homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.73.52.98
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Accredited PayPal World Seller

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 ( [1] 2 > >     
Lawsuit claims McDonald's burgers and fries are making kids fat
Well, um........yea
skibum




msg:323852
 8:54 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

On CNN [cnn.com]

It's almost as dangerous to serve fast food as it is to eat it all the time.

The plaintiffs include a Bronx teen who ate every meal at McDonald's for three years while living in a homeless shelter. Another is a 13-year-old boy from Staten Island who says he ate at McDonald's food three to four times a week and is now 5-foot-4 and 278 pounds.

 

Trix999




msg:323853
 9:01 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Awful USA lawsuit system. It's not that people don't know that eating junkfood is bad for you. This goes within the other lawsuits like cigarettes will cause cancer, ...

Some people are stupid, but the worst part is that they are making millions of dollars by abusing this court system. Something has to change in USA, because it seems like nobody is responsible for themselves anymore. People do have a free will and they can choose whether or not to go eat another triple hamburger etc. I really don't get this, and that is one of the major points where America is failing.

anon e moose




msg:323854
 9:07 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

I bet there is more to the lawsuit than is discussed in those four or five paragraphs. As for the Macdonald's lawyer claiming it is frivolous, that is what makes me think there is probably some justification. The other lawyer would not take a class action suit without thinking there was a good chance of his wining.

How are you going to feel about it if it turns out that in addition to just soybean, (everyone already knows they put that in the meat), they are also adding all kind of goodies that make the food taste better for the sole purpose of increasing your appetite for it? Is this suit really that different than the ones against tobacco manufacturers?

I personally don't care. Go ahead and be all that you can be. I'm just saying that there is very likely more to the story than is being reported by people who make a living off of selling ads to Macdonalds.

anon e moose




msg:323855
 9:13 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Some people are stupid, but the worst part is that they are making millions of dollars by abusing this court system.
**************

Pretty trite in my opinion. Does anyone really believe that it is stupid people who make millions of dollars off of lawsuits. there may be a lot wrong with the USA but the legal system letting millions go to stupid people is not one of them. Believe what you want, but lawsuits are not a frivolous matters. At least not to the people involved in them. Ever been divorced?

oilman




msg:323856
 9:15 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>adding all kind of goodies that make the food taste better for the sole purpose of increasing your appetite for it?

There's a book out called Fast Food Nation. Basically and expose on the social impact of McDonald's, Wendy's et al. Well worth the read. There's a whole chapter on how they create the taste and smell chemically in a lab. Fascinating stuff.

mivox




msg:323857
 9:37 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

they are also adding all kind of goodies that make the food taste better for the sole purpose of increasing your appetite for it

That's a known fact... artificial flavors, and all sorts of other additives.

Of course parents need to take a lot more responsibility for their children's health to start with (my boyfriend's kids do not eat at McDonalds when they are with us... period), but I think the food manufacturers need to take a little more responsibility in their marketing as well. They go to great lengths to make their products appealing to children, and advertise them as though there is nothing wrong with eating as much of it as one might want to.

JonB




msg:323858
 9:45 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

there may be a lot wrong with the USA but the legal system letting millions go to stupid people is not one of them
----

even the fact that it is possible that you order coffee at mcdonalds, YOU spill it due to your own clumsynes,sue mcdonals and win makes it pretty stupid in my eyes.there are thousands of sites in google prove you wrong.

mivox




msg:323859
 9:52 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

There is the question of why the McDonalds was serving coffee at nearly 200 degrees Fahrenheit though... at that temperature, you might drop it because the cup is burning your fingers.

JonB




msg:323860
 10:00 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

mivox here is how it happens (from some web site):

Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her.

since she put it between her legs it was not too hot to drop i guess.

also on that site you can read : By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit

other than that - wow there are like 200 000 pages describing this "well know case".there even is stella award.but lets not argue about this case please :)

anon e moose




msg:323861
 10:05 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

even the fact that it is possible that you order coffee at mcdonalds, YOU spill it due to your own clumsynes,sue mcdonals and win makes it pretty stupid in my eyes.there are thousands of sites in google prove you wrong.

************
Is your point really that it was someone stupid who was able to win that case? Maybe the person spilling it was stupid. Maybe the judge was stupid, hell for all I know you're stupid, if you really think a stupid person won that case.

What any of this has to do with google proving anything, I have NO IDEA. But of course, mentioning google should do a lot to help anyone make a point whether it actually has anything to do with the topic or not. If google said it, it must be true!

Conard




msg:323862
 10:12 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Of course a stupid person did NOT win this case or any other case. The smart attorneys win the cases and just fork over some of the cash to the stupid people.

mivox




msg:323863
 10:12 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

It was hot enough to leave third degree burns between her legs. That is hazardously hot. That would be hot enough to cause severe burns in her mouth, had she gotten to drink it. Some details from lectlaw.com [lectlaw.com]:

A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body ...

[...]

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....

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat....

So McDonald's knew it's coffee posed a burn hazard... that woman, on the other hand, had no reason to assume her coffee was a hazardous substance.

choster




msg:323864
 10:16 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

The millions do not go to the stupid people. The millions go to the lawyers they hire. It arguably all started with the first asbestos settlements, which even today, decades later, are bankrupting companies that never even manufactured the stuff. Medical malpractice insurance is almost impossible to get in West Virginia and several other states. One of the stories that disturbed me the most is that some law firms decided to open offices in Illinois when Boeing moved its headquarters from Seattle to Chicago. Illinois has laxer liability laws, featuring jury trials and lots of blue-collar juries, and this way they can be closer to the ambulances when the next Boeing airliner gets struck by a bolt of lightning somewhere.

[overlawyered.com...] and tort reform groups do their best, but the ATLA is one of the wealthiest lobbies in Washington-- bigger than tobacco, guns, or labor unions.

JonB




msg:323865
 10:34 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

anon e moose: the person that spilled was the same that won the case.that is all i meant.even you allow the possibility that person who spilled tho coffee is stupid.dont even go to this "word games": oh technivally she didnt won ,her lawyer won and he is not stupid". becasue that was not what i meant.

i jsut used google as example - in ALL other search engines or better all over the net you will find tons of stories about stupid lawsuits - majority if not all are from US. or are you one of those that believe "bushisms" and other "true jokes" are "evil thing invented by people who dont like us "?

i jsut named one example that came into my mind.mivox i know you have "proof" but it would be hard to belivie that mcdonals would make such a mistake., i mean what about all othr people drinking such a hot coffee?i am sure they didnt make is so hot just for this lady.as i said this was jsut one example - i think there is no need to go searching for others.

mivox




msg:323866
 10:55 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

it would be hard to belivie that mcdonals would make such a mistake

That's why she won SO much money in the public court case. The judge called McDonalds' conduct "reckless, callous and willful," given the fact that hundreds of other people had suffered coffee burns in the past. It wasn't a mistake:
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' rationale was that people bought coffee, and then drove all the way to work before drinking it, so it had to be hot enough to still be warm when they got to work.

But why is that so hard to believe? There are chemical & plastics companies who's products were killing their manufacturing employees, who had rooms full of documentation of that fact, who didn't change anything about their manufacturing process until someone sued them. The cigarette companies spent decades saying their products were perfectly safe, after they had evidence showing a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer...

Yes, there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits in the US, but there are also a lot of understaffed careless hospitals making serious mistakes in people's health care, there are major corporations actively pursuing policies and producing products they know are likely to cause injury, illness or death, and a million other shady things going on the back offices of this world... I'm glad people can do something about it.

lawman




msg:323867
 10:59 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

For these types of cases, attorneys usually take them on a contingency fee. No settlement or judgment, no fee.

Furthermore, most clients cannot afford the up-front expenses. The attorney normally fronts these costs. Again, if there is no settlement or judgment, the attorney eats these expenses. The upshot is this: after reviewing the facts of the case, if it appears to be meritless, the attorney will walk. However if there is merit, would you deny a plaintiff a judgment?

Finally, most cases settle. This is a mutual agreement between the parties. Surely you wouldn't fault a settlement.

Liability and damages in those cases that do not settle are usually determined by a jury, which has heard all the evidence presented by both sides. Having had my criminal cases reported by newspapers, I can assure you that I would not put a whole lot of emphasis on news stories. I submit that those snippets couldn't possibly reflect the dynamics of a full-blown trial.

If you or a loved one were the victim of corporate malfeasance or medical malpractice, would you cheer an arbitrary cap on damages put in place by someone who couldn't possibly know the facts of your case?

Note: I don't do civil law and do not have any pecuniary interest in tort reform.

lawman

JonB




msg:323868
 11:02 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

mivox, you are one very smart woman!(i dont joke)! :)

ok ok i used wrong example. jsut i dont have time to seach for one better example.

mivox




msg:323869
 11:16 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

;) I felt the same way about the "Coffee Case" as you Jon, until I looked into the details. And the jury did find her 20% responsible for her injuries... I bought McDonald's coffee once before that case came up, and you can tell it was insanely hot through the cup. I was stupid enough to try blowing on it and taking a sip anyway. My tongue was numb for days, and I had a blister on the roof of my mouth.

I'm wondering what details about the nutritional value and proven health effects of McDonald's food might come into public light as a result of these new lawsuits... (Tho' I still think the kids should name their parents as co-defendants for letting them eat that way! ;) )

Which brings up lawman's point: If everything you know about a lawsuit is what the news media has reported, rest assured there's a lot you never heard. :)

victor




msg:323870
 8:45 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Mivox:
I'm wondering what details about the nutritional value and proven health effects of McDonald's food might come into public light as a result of these new lawsuits

Tons of stuff -- most of it damning -- came to light during the McLibel case. That's when McDonald's took two blue clooar Brits to court for libel, and have been rueing the day ever since.

[mcspotlight.org...]

JonB




msg:323871
 9:13 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

mivox -they sold millions and millions ofcoffee cups(700 got burned or so) - does that mean that all other expcet those 700 drove to the office and then drank the coffee? That no one of those millions tried to drink it the minute the bought it? and if they drank no one got burned? if they admited that by 200 degrees you can get burned that why didnt all other peopl get burned? throat is a throat:) and she didnt even drink it - she spilled it due to her clumsines. if coffee is too hot it should burn anyone not just those 700. it just sounds so strange to me :) i think there at least one time in everyone life they were served too hot drink or meal somewhere - even my mom makes the soup too hot sometimes. maybe it is time to sue her. :)

Josk




msg:323872
 9:52 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

MacD's sell coffee? So thats what that stuff is. I was thinking they were just kidding selling coffee that bad. They've managed to get away with the burgers, but the coffee is just them having a laugh...

mat_bastian




msg:323873
 11:07 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

JonB,

Have you ever had a cup of McDonalds coffee before the lawsuit? It came to you ridiculously hot... when it burns your hand through the poly styrene cup, you know it's cooking. It's not a large step by any means to boiling point. I really don't feel it can be blamed on stupidity... well maybe McDonalds' stupidity. It's one thing for mom to burn the soup, it's quite another for a Multinational coorporation to set a hazardous policy.

mat_bastian




msg:323874
 11:13 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

One more thing on the coffee... It left here with third degree burns on six percent of her body, I can only imagine the damage that could do to an unsuspecting baby.

Josk




msg:323875
 11:46 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Babies don't drink coffee. They drink milk. Even *I* know that.

mat_bastian




msg:323876
 11:52 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

LMAO... you seriously made my vanilla coca cola squirt out of my nose when I read that... Dang... off to clean the monitor.:(

Josk




msg:323877
 11:57 am on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Was it hot? You could probably sue Coca-Cola...

Brett_Tabke




msg:323878
 12:05 pm on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

>That's why she won SO much money in the public court case.

What a PR job the McLawyers did before the case eh?

And now for related but troubling news - men should becareful with their laptops:

(warning, not for the squeamish)

[theregister.co.uk...]

mat_bastian




msg:323879
 12:12 pm on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Oh my....


oh my...

Sinner_G




msg:323880
 12:22 pm on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

How much is 200 fahrenheit in Celsius?

And why doesn't McDonalds just ask the customers whether the coffee is to take away or to drink at once and then serve the right temperature?

JonB




msg:323881
 12:49 pm on Nov 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

Sinner_G: 93 degrees.

This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved