Re: OT Humour, The Stella Awards


"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11a12jrf5r7l2f3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.
>

Let me understand your argument. I thought you were arguing that the jury
decison was legally incorrect - and that is what I was responding to. If you
are arguing that it was ethically wrong, that might be right because different
people have different ethics. On jury information, see my response to your
other reply.

>>>>>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.

That may be. But that is not the point. The fact that the jury did decide
this - and the judge and appeals judge agreed - is a point on my side of the
argument. But the essential issue is "was the decision correct according to
law".

>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?

No. But the buden of proof falls on those who challenge the verdict.

>That juries represent greater wisdom than the person on the street?

Absouletly. For one thing they are given far greater information about any
case. And second I think that collectively they are more likely to reach a
correct decision than any random one of them. For one thing one person can
point out a flaw in the others thinking.


That they're infallible in their judgements?
>

Absoluetly not. As DNA evidence has shown. In this case, however, I'm not sure
that the facts of the case were a big issue.

> > 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.
>

I honestly don't recall that. Please help me out by giving me the reference
again - home coffee is not typically served below 140 degrees.

Also, why should someone do this if John's statement that it would cause 3rd
degree burns is right? Would you not have to wait until it cools down
sufficently so it causes no burns?

>> 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.
>

I don't think you have really made that case. There was evidence introduced to
the contrary. You have really not said why that evidence is wrong - e.g. some
one was biased - but only that other more qualified information exists. And
you blame the lawyers for not introducing it. I don't think anyone could be
that stupid. Also recall that the defendants had their own people (management)
following and testifying in the case. Even someone as stupid as you believe me
to be would think of asking McD people why did you set the temp. as you do and
do other people do that. I suspect the reason it was not there is because they
could not make an argument that the temp. MUST be that high.

> > 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."
>

That is simply untrue. A judge may find some that there are some boarder-line
cases between murder and manslaughter. But there are laws that specify which
is which and he simply can not take something that is clearly manslaughter
under the law and turn it into murder. Other wise there would not be a lot of
sense in having these laws.

And why do you continue with the personal attacks. I have not been doing that
to you.

> 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?

Yes. But it is not relevant unless you show that the cases are substantially
similar. In my view some may deserve awards for such cases and others not. The
issues between the cases are the temp. of the coffee and that it was at a
drive thru. If you show that a drive thru existed in the Nevada case and the
temps. at which the held the coffee were about the same, I would agree with
you.

>See the word "sentiments" in there? Does that sound like some rigid following
>of law?
>

This is a reporter writing about his sense of things. Why do you think that is
important?

> 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.
>

I think I understand that too. I think you understand me also.


>>>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.
>

No. A decision in a lower British court of this nature may be interesting but
has no legal applicability. Though British common law sometimes may enter in -
but that goes back in time. In fact, there is a major issue with some Supreme
Court Justices taking into account the changes in international law in their
rulings.

But no one expects lower courts in the US to take into accout lower courts in
other countries.

Why do you believe a ruling by a lower court judge in Britain should be taken
into account in the US?

>>>>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.

More name calling. Why do need that?


> They don't serve as precedents because they came *after* Stella's.

Obviously, but your argument is that if they had come before they would have
and if a case such as hers would happen now they would.

>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.

Almost. It depends on the temp. at the time of the spill. But I did not
acknowledge that it would cause 3rd degree burns over 6% of anyones body -
which was a key issue in this case. Not whether any burnings occurred at all.
I think you are incorrect - the degree of burning was a significant part of
the issue and this is directly correlated to temp.

> 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.
>

Again that may depend on the serving temp. But that did not seem to be a big
issue - though it might have helped McD if it were there.

>>>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.
>

My sense of the logic of the case is clear. As to language I think I do. And
again why do you find the need to resort to name calling?

>>>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.
>

OK. If you can show that any two other similar chains - e.g. BK and Wendys,
but not Starbuck's which is known for coffee - serve coffee at similar temps.
(180 degrees +) at drive thrus. - I will conceed you have made a major point
that was not made at the trial. And the only remaining issue is whether or not
such temps. are appropriate.

>>>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***.
>

You say you do accept the concept. But you then you contridict yourself. Under
the concept of joint liability, if you are at fault is not substantially
related to whether the other person is at fault too. That is, it is irrelevant
whether Stella was at fault in determining whether McD was at fault. (But it
is relevant when determing the award.)

> 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.
>

Now that's silly. Why do I care. It is just an interesting case in logic and
debate. I suspect there are a couple of reasons why we have not seen more
cases. It came out at the trial that McD had settled a lot of cases, but
decided to go to trial on this one and got killed. So more setteling. And
second, they may have lowered the temp. of the coffee.

Bill

> Pastorio


.

Quantcast