Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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!
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.
[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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
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)