Are we all just turning into babies?

Got me thinking...are we just all turning into babies in society?

I was recently alerted to this case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

This is where a 79 year old woman sued McDonald’s for scalding her because her “coffee was too hot”.

I’m going to leave you with the Wikipedia account and also ask you to do your own research into the case.

After looking at this case and the whole “suing culture” my own opinion lies in this statement: Are we just a bunch of stupid people who need babying now, as in, “This bleach may kill you! Don’t drink it!” in case we do?

Have a look at this case and others and let me know your thoughts.

eddie wrote:Got me thinking...are we just all turning into babies in society?

I was recently alerted to this case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

This is where a 79 year old woman sued McDonald’s for scalding her because her “coffee was too hot”.  

I’m going to leave you with the Wikipedia account and also ask you to do your own research into the case.

After looking at this case and the whole “suing culture” my own opinion lies in this statement: Are we just a bunch of stupid people who need babying now, as in, “This bleach may kill you! Don’t drink it!” in case we do?

Have a look at this case and others and let me know your thoughts.

o


in this instance, i think McDonalds was liable. i think the amount was a bit excessive but that's down to the judge.

what grinds my gears is when burglars can sue institutions/home owners if they happen to get injured while on a property they have no business being on in the first place

Scalding coffee cases are almost as common as slip & falls.

There's a lot of misinformation out there about this lawsuit. I recommend looking into it objectively, with an open mind, and not buying into the idea that it was just another in a slew of "frivolous lawsuits" (a myth that was fed to the public by corporate public relations groups).

Here's some good reading: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck

Not a lot of people realize things like she nearly died, she only asked for her medical bills to be paid (and McDonald's refused) and that while she certainly knew coffee is hot, she couldn't be expected to know that hers was about 190 degrees Fahrenheit.

Coffee beans/powder burns over 170 Fahrenheit. Makes it taste dreadful.
Mac D should be sued for serving horrid coffee.

Ben Reilly wrote:There's a lot of misinformation out there about this lawsuit. I recommend looking into it objectively, with an open mind, and not buying into the idea that it was just another in a slew of "frivolous lawsuits" (a myth that was fed to the public by corporate public relations groups).

Here's some good reading: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck

Not a lot of people realize things like she nearly died, she only asked for her medical bills to be paid (and McDonald's refused) and that while she certainly knew coffee is hot, she couldn't be expected to know that hers was about 190 degrees Fahrenheit.

That's an interesting read. I must admit I'd accepted the common narrative where this story is concerned; nice to see a balanced reporting of the facts. While I definitely think some responsibility must be on the person in this case (which she acknowledged), it is certainly a case that the temperature was hazardous and her requests were not unreasonable.

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:There's a lot of misinformation out there about this lawsuit. I recommend looking into it objectively, with an open mind, and not buying into the idea that it was just another in a slew of "frivolous lawsuits" (a myth that was fed to the public by corporate public relations groups).

Here's some good reading: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck

Not a lot of people realize things like she nearly died, she only asked for her medical bills to be paid (and McDonald's refused) and that while she certainly knew coffee is hot, she couldn't be expected to know that hers was about 190 degrees Fahrenheit.

That's an interesting read. I must admit I'd accepted the common narrative where this story is concerned; nice to see a balanced reporting of the facts. While I definitely think some responsibility must be on the person in this case (which she acknowledged), it is certainly a case that the temperature was hazardous and her requests were not unreasonable.

that's exactly how I felt, lez.

that's why when you get these stories with only the minimum of details, i always feel i want to delve in and want to know a lot more answers. it is good to get those answers and on face value it does maybe seem like just another legislative snowflake on the loose making demands.

but due to the fact that the temperature was indeed hazardous..... mcdonalds tried to claim that was for the convenience of long distance drivers who wanted it to remain hot for longer distance and yet their own research shows that wasn't the case.

plus they previously had for a period of 10 years had more than 1 complaint every single week concerning burns and yet did not think to change their policy - dumb

also every other coffee joint sold coffee at 20 degrees lower. plus the medical points of the timescale on burns.

considering she is now scarred for life, i also think she was very reasonable to only request her medical bills at the time.

mcdonalds behaved very badly imo

it's interesting what comes to light when you go behind the scenes of a case, huh?

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:There's a lot of misinformation out there about this lawsuit. I recommend looking into it objectively, with an open mind, and not buying into the idea that it was just another in a slew of "frivolous lawsuits" (a myth that was fed to the public by corporate public relations groups).

Here's some good reading: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck

Not a lot of people realize things like she nearly died, she only asked for her medical bills to be paid (and McDonald's refused) and that while she certainly knew coffee is hot, she couldn't be expected to know that hers was about 190 degrees Fahrenheit.

That's an interesting read. I must admit I'd accepted the common narrative where this story is concerned; nice to see a balanced reporting of the facts. While I definitely think some responsibility must be on the person in this case (which she acknowledged), it is certainly a case that the temperature was hazardous and her requests were not unreasonable.

that's exactly how I felt, lez.

that's why when you get these stories with only the minimum of details, i always feel i want to delve in and want to know a lot more answers.  it is good to get those answers and on face value it does maybe seem like just another legislative snowflake on the loose making demands.

but due to the fact that the temperature was indeed hazardous.....  mcdonalds tried to claim that was for the convenience of long distance drivers who wanted it to remain hot for longer distance and yet their own research shows that wasn't the case.

plus they previously had for a period of 10 years had more than 1 complaint every single week concerning burns and yet did not think to change their policy - dumb

also every other coffee joint sold coffee at 20 degrees lower.  plus the medical points of the timescale on burns.

considering she is now scarred for life, i also think she was very reasonable to only request her medical bills at the time.

mcdonalds behaved very badly imo

it's interesting what comes to light when you go behind the scenes of a case, huh?

It is. Sadly though we live in a busy world where most don't have the time (or inclination) to fact check every story they cross. Most of us get our news from a couple of sources and tend to get it from a place we trust (which translates as - the place which most reflects our thoughts).

This would be fine if nearly all sources weren't somewhat biased.

I try not to be too judgmental but this was a case where I was, and happy to admit I was wrong.

Okay here’s my take. The guy who bumped into her was also at fault, if he hadn’t and she hadn’t burned herself then would she have ever complained the coffee was too hot?
I doubt it.

In any case, what about all the other stupid lawsuits that followed after? That’s really what I’m driving at.