Woman sues Match.com because she met a man who attacked her

[SphinxnihpS]

All improper analogies and they underline your lack of understanding in the matter or just a willful ignorance towards tort law and concepts of duty and causation of damages.

lol, pot much?

It's not a willful ignorance of tort law. In fact that sentence defies logic. "What are you doing after bowling Tuesday, Steve? Want to go to the bar?" "Sorry, Dan, I really have to brush up on my tort law"... No surprise this is the root of torture; it is certainly twisted.

Had this not been a poor little old grandmother there would have been no case at the time.

 

[momeNt]

So you're out camping and roasting marshmallows on an open fire. Some idiot decides to put it in his mouth right after he pulls it out of the fire and burns his mouth. Who is he gonna sue? The marshmallow company for not putting a warning on each marshmallow about eating it while it's hot?

Jesus you are dumb.

If you knew they were hot enough to burn his mouth, offered him the marshmallow for his immediate consumption, and he burned his mouth, you would be at fault for FAILING to meet a duty to inform him of the nature of the marshmallow.

The stupidity in this thread is astounding. It revolves around who had the knowledge, and was the person harmed operating reasonably and was their lack of knowledge reasonable. When offered coffee is it reasonable to assume that spilling it can cause the burns she received in that severity? Maybe a little burning is probably reasonable, but 3rd degree burns from coffee? C'mon, don't be ridiculous.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

*starts a slow clap*


*whew* There is SOME hope for humanity

Nope, sorry. I am over 40.

 

[momeNt]

lol, pot much?

It's not a willful ignorance of tort law. In fact that sentence defies logic. "What are you doing after bowling Tuesday, Steve? Want to go to the bar?" "Sorry, Dan, I really have to brush up on my tort law"... No surprise this is the root of torture; it is certainly twisted.

Had this not been a poor little old grandmother there would have been no case at the time.

I suppose you disagree with all caution wet floor signs too. A sign of a stupid society who has come to expect walkability in their floors! The outrage!

 

[Mandres]

What's interesting about the McDonald's coffee case is that everyone has heard of it and has an opinion about it. Doesn't that seem strange? Personal injury lawsuits and opened and closed every day. Why does every internet nerd with no interest in or understanding of tort law have such passionate feelings about this case?

It's because the US Chamber of Commerce (biggest pro-business PAC in America) spent a fortune to propagandize that case and vilify the victim to push the tort reform agenda. All of you who scoff at the award amount and snicker about the stupid woman are parroting back the message that the largest corporations in the county spent $Texas to plant in your heads. It's the response that you were conditioned to give.

If you're honestly interested in the victim, the facts of the case and the award then read up on it. But stop screeching and patting yourselves on the back like monkeys when you honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[momeNt]

What's interesting about the McDonald's coffee case is that everyone has heard of it and has an opinion about it. Doesn't that seem strange? Personal injury lawsuits and opened and closed every day. Why does every internet nerd with no interest in or understanding of tort law have such passionate feelings about this case?

It's because the US Chamber of Commerce (biggest pro-business PAC in America) spent a fortune to propagandize that case and vilify the victim to push the tort reform agenda. All of you who scoff at the award amount and snicker about the stupid woman are parroting back the message that the largest corporations in the county spent $Texas to plant in your heads. It's the response that you were conditioned to give.

If you're honestly interested in the victim, the facts of the case and the award then read up on it. But stop screeching and patting yourselves on the back like monkeys when you honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

FWIW I have read the case and opinion, as well as attended a presentation from a lawyer on the case.

 

[jagec]

race-realist

I have never heard anyone use this term to describe themselves who wasn't more accurately described as a racist.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Jesus you are dumb.

If you knew they were hot enough to burn his mouth, offered him the marshmallow for his immediate consumption, and he burned his mouth, you would be at fault for FAILING to meet a duty to inform him of the nature of the marshmallow.

The stupidity in this thread is astounding. It revolves around who had the knowledge, and was the person harmed operating reasonably and was their lack of knowledge reasonable. When offered coffee is it reasonable to assume that spilling it can cause the burns she received in that severity? Maybe a little burning is probably reasonable, but 3rd degree burns from coffee? C'mon, don't be ridiculous.

You're an idiot who doesn't even know how to read, aren't you? And you must not go out camping much either, usually you roast your own marshmallows. Are you just a basement lawyer by chance?

 

[Rakehellion]

what about serving chicken that isn't cooked all the way through, and if someone got extremely sick from it and was in the hospital and nearly dies? i wonder if people would be okay with suing for that.

Should I be allowed to serve pie laced with cyanide?

So what you guys are saying is if I buy a gun and shoot my private parts I can get to sue the gun seller for $10,000,000 because there was no warning on the gun?

Bad, horrible examples. It's expected and understood that McDonald's isn't selling cyanide, guns, or anything that could cause bodily harm. As such, they shouldn't be selling 180 degree coffee. It is also understood that food spills are a very common occurrence, such that every restaurant is equipped with a mop and bucket.

On the other hand: If I'm eating a Big Mac and spill special sauce on my $1200 Armani suit and ruin it, do they owe me the cost of a new one?

 

[xanis]

With online dating it seems kind of obvious that you're meeting people at your own risk, but I guess not. Just someone else looking to place some blame and grab some cash.

 

[Geosurface]

I have never heard anyone use this term to describe themselves who wasn't more accurately described as a racist.

And I have never met a liberal who is willing to have an honest discussion about racial differences, and who didn't use "racist" as an unthinking, knee-jerk, automatic insult they attempt to tar anyone who DOES attempt to have that honest conversation with. Let's not go down that road though, this thread is derailed enough already.

 

[KeithTalent]

What's interesting about the McDonald's coffee case is that everyone has heard of it and has an opinion about it. Doesn't that seem strange? Personal injury lawsuits and opened and closed every day. Why does every internet nerd with no interest in or understanding of tort law have such passionate feelings about this case?

It's because the US Chamber of Commerce (biggest pro-business PAC in America) spent a fortune to propagandize that case and vilify the victim to push the tort reform agenda. All of you who scoff at the award amount and snicker about the stupid woman are parroting back the message that the largest corporations in the county spent $Texas to plant in your heads. It's the response that you were conditioned to give.

If you're honestly interested in the victim, the facts of the case and the award then read up on it. But stop screeching and patting yourselves on the back like monkeys when you honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Cue the conspiracy weirdos...

I knew of it because of the original news story, a Seinfeld episode, and a documentary on the subject which, theoretically, is supposed to actually support her case. No idea what you are on about, nor do I care.

Suddenly this feels a lot like P&N. :hmm:

KT

 

[SP33Demon]

Wow, thread filled with emo virgins.

 

[Brainonska511]

And I have never met a liberal who is willing to have an honest discussion about racial differences, and who didn't use "racist" as an unthinking, knee-jerk, automatic insult they attempt to tar anyone who DOES attempt to have that honest conversation with. Let's not go down that road though, this thread is derailed enough already.

Honest discussion? Hard to have an 'honest discussion' when it is really just a dicussion of thinly veiled racism. Racial differences. Ha.

Now, if you wanted to have a discussion about cultural differences, you could be onto something. Being a loser and thug or being successful has nothing to do with race.

 

[momeNt]

You're an idiot who doesn't even know how to read, aren't you? And you must not go out camping much either, usually you roast your own marshmallows. Are you just a basement lawyer by chance?

If you roasted your own marshmallows and put it in your own mouth, then the marshmallow company didn't owe you a duty. You have nobody to sue! You fail so hard at analogies.

 

[jagec]

And I have never met a liberal who is willing to have an honest discussion about racial differences

You mean like being more prone to lactose intolerance or sickle-cell anemia? Sure, I'll help you look up any number of scientific studies and discuss them. Or are you talking about cultural differences and committing a faulty causation fallacy?

Oh, sorry, "Veiled insult, but-let's-not-derail-this-thread." Better?

 

[DrunkenSano]

If you roasted your own marshmallows and put it in your own mouth, then the marshmallow company didn't owe you a duty. You have nobody to sue! You fail so hard at analogies.

Obviously you fail at understanding responsibility for your own stupidity. Did McDonalds spill the coffee on her? No, if they did, then yes they should be sued. When you spill the coffee on yourself because you're not careful, that's on you.

Keep pushing the responsibility on other people. It's idiots like you that our society continues its path downward. People always point blame at somewhere else and now it's costing regular taxpayers shit loads of money. So kindly go fuck yourself.

 

[Geosurface]

Honest discussion? Hard to have an 'honest discussion' when it is really just a dicussion of thinly veiled racism. Racial differences. Ha.

Now, if you wanted to have a discussion about cultural differences, you could be onto something. Being a loser and thug or being successful has nothing to do with race.

As I said I really don't want to go down that road in this already derailed thread but I'll just say that if you actually do some digging there is a lot of very compelling evidence, much of it in mainstream scientific circles (though typically this information is framed in the least offensive and most narrowly focused way) that there are significant differences between racial groups.

This will be my last word on it here but let me just link to another post I made recently in a more appropriate thread about just a few such examples:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34527686&postcount=23

Oh, sorry, "Veiled insult, but-let's-not-derail-this-thread." Better?

Don't talk to me about insults after you came right out of the gate with "Racist!" which is the modern equivalent of "heretic!" and packs more of a punch than "child molester" in some minds.

The moment a researcher releases a study showing evidence of significant racial differences in athleticism, intelligence, behavior, etc... they instantly become a "racist" in many minds, and it's a catch 22. From then on, their findings can be dismissed because they are from a "racist source"

The moment a regular person such as myself becomes AWARE of this research and gives it it's rightful credence, we become "racists" in those same minds, it's really a very convenient little set up to shut down debate and marginalize people.

 

[Baked]

So this ho hooked up with a guy who she found attractive but end up getting her ass beat because she can only see skin deep. Hmmm... sounds strangely familiar to all the domestic violence cases. Interesting.

 

[Genx87]

McDonalds still sells coffeee at the same temp. In the wiki article you will see an appeal to the 7th circuit that states coffee must be brewed at that temperature for flavor.

 

[oznerol]

what about serving chicken that isn't cooked all the way through, and if someone got extremely sick from it and was in the hospital and nearly dies? i wonder if people would be okay with suing for that.

it's similar to the coffee concept except instead of being too hot, it is too "cold" and not cooked enough.

This is probably the best comparison. It's why restaurants put warnings on menus which say "Notice: The consumption of raw or undercooked eggs, meat, poultry, seafood or shellfish may increase your risk of food borne illness."

The same with food allergy warnings.

Hell, sometimes restaurants serve food on plates that are incredibly hot. And I would say 9 times out of 10, the waitress will give you a heads up with a simple, "be careful, the plate is hot". Sure, I understand that the plate could be hot- but I'm pretty most people assume the plate won't give you 3rd degree burns if you pick it up.

 

[Brainonska511]

McDonalds still sells coffeee at the same temp. In the wiki article you will see an appeal to the 7th circuit that states coffee must be brewed at that temperature for flavor.

Brewed, not served.

No, if they did, then yes they should be sued. When you spill the coffee on yourself because you're not careful, that's on you.

McDonald's was knowingly serving coffee that was significantly hotter than other places. I expect my coffee to be hot. I don't expect it to give me severe burns if I spill it on myself because I don't expect it to be hotter than the average temperature I usually find coffee at.

They were quite aware and had previously paid out on other damage claims related to their coffee. That's why they were held responsible in the case. The spiller was also found to be partially responsible, and that's why the award was reduced, but they weren't solely at fault for the 3rd degree burns.

 

[momeNt]

Obviously you fail at understanding responsibility for your own stupidity. Did McDonalds spill the coffee on her? No, if they did, then yes they should be sued. When you spill the coffee on yourself because you're not careful, that's on you.

Keep pushing the responsibility on other people. It's idiots like you that our society continues its path downward. People always point blame at somewhere else and now it's costing regular taxpayers shit loads of money. So kindly go fuck yourself.

The courts and jury found a duty on McDonald's that exceeded her duty to herself.

It's hilarious how badly you don't understand it yet have such a rigid position on it.

 

[momeNt]

McDonalds still sells coffeee at the same temp. In the wiki article you will see an appeal to the 7th circuit that states coffee must be brewed at that temperature for flavor.

They have different containers as well that won't collapse if put between your legs. They also put the cream and sugar in it for you as well, drastically lowering the temperature and the potential for burns.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Jesus you are dumb.

If you knew they were hot enough to burn his mouth, offered him the marshmallow for his immediate consumption, and he burned his mouth, you would be at fault for FAILING to meet a duty to inform him of the nature of the marshmallow.

The stupidity in this thread is astounding. It revolves around who had the knowledge, and was the person harmed operating reasonably and was their lack of knowledge reasonable. When offered coffee is it reasonable to assume that spilling it can cause the burns she received in that severity? Maybe a little burning is probably reasonable, but 3rd degree burns from coffee? C'mon, don't be ridiculous.

I would reasonably expect very serious burn from spilling coffee on myself. I would also reasonably expect that as I age my skin will not be as protective as it once was. I would also reasonably expect that I, Me, Mine, would be responsible in my actions around dangerous things and at all other times.

Also, you are treating this as if it was the first time this woman ever went to McDonald's I would reasonably expect that nearly everyone has been to McDonald's. I would reasonably expect that nearly anyone who has ordered coffee at McDonald's has ordered coffee at McDonald's before.

I don't know about you, but I find warning labels for the obvious, tedious and insulting. This object is heavy. If it falls on you, you could be injured. Ya don't say... This object has grindy parts that can turn your soft fleshy bits and bones into hamburger. Don't put your soft fleshy parts or bones into the grindy parts. Whoa! Dude I was so going to stick my hand in there before I read this very informative and life-saving label (that cost $4,000,000 in attorney's fees, regulatory fees, printing and application, as well as our internal compliance department's salaries). I mean thank god legislatures look at these scenarios and draft legislation, and hire regulators and form new branches of government, and spend all our money protecting the very stupidest of the stupid from themselves instead of wasting their time on trivial matters like the fact that our country isn't even owned by us anymore (in the sense you don't own your car or house) and that our kids won't be able to pay the bill and the house is going to get foreclosed on, or that corporations are treated as people when that serves their bottom line and headless guiltless entities when that serves them, and that people are treated as cattle who's only legal function is to serve corporations. I mean they could waste their time figuring out how to extricate us from an unwinnable war against a faceless nameless enemy, that we got ourselves into in the first place with our delightfully negligent, greedy, and ethicless foreign policy, but they focus on what's important, staying elected to protect us from ourselves.

Or maybe that's the whole idea...