What's new

If Anybody's Intereted in Lawsuits

You are clearly not familiar with the case. The car was not moving, she was not even the driver. In fact she was in the back seat. As far as the coffee temperature being decreased, I am unsure about that, but I find that very hard to believe. Being that McDonalds has self-serve coffee I especially have my doubts.

My wife studied this case pretty closely in school, and she had read a lot of the actual court material (which I don't currently have access to). When we hear about these cases we have a certain idea about how the circumstances played out, and that's exactly the problem.

I'm pretty familiar with the case and watched the documentary on it. She was in a Ford Probe as a passenger and her grandson was driving. And you are wrong. She was in the passenger seat. You are right about the car not moving, but that doesn't sway my opinion in the opposite direction.

You're wife studied it closely, and that means what?

You said she received 2nd degree burns. She received 3rd degree burns.
You said she was in the backseat. She was in the passenger seat.

Regardless of how you spin it, this women sued McDonald's for her spilling coffee on herself. Her own negligence. She didn't put her coffee on a table, she put it in between her thighs. She put scolding hot coffee, in between her thighs. She initially sued for Medical and Employment compensation which came to around $20,000. When MCDs declined to pay and offered her $800, she went to an attorney and then sued for negligence.
 
Oh yeah, man. That makes you an expert.

Perhaps it doesn't mean much that studying this case was a part of an ABA accredited paralegal program, but i'm pretty sure we know about the case than you, having watched some A&E documentary.

I'm done. There is no sense in this. You clearly don't know enough about the subject.
 
Oh yeah, man. That makes you an expert.

Perhaps it doesn't mean much that studying this case was a part of an ABA accredited paralegal program, but i'm pretty sure we know more than you having watched some A&E documentary.

I'm done. There is no sense in this. You clearly don't know enough about the subject.

Wow. You get more and more mature with every post. You studied it now. First it was your wife who studied it closely, now it was you.
You know so much, you got most of the details wrong, and aren't even aware that they still serve the coffee at the same temperature. Roger that.
 
Oh yeah, man. That makes you an expert.

Perhaps it doesn't mean much that studying this case was a part of an ABA accredited paralegal program, but i'm pretty sure we know more than you having watched some A&E documentary.

I'm done. There is no sense in this. You clearly don't know enough about the subject.

Wow. You get more and more mature with every post. You studied it now. First it was your wife who studied it closely, now it was you.
You know so much, you got most of the details wrong, and aren't even aware that they still serve the coffee at the same temperature. Roger that.

My wife went to cosmetology school, I guess that makes me an expert on hair.
 
Yeah, I don't care about the details either. If you put a cup of hot coffee in your crotch...here's your sign.
 
First it was your wife who studied it closely, now it was you.

I never said I did, my wife is in the other room. If I have any questions about it, then I've asked her. She is quite certain she was in the back seat, but that doesn't even matter at all. It has about as much significance to the case as the fact that she was the one who spilled it and not the CEO of McDonalds. It's called proximate cause and contributory negligence. The fact that she played a roll in her own injuries is beside the point.

I just don't believe that they didn't decrease the temperature. It doesn't make any sense, not from a fiscal perspective nor from a liability perspective. Why wouldn't they take this simple step when notice was never the issue.
 
Last edited:
Just to make things clear, the documentary 'Hot Coffee' has both the woman and her grandson doing a play by play of the incident. Check it out, the information is coming from the horses mouth.
 
ok then, so I was wrong about where she was sitting.

why don't you go watch some other documentary now.
 
Oh yay! More of Skieur's "take my word for it" baloney!

But I agree. there is something that we're not seeing here. The company's attorneys would not have suggested settlement unless it would have cost more to litigate. At $14M, this isn't likely the case unless they felt they couldn't win.

The mere fact that they settled at such a huge amount says to me that the case was pretty open and shut in favor of the plaintiff.

Pretty dumb response. My word is supposedly baloney but you agree with me. :lol:

skieur
 
I never EVER trust mass media when it comes to civil lawsuits.

Frankly, this is a HUGE settlement, and I really don't think that they would have settled unless the lawsuit had some standing.

Not a huge settlement at all. You obviously have no knowledge, understanding or experience in litigation.

skieur
 
god the gravy train of stupid just keeps coming.

You have a problem. That problem is, that you think that your opinion is superior to everyone else's. You
talk down to people for sharing a difference in opinion, and then call them stupid.

You down play my comments because you know so much about it, and claim that I am unfamiliar with the case,
yet you make multiple false comments. Looks like we're in the same boat. You're wife studied in school, I watched a documentary about it.
But you have the nerve to downplay my basis of information lol.
 
ok. it's time I start using my ignore list before I make more of an ass out of myself today than I already have.

:confused:

Sorry folks. Sometimes I just don't know when to walk away from a thread.
 
Guys, guys come on all this talk about coffee and hot...THESE PRETZELS ARE ME THIRSTY!! Cool down and enjoy the Friday night with some beer, pints, and wings ..sauce optional.
 
I hope the people that think this was a legitimate lawsuit remember their stance should the bizarre incident of a customer of theirs having to get limbs amputated ever arise. Even though it would be a freak accident, receiving infections from a papercut from some prints you sold them resulting in amputation COULD happen and obviously someone other than them should be held accountable. You've agreed that you should be financially responsible since I'm sure none of you have the warnings for every possible paper related injury printed on the back or have made any efforts to make your prints' edges less sharp.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom