's both unacceptable and illegal.

Of course it isn't. Coffee is meant to be served hot.

> other restaurants served hot coffee, but nowhere near hot enough to
> cause instant burns.
>
>>> mcdonald stated the high temperature created an aroma that increased
>>> sales.
>>>
>>> there were more than 700 burns in the previous ten years (that's about
>>> one *every* *five* days*), including children and instances where
>>> mcdonald's staff spilled it, and did nothing to reduce that number.
>>
>> In a population of 300m, that's tiny. I mean how many billions of coffees
>> do they sell in 10 years?
>
>> 5bn apparently
>> https://www.shopfood.com/restaurants/mcdonalds-coffee/
>
> that was actually one of mcdonald's claims, that the number of burns
> out of billions of cups coffee sold was minor. so what if people were
> injured. no big deal. they're just a number on a spreadsheet.

Of course it matters, but given that 99.999999% of customers are capable of
not burning themselves, it's clearly not a product failure, but a "user
error".

> not surprisingly, the jury found that to be reprehensible.

Whenever it's possible to extract a dollar from a business people are all
over it in the US. Whereas if it restricts their "freedoms" somehow then
who cares if 1m died. They were old and would have died anyway.

> it's a bit like the ford pinto in the 1970s, where ford knew the
> vehicle could explode in a rear-end collision but sold it anyway.
>
> ford chose to not fix the problem because statistically, it would be
> cheaper to pay off the families of who are injured or killed than make
> changes to the design of the vehicle so that it was actually safe.
>
> more recently, bridgestone found a problem with their tires and chose
> to recall them *before* any of them failed and caused harm. that's how
> it's supposed to work.
>
> <https://www.bridgestoneamericas.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022/bri
> dgestone-recalls-certain-firestone-transforce-tires>
> There are no known accidents or injuries involving tires subject to
> this recall. However, Bridgestone has determined that affected tires
> were not manufactured according to specification, and this could pose
> a safety risk. Bridgestone has notified regulatory agencies in the
> U.S. and Canada in accordance with applicable laws.
>
> in your world, a couple of tire blowouts and resulting car crashes out
> of billions of miles driven is no big deal. so what if a few people
> die.

No-one died from drinking a hot coffee properly. Whereas dying from driving
your car properly is definitely a problem.

>>> ms. liebeck initially asked that mcdonald's pay her medical expenses,
>>> which mcdonald's had done in previous cases, in this case, about $20k.
>>>
>>> mcdonald's said no, offering only $800.
>>>
>>> ms. liebeck sued, ultimately going to trial after attempts to settle
>>> out of court failed.
>>>
>>> mcdonald's was found to have a 'willful, reckless, malicious or wanton
>>> disregard' for the safety of its patrons (and not just ms. liebeck).
>>
>> By serving hot drinks? Sure. It may be the ruling but it's still dumb. The
>> law often gets things wrong.
>
> not that often, and in this case, it definitely did not.
>
> the law correctly states that you can't intentionally sell a product
> that causes harm.

What about alcohol or tobacco? Or, god forbid, a gun?

The ruling was and is an utter joke. The whole world knows it.

> that's why there are various safety tests, product recalls, etc.
>
> like you, the jury initially thought the whole thing was a farce. after
> all, some old lady spilled hot coffee on herself and sued.
>
> except that after learning the facts of the case, much of it from
> mcdonald's own testimony (which makes it even more compelling), the
> jury realized that mcdonald's didn't give a shit about the safety of
> their patrons.
>
> like ford and the pinto, customers were just a number on a spreadsheet.
>
> in previous instances, mcdonald's *did* cover for medical expenses
> (which means they knew they were doing something wrong, otherwise why
> pay), however, they thought that ms. liebeck was an old lady whom they
> could ignore and get out of it cheap.
>
> that turned out to be a bad decision on mcdonald's part.

Yup. Because they were afraid of a malicious, frivolous suit. Only possible
in the US.

> had mcdonald's simply paid her medical bills ($20k or so) or even
> settled in arbitration (which they also refused), as they did in
> previous instances, it would not have gone to trial and they wouldn't
> have been smacked down in court.
>
> it did go to trial and what the jury heard was that it was *not* just a
> one-time event, but a long pattern of unacceptable practices.
>
> put simply, the jury heard *all* of the facts (the trial itself took
> about a week) and overwhelmingly concluded that mcdonald's was liable.
>
>> Why not sue the car manufacturer for not providing cup holders?
>
> because cup holders had nothing to do with knowingly serving food that
> can burn on contact and is unfit for human consumption as served.
>
> the other incidents include spills *inside* the restaurant, including
> on kids (likely spilled by their parents), as well as mcdonald's own
> staff spilling it on people in the drive-thru.
>
> cup holders are irrelevant.

If the car had cupholders then no coffee would have been spilled.

>>> ms liebeck was awarded $200k in compensatory damages, reduced by 20%
>>> because she was found to be partly at fault
>>
>> Entirely at fault.
>
> nope. only 20% at fault (which is arguably quite generous).

Ridiculous.

> the vehicle was parked and she was the passenger, a perfectly normal
> situation in which one would remove the lid of a beverage.
>
>> In related news knives are sharp, flames burn and ice is
>> slippy.
>
> you are completely missing the point.

Hello pot. Kettle calling.

>>> (despite that she was the
>>> *passenger* in a *parked* vehicle), and an additional $2.7 million in
>>> punitive damages,
>>
>> This is what doesn't exist here. You can only sue for real or actual harm
>> or losses. The US punitive payouts are often ridiculous.
>
> she *did* have real and actual harm.
>
> she had third degree burns, requiring skin grafts and a lengthy
> recovery.

From her own mistake. McDs cannot be held responsible for that. In any sane
legal system, that is.

> that's quite a bit more than 'ouch, that was hot'.
>
> she originally asked for her medical expenses to be paid. mcdonald's
> said no.
>
> the punitive damages in this case was two days of coffee sales, which
> is relatively minor. it was also reduced on appeal, ultimately settling
> for an undisclosed sum believed to be a few hundred thousand dollars.
>
>>> which was roughly two days of coffee sales, reduced
>>> on appeal and ultimately settled for an undisclosed sum.
>>>
>>> <https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/the-mcdonald-s-coffee-
>>> cup-case-separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html>
>>> <https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts>
>>> <https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/>
>>>
>>> tl;dr - mcdonald's fucked up. big time.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> nope right back.
>
> read the facts of the case, not what you imagine them to be.

It's not complicated.

> unlike you, the jury heard all of the facts and overwhelmingly found
> that mcdonald's fucked up.

It was a civil suit. The bar for winning is very low: "on the balance of
probabilities". Civil cases are very unpredictable and can be swung with
very little.

Just look at the Johnny Depp trial. It's a global laughing stock. The US
legal system isn't looking good.

>> Yet companies genuinely having wanton and malicious disregard for the harm
>> of their products which are killing tens of thousands americans every year
>> are free to do so. With no risk to their business.
>
> the ones that do almost always get sued and pay the price.

Really? Smith & Wesson, Colt, et al. How many suits have they lost?

>> Sure. Hot coffee is the real problem.
>
> when it's hot enough to cause immediate burns on contact, yes it is.

Yet effectively 100% of customers were able to consume it safely. Clearly
the coffee is working as designed.

> other restaurants served hot coffee that did not cause immediate burns.

So did McDs.