Wapsi Square Forum

bmonk wrote:

Fairportfan wrote:Then there's the people who know they have allergies but won't do due diligence.

Had a case a couple years back in the Atlanta area where a kid (i say "kid" - he was nineteen or twenty or so) who had a known shellfish allergy - just certain types; crab? - went to a seafood joint and apparently failed to read the menu's description and/or ask the server exactly what was in his dish and died.

We had a sad case a few years back in the state--woman with severe seafood allergy asked the restaurant specifically if there was any seafood in the bisque, was assured there was not--so she took a spoonful in her mouth, recognized there was, spit it out--but still went into coma and eventually died a few weeks later. It was the waiter's/cook's fault, apparently

Just another case of "It's everyone's responsibility but mine own" at work. It is part of the reason that someone became quite wealthy because she was alowed to sue McDonalds because the coffee is hot and she was a clutz (Which is a landmark ruling that caused our society to need warning labels on everything because people cannot be trusted to use common sense without a lawyer).

my aunt died a few years ago, she had an allergy to insect bites and it became potentially fatal in her old age. An ant bite did her in, not much you can do about that.

Also, specifically asking about the contents of your food, being told otherwise and then dieing because of it is just ....terrible.

Mark N wrote:It is part of the reason that someone became quite wealthy because she was alowed to sue McDonalds because the coffee is hot and she was a clutz (Which is a landmark ruling that caused our society to need warning labels on everything because people cannot be trusted to use common sense without a lawyer).

Well, there was a bit more to the case and the aftermath than that. . .

Catawampus wrote:

Mark N wrote:It is part of the reason that someone became quite wealthy because she was alowed to sue McDonalds because the coffee is hot and she was a clutz (Which is a landmark ruling that caused our society to need warning labels on everything because people cannot be trusted to use common sense without a lawyer).

Well, there was a bit more to the case and the aftermath than that. . .

Rather more than a bit.

Fairportfan wrote:

Catawampus wrote:

Mark N wrote:It is part of the reason that someone became quite wealthy because she was alowed to sue McDonalds because the coffee is hot and she was a clutz (Which is a landmark ruling that caused our society to need warning labels on everything because people cannot be trusted to use common sense without a lawyer).

Well, there was a bit more to the case and the aftermath than that. . .

Rather more than a bit.

True, but it fit the thread. Sorry for being a bit misleading (It was accidental I assure you).

Mark N wrote:Just another case of "It's everyone's responsibility but mine own" at work. It is part of the reason that someone became quite wealthy because she was alowed to sue McDonalds because the coffee is hot and she was a clutz (Which is a landmark ruling that caused our society to need warning labels on everything because people cannot be trusted to use common sense without a lawyer).

yes, it was stupid of her to try and sue because she was a klutz... HOWEVER... my roommate did a business ethics paper? ?report? (whatever) on that case, and he dug up a little bit of a background on that case which normally doesn't get talked about in the papers:
1) the coffee was kept at a temperature WELL ABOVE the stated temperature in the instruction manual for the coffee maker. (we're talking 30 or 40 degrees, not just 3-4, mind you) so they KNOWINGLY gave her a drink that was physically too hot to drink.
2)McD's had been sued over this EXACT same thing quite a few times (i think he said something like 10+ times, but i'm not too certain anymore as it has been a while) and had always settled out-of-court for a piddling amount and this time the lady said "no, i'm going to court".
3) she originally wanted like 3 times the amount she finally got from it. the judge basically said that, "No, you were stupid and i'm not going to reward you THAT much for it, but since McD's really needs to be punished for this, in order to get them to change their way, so i AM going to give you a hefty stack o' money... just not as much as you wanted, though."

I looked up the case once for. . .some reason. As I recall the details, it went something like this:

The woman was the passenger in a relative's car. They got the coffee from the drive-through, and he pulled over so that she could take off the cup's lid and add sugar or creamer or booze or whatever to it. She had a hard time getting the lid off, so she held the cup between her knees and tried to use both hands on the lid. The coffee spilled, and she ended up with third-degree burns over something like 5% of her body and serious burns over another 15% or so. She was taken to the hospital, where she spent over a week in the burn unit being treated. That was followed by several years of further treatment.

She originally sued McDonald's for just medical expenses, but McDonald's refused and said that they'd only pay some piddly little amount to her. So she then sued them for a considerably larger amount as a punitive measure. At the trial, it was learned that McDonald's keeps its coffee at a much higher temperature than is actually needed, so that people are less likely to drink their coffee quickly and then avail themselves of the free refill that they're allowed. That saves McDonald's a bit of money. There had been something like 700 earlier cases of people getting badly burned, with McDonald's being sued and found at fault a number of times.

The jury ended up deciding that while the woman was indeed at fault for being clumsy, McDonald's was even more at fault for setting up the situation where her clumsiness could result in such a disaster and for knowing ahead of time that such consequences were possible. The final amount paid to the woman by McDonald's was never publicly revealed, but was considerably lower than whatever the suit had asked for.

After the trial, McDonald's looked into better cups and started labeling them with big warnings.

Yeah. "everybody knows" that she was a klutz, that it was all her own fault and that she immediately sued for millions.

Except.

Initially, she didn't sue at all. She asked them to cover her medical expenses, and a reasonable amount for further treatment that would be necessary going forward. Something like $20K or thereabouts.

They offered her what they usually paid in previous cases - a thousand or so.

She and her attorney got ticked off, and filed another claim for two or three times as much, factoring her non-medical expenses. McD still refused.

Things escalated.

But "everybody knows"...

Just like "everybody knows" that Dylan got booed off the stage at Newport in '93, for showing up with an electric band.

And that ain't true, neither.

Yeah. Actually, I was thinking about that ... but the Washington Squares' version.