This really grinds my gears.....

[OKCMallen]

Ill chime back in again

1) this guy says he hasn't had a job in two years. so he is probably getting some kind of disability check and riding that wave.

2) If this is the first offense of the business then they should have a grace period to get it fixed. If it is determined that it is a multiple complaint, they should have to pay the city, not this man. And if they don't get it fixed, face more penalties or get shut down.

3) You would think that since he is so determined to change the world, he would donate money to help his cause. But from his attitude that is def not the case.

4) The cheesy lawyer makes my case.

This is what shows whats wrong with the legal system. You can sue for anything if you don't get your way. Its like that group of large folks who wanted to take legal action against the ford center cause they couldn't get in the seats. Or like me filing a lawsuit against clay bennett because I can't afford courtside seats.

Look I have two sisters who are disabled. One whos had a leg amputated and one who was in a car wreck and has a head injury so Im not talking out my ass here. They realize that there are some things they can't do anymore and have accepted it. This guy hasn't accepted it and wants to take it out on the world.

Sorry for the rant but I guess Im the only one that thinks it painfully obvious this isn't right.

Well, that's because it's not unequivocally wrong. Room for debate here. This is what we intended to happen. We end up with ADA compliant businesses at very little on-going government expense. Who cares what his motives are? We, as society, should merely care that these businesses are up to code.

I'm just glad the government isn't spending public money to send government employees wandering around to restaurants. We're pushing forward a societal agenda on private dollars without expanding inefficient government. That's a GOOD thing in my world. And that would be the alternative...otherwise, we have ADA requirements to be met, but no teeth with which to enforce.


So which do you prefer? Allowing private citizens to sue based on the ADA? Or having government agents checking EVERY building on the public's dime? Or having the ADA be practically unenforceable?

(I don't know how other states enforce the ADA that don't allow for personal damage suits.)

[Midtowner]

Worthy, under your scheme, what incentive does any business have to ever fix things until they get caught? If there is no money going to the person turning the offender in, what incentive is there to spend your day searching for code violations?

The A.D.A. was passed in the early 90's for better or worse and it has very specific things which businesses open to the public must do in order to be in compliance. If when you're designing a business' layout, you don't take the A.D.A. into account, you're taking a big risk with your money.

As a society, we've already decided that we all have to do certain things to make this world navigable for the disabled. It's not even up for debate anymore.

This scheme we're talking about is an efficient way of policing the statute while ensuring voluntary compliance by businesses.

[fire121]

There is a disabled gentleman here in Oklahoma City who frequently visits all City buildings seeking out any possible violation of ADA. We have been advised to allow him full access to all fire stations and accommodate him in any way possible. He has triggered quite a few projects on city buildings. Some legitimate, some laughable.

[Benny]

I don't care if businesses are not ada compliant. Personally I feel the .gov should stay out of such matters. If businesses want to spend money on such a small demographic fine, but if not that should be their choice. Like I said it is the customers that pay this lazy POS' lawsuits, it is also the customers that have to pay for handicapped access crap. Personally as a customer I don't want to pay for either.

If the government feels there needs to be ramps everywhere for the handicapped people, then put a tax on wheel chairs and power scooters and let them pay for their own ramps it's only fair.

[Richard at Remax]

It may seem like I am being insenstive about the needs of disabled folk. But I am not. Im all for the ADA and everything it brings.

Its extortion. No other way around it. If this guy finds something not up to par, he should not benefit financially from it. What about all the other disabled folks. where are thier cut?

I guess we will have to disagree on this one.

[OKCMallen]

It may seem like I am being insenstive about the needs of disabled folk. But I am not. Im all for the ADA and everything it brings.

Its extortion. No other way around it. If this guy finds something not up to par, he should not benefit financially from it. What about all the other disabled folks. where are thier cut?

I guess we will have to disagree on this one.

I understand your viewpoint, and this guy's actions don't pass the smell test with a 100% rating. However, what would you suggest as a practical solution to enforcing the ADA?

[SoonerDave]

Worthy, under your scheme, what incentive does any business have to ever fix things until they get caught? If there is no money going to the person turning the offender in, what incentive is there to spend your day searching for code violations?

The A.D.A. was passed in the early 90's for better or worse and it has very specific things which businesses open to the public must do in order to be in compliance. If when you're designing a business' layout, you don't take the A.D.A. into account, you're taking a big risk with your money.

As a society, we've already decided that we all have to do certain things to make this world navigable for the disabled. It's not even up for debate anymore.

This scheme we're talking about is an efficient way of policing the statute while ensuring voluntary compliance by businesses.

Midtowner, I understand where you're coming from, but at some point don't we as a country have to get to a point where we stop implicitly sanctioning the idea that if you get your nose out of joint that has either a direct or even a tangential relationship to the law that you're instantly entitled to a big pile of cash?

Yes, the ADA is a a good thing. And rather than allow civil courts to serve as the defacto enforcer, I've thought that you could "enforce" (incentivize being the trendy nonword I despise) it by offering business tax credits for the demonstration of compliance. Companies could receive certificates of compliance, like they do right now for ISO certification...get an ADA certification, which must periodically be renewed. Heck, there's a bevy of companies that perform ISO (and similar) audits/certifications.

Like the ol lady at McDonalds who sued because her coffee was actually hot, there has to be a point at which the offense doesn't instantly turn to litigation, and then, in turn, to a Giant Cash Fortune.

I wish I were smart enough to know where to draw that line, but somehow we have to get to a point where we tell someone, "yeah, you were offended, but you're not entitled to a lifetime income as a result." There has to be some sanity in the mix somewhere.

-soonerdave

[Midtowner]

Like the ol lady at McDonalds who sued because her coffee was actually hot, there has to be a point at which the offense doesn't instantly turn to litigation, and then, in turn, to a Giant Cash Fortune.

Go Google that case and read the real facts. See if you still think that.

[gen70]

I guess I'am gonna just sue all you people.

[Midtowner]

Also, SD, as far as your 'incentivizing' program, what's to keep companies from simply ignoring the ADA under such a regime. Sure it might arguably be profitable to be compliant, but that's not always enough. Under your regime, there's no way to really punish those who ignore the federal law.

What's wrong with getting dinged for violating the law?

[OKCMallen]

Like the ol lady at McDonalds who sued because her coffee was actually hot, there has to be a point at which the offense doesn't instantly turn to litigation, and then, in turn, to a Giant Cash Fortune.


-soonerdave

To echo Mid, learn the facts before commenting on the case. Just because you heard an anecdote doesn't make it true.

[OKCMallen]

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.

[OKCMallen]

Translation: they knew it was so hot as to cause 3rd degree burns, they knew it wasn't fit for consumption at the temperature, they had injury claims against them previously, and they still did nothing. They were found to be reckless, callous, and willful...so basically they KNEW this would happen to someone, and all they had to do was turn down the temp a little, which they refused to do.

[danielf1935]

Let me see if I understand this, you order a cup of coffee, and it's hot, "How dare they". I think I'll sue them now because the coffee I got yesterday was "NOT HOT ENOUGH"

ONLY IN AMERICA

[Midtowner]

Daniel -- this is about a lawsuit where a woman was injured because of McDonald's reckless, callous and willful actions which led to serious burns for a 79 year old woman. Actions which they wouldn't even initially own up to.

This is not the same as serving you coffee that is not hot enough. Not even remotely. One thing you'd have a legal cause of action for, the other you don't. You're not even close to having a cogent point.

[OKCMallen]

Let me see if I understand this, you order a cup of coffee, and it's hot, "How dare they". I think I'll sue them now because the coffee I got yesterday was "NOT HOT ENOUGH"

ONLY IN AMERICA

Get some perspective. Open your mind a little and you might learn something.

[gen70]

(Note) Be careful when dealing with hot coffee.

[Midtowner]

So gen70, are you okay with toy manufacturers putting lead paint on toys?

[gen70]

No. Many lawsuits are valid, But some are motivated by greed and non-acceptance of of personal dumbassness.

[bluedogok]

I have been asking my wife (an advocate for people with disabilities) about the how/why this this came about and why it was classified as a civil rights law and put under the DoJ for enforcement.

It’s a civil rights law because people with disabilities were being discriminated against in several different areas, not just physical access to buildings. So a building code would not have addressed discrimination in employment, services and programs, etc.. The ADA has 5 titles and each one addresses something different.

Here is some info she sent me about "remedy".....

The ADA allows private plaintiffs to receive only injunctive relief (a court order requiring the public accommodation to remedy violations of the accessibility regulations) and attorneys' fees, and does not provide monetary rewards to private plaintiffs who sue non compliant businesses. So I would guess that the businesses that this guy is suing do not know what the ADA says and are reacting out of fear. Which is what he wants…. in my opinion.

Unless a state law, such as the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides for monetary damages to private plaintiffs, persons with disabilities do not obtain direct financial benefits from suing businesses that violate the ADA.

Thus, "professional plaintiffs" are typically found in states that have enacted state laws that allow private individuals to win monetary awards from non-compliant businesses. At least one of these plaintiffs in California has been barred by courts from filing lawsuits unless he receives prior court permission. The attorneys' fees provision of Title III does provide incentive for lawyers to specialize and engage in serial ADA litigation, but a disabled plaintiff does not obtain financial reward from attorneys' fees unless they act as their own attorney, or as mentioned above, a disabled plaintiff resides in a state which provides for minimum compensation and court fees in lawsuits.

[Midtowner]

No. Many lawsuits are valid, But some are motivated by greed and non-acceptance of of personal dumbassness.

How's that different (the lead in toys situation) from getting a cup of coffee which the manufacturer knows will cause third degree burns (if spilled) in 2-7 seconds versus one which is 30 degrees cooler, still piping hot and safe?

McDonald's sells millions of coffees every day. The odds are that many of those would be spilled. Keeping the coffee at dangerous temperatures is at least as reckless as painting childrens' toys with lead paint as in both cases, the companies know for a fact that the products will hurt some of the consumers and in neither case do the companies take the cheap and easy steps to remedy the situation.

[danielf1935]

My bad, how would anyone expect coffee to be hot, and let's forget that fact that she placed it between her legs to remove the lid, "from the HOT coffee".
I may need to learn a few things, but common sense is something I learned years ago.

I was raised to take responsibility for my actions.

[danielf1935]

Maybe McDonalds needs to sell coffe at room temp. and require them to heat their own by microwave. Then they can be sued for poor service.

[OKCMallen]

My bad, how would anyone expect coffee to be hot, and let's forget that fact that she placed it between her legs to remove the lid, "from the HOT coffee".
I may need to learn a few things, but common sense is something I learned years ago.

I was raised to take responsibility for my actions.

Use your common sense here: coffee should be served as consumable, no? Seems pretty common sense to me that food products should be served in consumable form.

I don't think you're letting go of your personal biases and being objective here. McDonalds knowingly put hundreds of thousands of people in danger of scalding (read: NOT minor burns, but SCALDS, destruction of tissue) every day for no good reason. They knew this could happen, they could prevent it, and decided not to do so for whatever reason.

Shouldn't McDonald's take responsibility for their actions?

[Midtowner]

Daniel, is there a difference between coffee served at 155 degrees and coffee served at 185 degrees?