Not really a farcility, but...

Just zis Guy said:

How stupid would you need to be in order to benefit from this sign?

Ermmmm, Leftpondian?

El Swear I had a Leftpondian responding thus to Malcolm Wardlaw's
excellent BMJ paper:

Quoted message said:

I took a look at the site and it begins with an assertion about
helmets for walking coming from America. Just to correct the record
wearing a helmet for walking does not occur in the US unless you have
an incapacity the causes you to bang your head on hard objects such
as medically uncontrollable seizures.

So the sign is probably necessary to prevent massive lawsuits when
people try to walk on through the bushes and get scratched, not
realising the sidewalk has ended.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So the sign is probably necessary to prevent massive lawsuits when
people try to walk on through the bushes and get scratched, not
realising the sidewalk has ended.

Which is what I thought, along with warnings that fresh coffee may be hot
and objects in the rear view mirror may be nearer than they appear.
--
Pete
http:[email hidden]/P

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 10:41:37 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

So the sign is probably necessary to prevent massive lawsuits when
people try to walk on through the bushes and get scratched, not
realising the sidewalk has ended.

What about the massive lawsuits from people who walk into the sign
and damage themselves?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 10:41:37 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

So the sign is probably necessary to prevent massive lawsuits when
people try to walk on through the bushes and get scratched, not
realising the sidewalk has ended.

What about the massive lawsuits from people who walk into the sign
and damage themselves?

A Coffee-Over-Keyboard moment :-)

Pete

"Peter B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A Coffee-Over-Keyboard moment :-)

It is a Merkin sign -- they'll sue for anything -- even coffee over the
keyboard.

Peter B said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So the sign is probably necessary to prevent massive lawsuits when
people try to walk on through the bushes and get scratched, not
realising the sidewalk has ended.

Which is what I thought, along with warnings that fresh coffee may be hot

We have been through this before.
The lady in question was severely scalded in her groin area,
and needed skin grafts.
McDonalds printed instructions to their stores were shown to mandate
high temperatures for the coffee, higher than is normal practice elsewhere,
in order that the consumer gets hot coffee on returning home.
No, it was not a frivolous lawsuit.

John Hearns said:

We have been through this before.
The lady in question was severely scalded in her groin area,
and needed skin grafts.
McDonalds printed instructions to their stores were shown to mandate
high temperatures for the coffee, higher than is normal practice elsewhere,
in order that the consumer gets hot coffee on returning home.
No, it was not a frivolous lawsuit.

And prior to the lawsuit, was there a temperature that you were aware of
as being "normal" for coffee? Would you have considered it sensible to
clasp a cup of coffee between your thighs while attempting to do other
things?

The result being that one person who received third degree burns through
a combination of unusually hot coffee and their own ill thought-out
behaviour, allowed everyone else to receive cold coffee when they reach
their destination.

Did she consider sueing the manufacturers of her clothing, or the seat
covering for allowing them to absorb liquids so rapidly? Did she sue her
son (Who IIRC was driving at the time of the incident) for not taking
more care over his driving, given the precarious position of his
mother's coffee?

The last few paragraphs of Popcorn do a far better job than I of
parodying this. ;-)

Jon

"John Hearns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter B said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So the sign is probably necessary to prevent massive lawsuits when
people try to walk on through the bushes and get scratched, not
realising the sidewalk has ended.

Which is what I thought, along with warnings that fresh coffee may be

hot

Quoted message said:

We have been through this before.
The lady in question was severely scalded in her groin area,
and needed skin grafts.
McDonalds printed instructions to their stores were shown to mandate
high temperatures for the coffee, higher than is normal practice

elsewhere,

Quoted message said:

in order that the consumer gets hot coffee on returning home.
No, it was not a frivolous lawsuit.

TBH when I posted I was just having a cheap dig at American society, nothing
more, nothing less.

However your response has made me think about the situation and my mind
boggles that an adult of sound mind is caught by surprise that a hot drink
is hot.
As a life-long drinker of black coffee (i.e. it has no cream or milk to cool
it) I wouldn't expect it to be any other than dangerously hot having just
poured near boiling water into the cafeteria or watched the water trickle
through the filter as a result of being raised by boiling or many years ago
watching it hit the little glass wotsit in the lid of the percolator as a
result of boiling.
Not that this has anything to do with riding a bike.

And the sidewalk along with its sign are superfluous anyway as we know
Americans don't walk anywhere (just to get back to American baiting)

And no, I'm neither zenophobic nor Americanphobic (is that a correct
term?).

Take a chill-pill.

Regards,
Pete

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter B

Quoted message said:

And no, I'm neither zenophobic nor Americanphobic (is that a correct
term?).

In believe the correct term is "anti-septic". ;-)

--
Sara

iChat: sarakirk (AIM)
So, what are you going to do? Sucker me to death?

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 17:26:37 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Peter B"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

my mind
boggles that an adult of sound mind is caught by surprise that a hot drink
is hot.

In a former life I had to deal with the case of a grown woman,
presumably of sound mind, who had walked backwards into an electric
fire. The result of her action was some localised burns from the
guard on the back of her legs that were undoubtedly painful.

The fire was made by Dimplex, who have as good a reputation as
anyone for quality products. The temperature of the guard was well
within the permissible levels in the British Standard of the time
for such things.

No doubt egged on by her lawyer, she was claiming that we should
measure the temperature of the grilles on every fire (we had
hundreds) regularly.

On a human level I had some sympathy for her, but this was much
reduced by her ridiculous legal activities. Fires are meant to get
hot, that is what they are for.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

in message <[email hidden]>, John Hearns

(') said:

Peter B said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So the sign is probably necessary to prevent massive lawsuits when
people try to walk on through the bushes and get scratched, not
realising the sidewalk has ended.

Which is what I thought, along with warnings that fresh coffee may be
hot

We have been through this before.
The lady in question was severely scalded in her groin area,
and needed skin grafts.

The lady in question put a disposable - and observably crushable - cup
of hot fluid between her own thighs, and then pulled the lid off it
herself. Coffee is /normally/ made with boiling water; it is not
possible to heat water above boiling point under standard temperature
and pressure; consequently the coffee in the cup was not any hotter
than she might reasonably have expected it to be. What the
court /should/ have awarded her was a Darwin award - it was a
gratuitously stupid, entirely self-inflicted injury.

Yes, she needed skin grafts. But what she needed far more urgently was a
brain transplant.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'Victories are not solutions.'
;; John Hume, Northern Irish politician, on Radio Scotland 1/2/95
;; Nobel Peace Prize laureate 1998; few have deserved it so much

At Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:59:16 +0100, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by Simon
Brooke <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

The lady in question put a disposable - and observably crushable - cup
of hot fluid between her own thighs, and then pulled the lid off it
herself. Coffee is /normally/ made with boiling water; it is not
possible to heat water above boiling point under standard temperature
and pressure; consequently the coffee in the cup was not any hotter
than she might reasonably have expected it to be. What the
court /should/ have awarded her was a Darwin award - it was a
gratuitously stupid, entirely self-inflicted injury.

Hmmmm. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case,
often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was
in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck
placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic
lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the
cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it
next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered
full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her
body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and
groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time
she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some
claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks.
This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and
nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit
to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home
is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

OK, so:

* coffee served at a drive-through, obviously designed to be consumed
in the car
* coffee substantially hotter than normally served in a domestic
context, or by other establishments
* the car is not in motion
* the burns are far from superficial
* McDonalds refuse to settle for a reasonable sum
* 700 other claims in ten years

You still think it was frivolous?

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, John Hearns

(') said:

Peter B said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> So the sign is probably necessary to prevent massive lawsuits when
> people try to walk on through the bushes and get scratched, not
> realising the sidewalk has ended.

Which is what I thought, along with warnings that fresh coffee may be
hot

We have been through this before.
The lady in question was severely scalded in her groin area,
and needed skin grafts.

The lady in question put a disposable - and observably crushable - cup
of hot fluid between her own thighs, and then pulled the lid off it
herself. Coffee is /normally/ made with boiling water; it is not
possible to heat water above boiling point under standard temperature
and pressure; consequently the coffee in the cup was not any hotter
than she might reasonably have expected it to be. What the
court /should/ have awarded her was a Darwin award - it was a
gratuitously stupid, entirely self-inflicted injury.

Darwin awards are not, erm, awardable, except in the case of fatalities.

Although in this case, one feels an exception might be made.

Steven said:

Darwin awards are not, erm, awardable, except in the case of fatalities.

Although in this case, one feels an exception might be made.

From Guy's graphic description it seems she might have removed herself
from the gene pool which IIRC is sufficient to qualify.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Jon Senior said:

John Hearns said:

We have been through this before.
The lady in question was severely scalded in her groin area,
and needed skin grafts.
McDonalds printed instructions to their stores were shown to mandate
high temperatures for the coffee, higher than is normal practice
elsewhere,
in order that the consumer gets hot coffee on returning home.
No, it was not a frivolous lawsuit.

And prior to the lawsuit, was there a temperature that you were aware of
as being "normal" for coffee? Would you have considered it sensible to
clasp a cup of coffee between your thighs while attempting to do other
things?

The lady was partly at fault. Since many previous customers had been
burnt, and McDonalds knew about it, and had decided to keep on selling
their coffee much hotter than other shops (at a drive-through where
there is obviously a significant risk of spillage - you can be sure they
would complain if each customer sat there blocking the lane until they
had finished their meal), it seems clear to me that they were also
partly at fault.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

in message <[email hidden]>, Just zis Guy,

you know? (') said:

At Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:59:16 +0100, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by Simon
Brooke <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

The lady in question put a disposable - and observably crushable - cup
of hot fluid between her own thighs, and then pulled the lid off it
herself. Coffee is /normally/ made with boiling water; it is not
possible to heat water above boiling point under standard temperature
and pressure; consequently the coffee in the cup was not any hotter
than she might reasonably have expected it to be. What the
court /should/ have awarded her was a Darwin award - it was a
gratuitously stupid, entirely self-inflicted injury.

Hmmmm. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case,
often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was
in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck
placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic
lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the
cup spilled into her lap.

That's what I said, isn't it?

Quoted message said:

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it
next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered
full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her
body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and
groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time
she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

All this is irrelevant. She knew the coffee was hot (and would have
complained had it not been); she put it between her legs herself; she
pulled the top off herself. The consequences were predictable and
inevitable. Entirely self-inflicted.

Quoted message said:

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit
to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home
is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

OK, so:

* coffee served at a drive-through, obviously designed to be consumed
in the car

And?

Quoted message said:

* coffee substantially hotter than normally served in a domestic
context, or by other establishments

Certainly not hotter than normally served in this house, where it is
instant and made with a (boiling) electric kettle. How do you make
yours?

Quoted message said:

* the car is not in motion

Completely irrelevant. Motion of the car is not alleged to have
contributed.

Quoted message said:

* the burns are far from superficial

Tough. I fell off my bike today taking a berm too slowly, and I've lost
a lot of skin off the outside of my leg. Am I going to sue the Forestry
Commission? Of course I'm bloody not. The consequences of riding a 70
degree berm too slowly are entirely predictable and if I choose to be
an idiot it's no-one's fault but my own.

Quoted message said:

* McDonalds refuse to settle for a reasonable sum

McDonalds had no business settling the claim - they had not caused the
injury.

Quoted message said:

* 700 other claims in ten years

Which just shows that in a litigious society a lot of people are
prepared to try things on to see what they can get away with.

Quoted message said:

You still think it was frivolous?

Utterly.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Just zis Guy,
you know? ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

[snip various details of the infamous split coffee case]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* McDonalds refuse to settle for a reasonable sum

McDonalds had no business settling the claim - they had not caused the
injury.

McDonalds admitted that the coffee was sold at a temperature not fit for
human consumption. It was sold to people in cars, who often have no
secure place to put the coffee. The coffee was issued with extras to be
added to the coffee, an action that only be performed by removing the
lid. McDonalds knew that hundreds of people had already been injured by
its coffee.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* 700 other claims in ten years

Which just shows that in a litigious society a lot of people are
prepared to try things on to see what they can get away with.

This woman was not trying to get away with anything. She had been
seriously injured in consequence of actions a company that knew that
what it was doing was injuring people. She had tried to settle for no
more than the cost of her medical bills, but McDonalds refused. When the
court heard the facts of the case, the court chose to impose punitive
damages. That was the court's choice, based on the court's view that
McDonalds was reckless, greedy and callous. It was the punitive damages
that made this case a cause celebre. The punitive damages, later reduced
on appeal, were merely two days worth of McDonalds coffee sales, and
were IMO proportionate. I find the court's decision entirely reasonable.
This report sets it all out quite well. This is an instance of the law
doing what it should do.

http://www.siegfriedandjensen.com/cases.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You still think it was frivolous?

Utterly.

Do you think anybody should ever sue anyone?

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

JLB said:

When the
court heard the facts of the case, the court chose to impose punitive
damages.

That's very common in most US court cases against corporates, thanks to
the Hollywood training films. In some cases they are strongly warranted
but in some cases its just because they are seen as a big bad corporate
with lots of money against the small guy.

There was a very strong public backlash against the decision in this case.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven said:

There was a very strong public backlash against the decision in this case.

There was also very one-sided coverage by a media that loves to laugh at
frivolous lawsuits and activists who want to abolish tort law. I wonder
what proportion of the public, like me, had no idea that McDonalds knew
of 700 previous burn cases, or that their coffee was unusually hot and
considered by their own quality control manager to be unfit for
consumption and a burning hazard.

Certainly, I only found this out a few years later via the internet, and
it changed my mind. Not that it completely absolves the woman of any
responsibility, of course. The court found that she was also to blame.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/