Restaurant rescinds prayer discount

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Magical Realist, Aug 11, 2014.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    People usually laugh because they are so gullible as to believe everything they read on dodgy made up sites on the internet.

    All who laugh, all who usually post about it without knowing the actual facts, usually stop laughing when they look at what this woman actually suffered and when they find out that McDonalds had received reports, complaints and other suits from over 700 people prior to her, all of whom suffered serious burns and injury due to their coffee. Now certainly, people can feel sorry for large corporations who offered a woman who had suffered horrific injuries due to how they were making one of their products, $800. I mean poor them, right? She asked just enough to cover her medical costs. This woman was injured so badly that she required treatment, surgeries and was sick for over 7 years. Those burns were horrific. She wasn't out for whatever she could get. She asked for $20,000. She literally asked solely for just enough to cover her medical costs. She was awarded more because her burns were so bad. And that's what people forget or simply don't realise. She did not sue for millions of dollars.


    Which has what to do with a woman who suffered full thickness burns, required years of treatment and surgery and was permanently scarred and who sued for just enough to cover her medical costs and ongoing treatment that such burns require, which amounted to $20,000? She never sought to enrich herself or make money from it. Did you look at her burns? At all?

    She asked for just twenty thousand dollars. She was awarded $2 million by the jury (an amount that was worth 2 days of coffee sales by McDonalds) and it was then brought down to just under $500,000 and then McDonalds agreed to a private settlement after the trial, which would have been for less than that, which she accepted. She didn't go out and try and make money. All she wanted was just enough to cover her medical bills after McDonalds offered her less than $800.

    So what does her case have to do with people who tried to enrich themselves from companies? Less believing and buying into dodgy sites that more often than not, make up cases and more looking into real cases..

    The warning labels were too small to see or read. And there was no warning that the fumes from the product could explode. The actual case, as in the actual court case, goes into much more detail. No, it was not sitting on the water heater. The water heater was in another room. No, the can itself did not ignite when the water heater in the next room flicked on. The fumes from the product exploded after the water heater in the next room flicked on. The flame wasn't even in the same room as they and the can of glue were. Their own quality assurance officer testified that the company knew the vapors and fumes were explosive. There was no warning on the can about this. A passage from the actual court case:

    And if you read the court documents, it details how Para-Chem had altered its warning labels about how the vapors and fumes could travel and that pilot lights and any naked flames had to be extinguished because its vapors were explosive, with the new labels detailing none of it and its dangers of exploding... And the new label was so small, people could not read it and placed on a panel that few people even read. That is why they were awarded the damages they were given.

    You know, I get the disdain against frivolous lawsuits. I am one of the people who hates them. But at the very least, I research my cases properly instead of relying on made up sites that alter the facts because they want it to support something they are trying to convey.

    And that is all I am going to say on the matter.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    It's depressing to me that you had to say as much as you did. The ones lamenting the decline of civilization are the ones chiefly responsible for it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    It doesn't matter how serious her injuries were. If I poke my eye out with a McDonald's straw I can get pics posted everywhere of horrible grotesque injury, but that still doesn't mean McDonald's is responsible. I'm sure I could burn myself on a white chocolate mocha by pouring it on my penis but I'm not gonna sue Starbucks for my stupidity. She fucked up. She spilled hot coffee in her lap. Happens to people all over the world everyday. Except that she wanted to get her medical bills paid for. That's bullshit. You injure yourself you pay for your medical bills. That's basic common sense.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    None of what you just said is the same as what happened to her. You'd need to make the straw, for instance, as sharp as a razor, and have other complaints for similar injuries prior to your own.

    I don't understand why you're trying so hard to avoid the facts and instead asserting this reality you've invented. Is it more comfortable? Is it that you just want to be right? What's the allure of pretending everything Bells has said in this thread is invalid? Or, more accurately, pretending she never said it?

    So much of it going on in this thread. All these little personal realities people want to live in. It's disturbing.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    And so the jury found her 20% responsible. And they found MacDonald's so blatantly and horrifically irresponsible and arrogant in dealing with her that they recommended millions of dollars in punitive damages - far beyond what the lawsuit requested - to wake them up.

    Not only is coffee served cooler now, but it is served in sturdier cups with redesigned lids - an overlooked factor in the accounts, as the flimsiness of the cup combined with the difficulty of prying the lid off to add cream and sugar was a major factor in the mishap.

    Actually, it does, because as you note people spill coffee on themselves quite often, it's common and expected - so MacDonald's obviously knew, when they set their temperatures and designed their cups, that little old ladies were going to spill occasionally under the best of circumstances. So handing one of them coffee capable of creating third degree burns over 6% of their body if spilled, in a flimsy cup with an awkward lid, through a drive in window, was inexcusably careless.

    And treating her like garbage afterwards was not a good idea. Juries don't like that, and they shouldn't.

    And so forth. It's always a good idea, when dealing with stories about wealthy and powerful corporations being treated badly, to keep in mind who has the multimillion dollar media manipulation budget and the law firms on retainer.
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Oh? Says who? You?

    A jury of her peers thought that her injuries mattered enough to award her $2 million.

    Does not even apply.

    She was sold a product that was dangerous to her health, and by McDonald's own admittance, was not fit for human consumption when sold at that temperature. She was not warned that this product was so dangerous. There is a difference between hot coffee and scalding coffee that virtually melted her skin down to her bones on her inner thighs, vagina, leg and buttocks.

    Do you understand now?

    If Starbucks sold you a product, put it into a flimsy cup and it was scalding hot and you burnt your penis so badly that you required reconstructive surgery and skin grafts, I'd imagine you'd be suing. McDonald's were aware that their products could be spilled, that the cups were flimsy, that their coffee was so scalding hot that they had received over 700 complaints and lawsuits from other customers who had been badly burned by them, many of which were also 3rd degree burns. Their own quality assurance had recommended that they lower the temperature of the coffee they hold in pots, because of the danger they posed to the public. Not just because customers could accidentally spill them on themselves or others, causing horrendous injuries, but because their own staff had injured people by spilling it on them. McDonald's refused to adhere to these recommendations and they issued no warnings that their coffee sold in the paper/styrofoam cups were capable of causing 3rd degree burns and life long injuries and scarring.

    Yes, she did. But her coffee was so scalding, that they caused her full thickness burns down to her bones. Had she drunk it while it was that hot, it would have permanently damaged her mouth and internal organs. If you sell someone a faulty product, and that person has an accident and injures themselves, you don't get let off the hook because they had the accident and they "fucked up". A simple fuck up such as a spilled drink should not result in full thickness 3rd degree burns, multiple surgeries and ongoing treatment for over 7 years and permanent scarring. Had the drink been at a safer temperature, she would not have been so badly injured. It is akin to your being sold a car with faulty brakes. Just because you didn't brake in time to avoid the accident, does not absolve the car manufacturer of all responsibility for their faulty products.

    Common sense dictates that if you sell a consumable product that has the capacity to cause grievous bodily harm if consumed or spilled, then a warning should be placed on it to advise customers that if they drink it or accidentally spill it as is out of the cup at the point of purchase, then they could end up being scarred for life and require ongoing medical care and multiple surgeries. As I noted above, if you make something faulty to begin with, and you know it is faulty, then just because someone accidentally spills it on themselves and causes that kind of injury, does not absolve you of your responsibility to warn your customers that if they consume what you make, they could end up in hospital with permanent scarring, and requiring ongoing surgeries, skin grafts and treatments that those kind of burns generally require.

    While you are free to test this theory out with your hot chocolate from Starbucks and your penis, rest assured that it is because of Liebeck and others like her who sued after suffering such hideous injuries and being awarded a mere pittance (she settled out of court for less than the $480,000 she was eventually awarded and she only sued for $20,000), that you won't require painful skin grafts, reconstruction surgery on your penis and buttocks and 7 years of pain, surgeries, treatment and discomfort and permanent scarring.
     
  10. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    I rarely see or hear that. Many consider that life elsewhere might be more technologically advanced but it seems hardly anyone thinks about the possibility that they may have powers & abilities far beyond those of mortal man yet which are just as natural to them as walking & talking are to humans.
     
  11. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
    Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
    English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - )
     

Share This Page