Re: OT Humour, The Stella Awards

Bill wrote:
"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:119voq74fd1eob5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill wrote:

"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:119u1qb6ibocn40@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Bill wrote:


"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:119sv728qscl9d8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Bill wrote:



"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote



Bill wrote:




"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote



"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:119nht9aifgun63@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(...)




Yes. Just like *every* restaurant does. Just like your home coffee maker makes. Just like coffee drinkers demand. As for "full knowledge that some would get burned," how on earth could anyone predict what would happen? When you boil water at home, do you make it "with full knowledge that some would get burned?"

I take a shower most days with the full knowledge that people slip in tubs every day, some resulting in very serious injuries. I go swimming in the summer with the full knowledge that there is a very small risk of having a seizure and drowning. And I go in the car every day with the full knowledge that there will be around 115 people dying in car crashes on a given day.

Risk is a part of life. And getting burned by coffee is a risk of drinking coffee.


So your argument is that if you get hit by a drunk driver who is negligent that "Risk is part of life. And getting one's family killed while driving is a risk of driving," Correct? 

Yes. Falls under the category "*** happens." Any more questions?

Are you about to launch your tired, old "That's not how it should be" diatribe?

Pastorio

OK. So you would not sue in that situation, correct? 

I answered your question.

This one about suing is a different one not at all germane to whether risk is a part of living and is stupidly, belligerently loaded rather than any real effort to get information. I'll answer it anyway just to see how you're going to disagreeably disagree. Would I sue? It would depend on lots of factors which any police officer or insurance salesperson can explain to you.

Pastorio

No you have not answered the question. 

Sure I did, Bill. You just don;t like my answers.

I answered this question:
"And getting one's family killed while driving is a risk of driving," Correct?"

It's answered. The answer is "yes." Period.



But I take it the answer is sometimes.

The answer about suing is also clear. Your density is simply stunning. The answer, clearly delineated - about suing - is *sometimes*. Just like I explicitly indicated.



This leads to the point. You have said that both the coffee incident and being hit by a drunk driver fall under the catagory of "*** Happens." And you dismissed her award on that basis - that risk is a part of life.

No, Bill. You either absolutely don't understand the issue differences or are deliberately being dishonest. I dismissed her award on the basis that *she* was in control of her situation and stupidly put a hot cup of coffee between her legs.> She had control of it all.

That is not true.

Stella was holding the coffee. No one else. She had control of the container of coffee. She was careless. Period.

She was careless or perhaps clumsey. But it is not a period. McD was also found to be wrong.

Bill, do try to separate what the jury found from the ethical issues at hand. Stella spilled coffee on herself. The temperature was in the range that *everybody* serves it at. McD's didn't do anything different than industry standards. They're standards because that's what customers demand.

McD's were found to share in the responsibility by a jury that was given *wrong* information.

The jury found both she and McD were liable. She for being careless. McD for serving coffee at a temperature which would cause 3rd degree burns. Based on the joint liability they came up with the award and added a penalty because of multiple past occurrences

And McD's had lousy lawyers who were too stupid to find out how 3rd degree burns happen and at what temperatures. That 135-140°F you're so fond of quoting could also produce 3rd degree burns. And the "danger is open and obvious."

Yes but not to such an extent. It was clear that the standard at this McD was about 185 degrees. Do you disagree with that?

The standard at *all* McD's was exactly the same. Just like at *all* other restaurants that use commercial coffee brewing equipment, per the National Coffee Institute's guidelines. You've already been informed about this yet you persist in acting as though you haven't been given that information.

It's not a case of "*** happens," it's a case of she spilled coffee on herself. And, to remind you that intelligent people agree with my take, here's what other such cases have resulted in:

Here are a couple legal opinions that disagree with you.


No they don't. Because they have nothing to do with this case. The circumstances are different.

The circumstances are that people stupid enough to spill coffee on themselves have no one but themselves to blame because the "danger is open and obvious." Both judgements rely on the clear idea that coffee is served hot enough to burn and people should handle it carefully.


No you have said you disagree with the Jury verdict. What determines the correctness or incorrectness of that is what the law says.

Sorry, no. The jury's decision wasn't about the law, it was about what 12 people decided on the basis of a lot of emotional tear-jerking and other simply erroneous information. The role of the law in this case was merely to establish the framework within which a jury may make decisions. Don't try to fake knowledge. You do that much too much.

Not your feeling of right or wrong. Clearly British law does not apply. And the law in this case allows the Jury to assign various degrees of liability. There is a point at which the coffee becomes too hot. The Jury found the McDs exceeded that point. The quality control person from McD agreed.

There was never a decision at which point coffee is too hot. Because they never posited what would be a good temperature. The jury made its decision on faulty information. Is it your position that juries are always correct? That juries represent greater wisdom than the person on the street? That they're infallible in their judgements?

> There was testimony that coffee at
home is served typically at 140 or below

And I've offered you indisputable refutation of that untruth. Why do oyu persist in *only* quoting that bad information that corroborates what you think you konw but have demonstrated that you don't? Coffee at home is brewed at temperatures in the range of that which was served to Stella. The heater plate on home units is designed to keep coffee at lower temperatures because to put in a plate that works like professional units would cost too much for the manufacturers. I've also given you the industryt references for that. You keep saying the same things, ignoring new information that you don't like.

and other places keep coffee at a lower temp.

I've explained that as well with references about the settings and mmethods of taking temperatures and why they're utterly invalid. But, again, you ignore referenfces that don't confirm your prejudices. YOu offer the words of lawyers unschooled in the science and technology involved and I offer food science and industry data. The difference seems to elude you.

> The judge apparently agreed with the jury since he did not reverse
the verdict. The award was lowered on appeal but the decision was not changed.

The judge reduced the awards. In appeal, it stood. They settled for some other amount. At least know the facts of the case you're fluttering and flouncing about.

So you blame the jury, the judge, the defense lawyers, etc.

"Blame...?" What a stupid word to stick in there. I don't blame anyone for anything except McD's lousy, incompetent lawyers who let so much phony information stand. Given the crap the jury was fed, it's not hard to understand how they could come to a crap verdict.

> What is the basis
for your claim that there was not joint liability?

Have you simnply not been paying *any* attention at all? HOw amny times and how many ways do you need to read it before soem - any of it - penetrates?

And in one of your examples, you are drawing on the law of a different country. Why can't you understand that?

Not the *law* but the judgement of a judge. Clearly you can't understand that.

No I don't. It is the law that determines whether or not a verdict is correct or not. A judge must follow the law - not his feelings.

Obviously, you have *no* experience with any sort of legal system. You don't have any idea how much leeway judges have and oyu don't understand that judges are virtually never instructed what their decisions must be. The law dictates how proceedings must go and what rules of operation are in effect. The whole job of a judge is to, well, judge. Otherwise, they'd be called "blind followers."

And if your mistaken notion were even remotely valid, the case where The Nevada supreme court threw out the same kind of complaint couldn't happen. Remember this? See the word "sentiments" in there? Does that sound like some rigid following of law?

July 18 -- "Court says warning about hot coffee unnecessary". It makes a contrast to the famed McDonald's case: the Nevada Supreme Court, upholding a lower court's decision, has dismissed a lawsuit against a restaurant and its suppliers alleging negligent failure to warn about the dangers of hot coffee. Lane Burns had sued the Turtle Stop restaurant after spilling coffee on his leg and suffering burns, but District Judge Gene Porter ruled that the "danger is open and obvious." That differs from the sentiments of the judge and jury in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where octogenarian Stella Liebeck won a $2.9 million judgment against the fast-food chain, which was later reduced to $480,000 and settled for an undisclosed sum. (Cy Ryan, "Court says warning about hot coffee unnecessary", Las Vegas Sun, July 11). <http://overlawyered.com/archives/00july2.html>

For example,
there is no statement that 3rd degree burns were suffered over 6% of anyone's body so that makes the cases different and any conclusion about how they compare different.

Learn to read.

I do know how to read. Or else I would not have been able to respond to your posts.

Learn to understand what the difference between figurative and literal language is.

Both those opinions are predicated on the fact that coffee is served hot and people should exercise care in dealing with it. Do you think that when lawyers look for precedents that the cases have to be exact duplicates before they can be applied?

No but they have to be from the same juristicsion. Which neither of these were.

More fake knowledge. You say, "they have to be from the same juristicsion [sic]' when that's absolutely untrue. Like so much else you're trying to peddle.

The temperatures may have been different.

And the moon *may* have been made of green cheese. That *may* *** is a lousy substitute for information.

If you don't know, don't bring it up

Why? The point is that your cases don't serve as a precedent because you did not show that the temperatures were about the same.

<LOL> Couple things there, wizard-boy. They don't serve as precedents because they came *after* Stella's. Second, the temperatures weren't the heart of the issue, but even if they were, you've acknowledged that coffee served at *any* customary temperature would cause burns. Third, Stella's lawyers made a big fuss that there was no warning on the cup. The Nevada supreme court says it's not necessary and that people are responsible for their own actions.

and don't offer conjecture and guesswork. Notice that no specific temperature indication is offered in either judgement because *all* coffee is presumed to be served hot enough to warrant caution.

To put it simply. 185 degrees is negligent because it can cause 3rd degree burns, 160 is probably not.

You only look more stupid when you guess and fumble like this.

I'm really not fumbling and as to my appearence. Why do you care?

Oh, right. You're not fumbling when you ignore reliable references. You're solid as a rock when you quote lawyers about food science. You're credible when you continue to assert comment that has been demonstrably refuted. No fumbling htere, stumble-boy.

And as for your appearance, really, do learn the difference between figurative and literal language.

More guesswork. You do homework as badly as the lousy lawyers that McD's had.

Ok. But not as quickly and not as severe. Do you disagree with that? And you previously made the point that the temp. drops over time.

Um, it appears that you've taken leave of your senses. These clumsy constructs (I hesitate to call them sentences) apply to nothing above them.

160°F is plenty hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. Y0u can't argue with *may* and *probably* in the face of facts.

July 18 -- "Court says warning about hot coffee unnecessary". It makes a contrast to the famed McDonald's case: the Nevada Supreme Court, upholding a lower court's decision, has dismissed a lawsuit against a restaurant and its suppliers alleging negligent failure to warn about the dangers of hot coffee. Lane Burns had sued the Turtle Stop restaurant after spilling coffee on his leg and suffering burns, but District Judge Gene Porter ruled that the "danger is open and obvious." That differs from the sentiments of the judge and jury in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where octogenarian Stella Liebeck won a $2.9 million judgment against the fast-food chain, which was later reduced to $480,000 and settled for an undisclosed sum. (Cy Ryan, "Court says warning about hot coffee unnecessary", Las Vegas Sun, July 11).
<http://overlawyered.com/archives/00july2.html>

March 29-31 -- British judge rejects hot-drink suits. U.K. lawyers had hoped to replicate the success of the celebrated American case in which a jury voted Stella Liebeck $2.7 million (later reduced to just under $500,000, and settled out of court) after she spilled coffee in her lap. However, on Mar. 27 High Court Justice Richard Field ruled against lawsuits by 36 patrons whose lawyers had claimed that the burger chain failed to warn of risks of scalding, "served drinks that were too hot, [or] used inadequate cups ... 'I am quite satisfied that McDonald's was entitled to assume that the consumer would know that the drink was hot and there are numerous commonplace ways of speeding up cooling, such as stirring and blowing,' the judge said." ("British Judge Rules McDonald's Not Liable for Hot Drinks That Scald", AP/TBO, Mar. 28; "Judge rules against McDonald's scalding victims", Daily Telegraph, Mar. 27). <http://overlawyered.com/archives/02/mar3.html>

If you would sue, in some cases, in the later situation why should she not in the former?

Because in the former, she had command of her situation and was careless in injuring herself. In the latter, the drunk driver was a variable that no one had control over and was a case of causing injury in the course of other illegal activity and demonstrable negligence.

Let's take your family out of it. Suppose the person who had been hit by the drunk driver was partly responsible. Say he had parked at night on the side off the highway but did not have any lights, flashers, etc. on. So responsibility was divided. (Or make up your own example, if you don't like that one.) Would you then sue?

It still depends. And all the tortured examples you try to construct won't get you off the hook you've hung yourself on.

I'm really not. If you provide a good argument, I'll agree with you. So far you have not convinced me that joint liability is not a reasonable finding.

That's because you've refused to acknowledge anything but what you've read from self-serving lawyers web sites. The facts behind how restaurants deal with coffee, you reject. The overwhelming rejection of Stella's position by the public and other judges, you reject. The erroneous information that was given to the jury, you accept. The poorly developed case by McD's you assert is all that needs to be known.

You'll never come to any other conclusion because you refuse to deal in facts. You accept what Stella's lawyers say as facts. You accept any mistaken comments that McD's people as facts. You reject everything else.

That is 180 degrees + was not too hot. Particularly in a drive thru.

Another one of your one-note symphonies. This is your opinion supported by incorrect information offered to a jury that had only the bad data to work from. The plain fact is that *every* drive through window puts out the same coffee that they serve inside. And they serve it in the same containers inside and outside. Every convenience store that makes coffee brews it at the same temperatures as every fast food place. The sell it in disposable containers, too. Every restaurant that sells coffee to take out does it the same way. Starbuck's coffees are as hot or hotter, especially the ones made with steam.

To sue or not depends on lots of factors. Your examples are all too transparent and too unconditional.

(Also do you see the how this is germane now?)

No. Since it isn't.

I've been trying to show you.

And failing. It still isn't germane.

You argued originally that because Stella was stupid etc. she should be held responsible. I'm trying to introduce you to the concept of joint liability, which I think you are beginning to accept.

Dream on about your efforts. You've made such a bad showing here that I daresay you've probably illuminated the reasons why Stella should have been sent packing. I can accept the *concept* of joint liability. Just not in this case. She spilled coffee on herself. She should know better. It's an unfortunate event and I sympathize with her distress, but trying to blame someone else for her own blunder is whiny bull***.

And the vast preponderance of the public and, apparently, the legal guys agree with me. Or there'd be more cases like this one. Notice there haven't been. And won't be. This case is an anomaly that won't be repeated. Efforts to do so have been roundly rejected. Here and abroad. For all the reason I've cited. You may go now.

Quit being a crybaby.

Pastorio
.

Quantcast