@Duus Please be so kind to refer to this document: http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
This sounds suspiciously like your argument.
As you have so graciously outlined it in your post below I won't have to paraphrase it.
Please also check the lower parts of that document. Not just the parts that fit your case.
Here it states (quote): "Even in the eyes of an obviously sympathetic jury, Stella was judged to be 20 percent at fault -- she did, after all, spill the coffee into her lap all by herself. The car was stopped, so she presumably was not bumped to cause the spill. Indeed she chose to hold the coffee cup between her knees instead of any number of safer locations as she opened it."
Next quote: "Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." This is the exact temperature that McD's served their coffee at from 1982 to 1992.
And again, personally, if I get handed a steaming hot cup of coffee I usually tend to *FEEL* the heat in my hands, so yeah, if I still retain half of my brain I *should* be able to notice that: "Hmmm, heat in my hand from cup might mean that coffee is also hot, so be careful." If I can't string those two facts together maybe I should ask for a brain graft instead of a skin graft.
So in this case even a sympathetic jury found her 20% at fault. That's from a sympathetic jury! Consider what the unsympathetic juries might have found her at fault for! But we don't know that because it's not documented.
Both McD's and Stella Liebig decided to settle out of court because both sides found this to be in their best interests. I would believe McD's thought it best to not involve their name in such a mostly self-inflicted case (per my book); and Stella probably thought it best not to reveal her own stupidity even more to the world. Maybe she did not want to be subjected to the abuse she lavished on herself by going to court and asking for such a ridiculous settlement amount. Yet again, we won't know.
That's exactly the reason why a jury system can come to some results that has to have a mentally averagely sane person just shaking their head. Press enough correct buttons and have the juries crying in their seats and a frivolous case such as this actually get's past the first five sentences.
And no, despite the fact that I abhor most of McD's practices concerning items previously deemed worthy to be food, if I would have been a jury in such a case I'd have given them less than a slap on the wrist. Rather I'd have told them to print : "Warning: heat indicates possibility of burns. Use your brain judiciously." on their cups instead of the typical US stupidity: "Warning. Contents may be hot." And forced them to still release their coffee at the minimum recommended temperature.
Punitive damages? For this?!?
No thanks.
It's identical to the warning on peanut packages: "Warning. May contain nuts."
Please, people, use your brains... it's not that difficult.
And please, people who desire hot coffee from being banned: never come to a good Italian restaurant where they serve real Italian Espresso... that is frickin' hot without any warning printed on the outside of the cup. So please, leave the Italians alone, they will never concede to serve lukewarm brew; they know about quality coffee and how it is to be consumed: with style, and gusto, and a reasonable approach to life. Some things have to be served HOT!
To return to the final sentence of that document:
"Abuse of the system is going on, and sometimes judges and juries grievously err and set terrible precedents." Read the book about it.
45
@Duus Please be so kind to refer to this document: http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
This sounds suspiciously like your argument.
As you have so graciously outlined it in your post below I won't have to paraphrase it.
Please also check the lower parts of that document. Not just the parts that fit your case.
Here it states (quote): "Even in the eyes of an obviously sympathetic jury, Stella was judged to be 20 percent at fault -- she did, after all, spill the coffee into her lap all by herself. The car was stopped, so she presumably was not bumped to cause the spill. Indeed she chose to hold the coffee cup between her knees instead of any number of safer locations as she opened it."
Next quote: "Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." This is the exact temperature that McD's served their coffee at from 1982 to 1992.
And again, personally, if I get handed a steaming hot cup of coffee I usually tend to *FEEL* the heat in my hands, so yeah, if I still retain half of my brain I *should* be able to notice that: "Hmmm, heat in my hand from cup might mean that coffee is also hot, so be careful." If I can't string those two facts together maybe I should ask for a brain graft instead of a skin graft.
So in this case even a sympathetic jury found her 20% at fault. That's from a sympathetic jury! Consider what the unsympathetic juries might have found her at fault for! But we don't know that because it's not documented.
Both McD's and Stella Liebig decided to settle out of court because both sides found this to be in their best interests. I would believe McD's thought it best to not involve their name in such a mostly self-inflicted case (per my book); and Stella probably thought it best not to reveal her own stupidity even more to the world. Maybe she did not want to be subjected to the abuse she lavished on herself by going to court and asking for such a ridiculous settlement amount. Yet again, we won't know.
That's exactly the reason why a jury system can come to some results that has to have a mentally averagely sane person just shaking their head. Press enough correct buttons and have the juries crying in their seats and a frivolous case such as this actually get's past the first five sentences.
And no, despite the fact that I abhor most of McD's practices concerning items previously deemed worthy to be food, if I would have been a jury in such a case I'd have given them less than a slap on the wrist. Rather I'd have told them to print : "Warning: heat indicates possibility of burns. Use your brain judiciously." on their cups instead of the typical US stupidity: "Warning. Contents may be hot." And forced them to still release their coffee at the minimum recommended temperature.
Punitive damages? For this?!?
No thanks.
It's identical to the warning on peanut packages: "Warning. May contain nuts."
Please, people, use your brains... it's not that difficult.
And please, people who desire hot coffee from being banned: never come to a good Italian restaurant where they serve real Italian Espresso... that is frickin' hot without any warning printed on the outside of the cup. So please, leave the Italians alone, they will never concede to serve lukewarm brew; they know about quality coffee and how it is to be consumed: with style, and gusto, and a reasonable approach to life. Some things have to be served HOT!
To return to the final sentence of that document:
"Abuse of the system is going on, and sometimes judges and juries grievously err and set terrible precedents." Read the book about it.