This really grinds my gears.....

[OKCMallen]

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.

Now you're just being unreasonable in discussion.

[SoonerDave]

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

Okay, arguendo, if this activity on McDonald's part was so notorious, why is anyone buying coffee there? Had this customer never bought coffee there before? They didn't know based on the prior notorious, willful acts of this particular McDonald's that their coffee was unusually hot? And still proceeded to open the coffee with the cup between their legs?? And did so after picking up the cup with their hands and having a chance to sense the temperature emanating from the cup?

There's a reason for that 20% contributory negligence, which in my mind is too small. I realize we're probably not going to agree on this, which is fine, but this issue "boils" (no pun intended) down to no small acceptance of risk for opening a cup of hot coffee holding it betwen someone's legs.

That example notwithstanding, we still have to reach a point where we stop implicitly translating some sort of personal offense into a cash windfall. As far as enforcing the ADA goes, I like the certification route even better than the incentive route for the reasons you stated - too easy to circumvent. You can, however, put pressure on companies that *aren't* "ADA certified."

-sd

[gmwise]

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.

The reason your sisters can't is places like those businesses aren't complying with the law, or you are not being a good brother who should encourage them.It has nothing to do with jumping out of a airplane.
The guy is making those lazy f's to comply with federal law.
Read the damn law instead of just looking for a easy way out of your guilt of not being there for them.
Asked how you feel to go to a restaurant and discovered theres no way to sit at the table because theres not a way wheel your chair in.
OR, walk up to a door, and not have a way to get in.
Come on! NO WAY can your position be right.

[gmwise]

and Benny please please let anymore thoughts (your foiled covered head) lets you have let them go. and take your meds.
"
Jesus, why did you ...never mind.

[danielf1935]

Yes there is difference, one is hotter than the other, however, if you stupidly place it between your legs and for whaterver reason, it spills, both can burn.

I'm not trying to argure with anyone, it's just that as a former small business owner, I experienced a few lawsuits where people would not accept responsibilty for anything.

[bretthexum]

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

Exactly. The whole point was that coffee served at 155 wouldn't burn the skin to 3rd degree in seconds.

[Richard at Remax]

The reason your sisters can't is places like those businesses aren't complying with the law, or you are not being a good brother who should encourage them.It has nothing to do with jumping out of a airplane.
The guy is making those lazy f's to comply with federal law.
Read the damn law instead of just looking for a easy way out of your guilt of not being there for them.
Asked how you feel to go to a restaurant and discovered theres no way to sit at the table because theres not a way wheel your chair in.
OR, walk up to a door, and not have a way to get in.
Come on! NO WAY can your position be right.

Me being a good brother has nothing to do with this. So I don't know where this fits in. They are disabled and both understand that actually means (spoiler alert) they can't do things that we blessed people with no disabilities can. That's not meant to be rude or insensitive it is just a fact of life.

I am really shaking my head because I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. I am shaking my head at the situation because it is not fair for this man to INDIVIDUALLY BENEFIT from these places. They should not have to pay him. And if they don't comply, they should be shut down.

Now you have to take into account that the majority of the buildings out there were built before many of these laws were instituted. They can only do so much.

Plus you got balls to call those people lazy F's when this dude is jobless goes around suing people for a living.

[OKCMallen]

Okay, arguendo, if this activity on McDonald's part was so notorious, why is anyone buying coffee there? Had this customer never bought coffee there before? They didn't know based on the prior notorious, willful acts of this particular McDonald's that their coffee was unusually hot? And still proceeded to open the coffee with the cup between their legs?? And did so after picking up the cup with their hands and having a chance to sense the temperature emanating from the cup?

There's a reason for that 20% contributory negligence, which in my mind is too small. I realize we're probably not going to agree on this, which is fine, but this issue "boils" (no pun intended) down to no small acceptance of risk for opening a cup of hot coffee holding it betwen someone's legs.

That example notwithstanding, we still have to reach a point where we stop implicitly translating some sort of personal offense into a cash windfall. As far as enforcing the ADA goes, I like the certification route even better than the incentive route for the reasons you stated - too easy to circumvent. You can, however, put pressure on companies that *aren't* "ADA certified."

-sd

McDonald's was in a unique position that only THEY knew of all the 700+ claims made to them privately. Only they knew of the actual temperature of the coffee. Only they knew they could lower the temperature in order to avoid scalding in less than 5 seconds. It's not like the old lady was aware that this was a massive, intentional, and widespread problem (and without exaggeration, a statistical certainty that someone was going to get hurt BAD eventually). That's why most of the blame lies with McD's.

Seriously, any other viewpoint is one of the following:
1. Ignorant of the law
2. Sticking head in the sand.

You need to change your perspective a bit. The point is not that there's risk involved in opening coffee between your legs...SURE there's a risk there! No thoughtful person should open their coffee in that manner. HOWEVER, that risk shouldn't result in scalding in 2-7 seconds from 170+ degree liquid. That risk SHOULD be something like 150 degree (or whatever was deemed safer) spilling on you. What if there were acid in it, and McD's knew it was in there, and McD's knew people were spilling it all over themselves? That's not too far off for an analogy (the coffee was served unconsumable.)

[OKCMallen]

They should not have to pay him. And if they don't comply, they should be shut down.

Shut down the entire business/building just because there's no backrail behind a toilet? Sounds harsh to me.

[Richard at Remax]

Sorry. If they start to get multiple fractions and won't update to proper laws, then shut them down or suspend thier business until its fixed.

And if it is an older building, and they don't update to the best they can, then close it down or suspend the business until its fixed.

You have to draw the line. "If you don't do this, then this will happen" and guys like this should not be part of the financial equation. Should be between the city and the business.

[OKCMallen]

Sorry. If they start to get multiple fractions and won't update to proper laws, then shut them down or suspend thier business until its fixed.

And if it is an older building, and they don't update to the best they can, then close it down or suspend the business until its fixed.

You have to draw the line. "If you don't do this, then this will happen" and guys like this should not be part of the financial equation. Should be between the city and the business.

And like we've talked about- there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But the trade-off is having public dollars go toward this and expanding the governments role in enforcement. So, it's going to cost taxpayers money where, now, it doesn't. I prefer my taxes to not go to this if they don't have to do so.

[SoonerDave]

Seriously, any other viewpoint is one of the following:
1. Ignorant of the law
2. Sticking head in the sand.

I respectfully disagree that all other viewpoints fall into those two categories.

Discovery may have revealed 700 burns from coffee, but in that same ten year period, how many cups of coffee did that same McD's serve that didn't burn anyone? And if McDonald's behavior were that egregious, why not move the case to a *criminal* court for reckless disregard?

If, conservatively, that McDonald's sold 100 cups of coffee every day in that ten-year period, that's 364,300 cups of coffee that were sold without an incident being reported. (And I'll wager McD's sold 100 cups of coffee in a typical hour during breakfast). That meant that McDonald's "egregious" behavior was without consequence 99.99% of the time.

The acid analogy, in my opinion, is an inflammatory one that really doesn't apply at all. They didn't order acid. They ordered coffee. And there's an expectation the coffee will be hot. I can accept the idea that the coffee was too hot, but I have a hard time assigning only 20% negligence to a person opening a cup of hot coffee between their legs.

On the other hand, if the drive-thru clerk had spilled the coffee, or had not secured the lid properly, or even served it in a leaky cup, then I'm all for letting McDonald's absorb the blame. At best, the coffee being too hot is a militating factor only slightly more swaying than opening the cup between your legs. But for the customer opening the coffee between her legs, the problem would never have happened.

"Ah," comes the reply, "but for the temperature of the coffee the *burns* would never have occurred." True. That's why, in my view, a just resolution would have been to assign 50% blame to each party, not 80-20...

And I realize my opnion is worth nothing, and I also realize we'll have to agree to disagree... :smile

-SoonerDave

[gen70]

OKCMallen... Sounds like you may have benefitted from a frivolous law suit, or are related to,or know someone who has. And get off that guy's sister's.

[Midtowner]

I can't really improve on OKCMallen's answer and I 100% agree, so I won't waste your time with a rebuttal which says basically the same thing.

Discovery may have revealed 700 burns from coffee, but in that same ten year period, how many cups of coffee did that same McD's serve that didn't burn anyone? And if McDonald's behavior were that egregious, why not move the case to a *criminal* court for reckless disregard?

That one happened and McD's failed to remedy the situation should be enough. 700 burns is 700 burns reported, so we can probably assume that there are more out there.

Why the case wasn't removed to criminal court -- in the U.S., a civil action doesn't ever morph into a criminal action (except in contempt proceedings). I know that's not the case in other legal systems (I know Sharia definitely doesn't make that distinction). In the U.S., some sort of state's attorney would have to indict McDonald's for something like reckless endangerment. Then the D.A.'s office would have to deal with McDonald's multi-million dollar legal team on some crap misdemeanor or minor felony count where there might not even be a person to lock up. Definitely not worth the headache.

I respectfully disagree that all other viewpoints
If, conservatively, that McDonald's sold 100 cups of coffee every day in that ten-year period, that's 364,300 cups of coffee that were sold without an incident being reported. (And I'll wager McD's sold 100 cups of coffee in a typical hour during breakfast). That meant that McDonald's "egregious" behavior was without consequence 99.99% of the time.

When sell millions of cups of coffee, .001% is a very significant number if you're talking about causing serious burns to people through your reckless actions.

What percentage of kids who had lead paint on their toys were tangibly injured by that paint? A small number, right? We still care though, don't we?

"Ah," comes the reply, "but for the temperature of the coffee the *burns* would never have occurred." True. That's why, in my view, a just resolution would have been to assign 50% blame to each party, not 80-20...

80/20 was the value judgment that jury made. That's why they're paid the big bucks.

[OKCMallen]

I respectfully disagree that all other viewpoints fall into those two categories.

Discovery may have revealed 700 burns from coffee, but in that same ten year period, how many cups of coffee did that same McD's serve that didn't burn anyone? And if McDonald's behavior were that egregious, why not move the case to a *criminal* court for reckless disregard?

That was within the local DA's power to do so. Has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

If, conservatively, that McDonald's sold 100 cups of coffee every day in that ten-year period, that's 364,300 cups of coffee that were sold without an incident being reported. (And I'll wager McD's sold 100 cups of coffee in a typical hour during breakfast). That meant that McDonald's "egregious" behavior was without consequence 99.99% of the time.

Again, of no consequence in the law. If I DUI 10000 times in my life, and I only hurt someone ONE time, that doesn't mean I should get off scot free, does it? Of course not.

The acid analogy, in my opinion, is an inflammatory one that really doesn't apply at all. They didn't order acid. They ordered coffee. And there's an expectation the coffee will be hot.

Here's your disconnect. Yes, it's supposed to be hot. The court found that it was not supposed to be "3rd degree burn in 2 seconds" hot. This liquid was not drinkable. In fact, it was quite literally hazardous to humans. You don't assume that what you bought it completely undrinkable. You don't assume that a food product will literally melt flesh. Add to that the other facts about McD's knowingly assuming the risk (again, a statistical certainty) that it would happen to someone, and BOOM. Reckless, willful, etc. etc.

I can accept the idea that the coffee was too hot, but I have a hard time assigning only 20% negligence to a person opening a cup of hot coffee between their legs.

That's fine and debatable. But that doesn't mean she had no colorable cause of action.

On the other hand, if the drive-thru clerk had spilled the coffee, or had not secured the lid properly, or even served it in a leaky cup, then I'm all for letting McDonald's absorb the blame. At best, the coffee being too hot is a militating factor only slightly more swaying than opening the cup between your legs. But for the customer opening the coffee between her legs, the problem would never have happened.

"Ah," comes the reply, "but for the temperature of the coffee the *burns* would never have occurred." True. That's why, in my view, a just resolution would have been to assign 50% blame to each party, not 80-20...

Go back up to where I said "disconnect" for this. The key here is foreseeability. McD's knew they were gonna hurt someone BAD at some point and didn't do anything about it. The lady had no reason to think the coffee was a hazardous substance that was, quite literally, untouchable and undrinkable and should be handled with the same care as, say, acid. I think that's where you disconnect.

[OKCMallen]

OKCMallen... Sounds like you may have benefitted from a frivolous law suit, or are related to,or know someone who has. And get off that guy's sister's.

Actually, I'm just trained in the law and enjoy trying to enlighten you guys with the perspective from the law's point of view. Not every board has a Midtowner and OKCMallen that will enjoyably discuss "how it works" all the time.

[danielf1935]

It's always the other guys fault, right midtowner!!!!!

[Midtowner]

daniel is the 2nd person to be added to my ignore list.

And daniel, as a parting gift, let me say I don't ignore folks just because I disagree with them. In fact, as you might have seen, I enjoy a healthy debate. When your idea of a dialog is just throwing various taunts around, you're no longer worth my time and energy. You should look at the sort of feedback SoonerDave has received here. Though he disagrees, he does so agreeable. Try that yourself sometime, or just lurk more.

I don't have the patience for trolls.

[danielf1935]

Now my feelings are hurt, I hope I can make it through the day!!!!!!!!

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Now my feelings are hurt, I hope I can make it through the day!!!!!!!!

Need a tissue?

[gen70]

Actually, I'm just trained in the law and enjoy trying to enlighten you guys with the perspective from the law's point of view. Not every board has a Midtowner and OKCMallen that will enjoyably discuss "how it works" all the time.

Don't bother.

[OKCMallen]

Don't bother.

Then stay ignorant.

[Midtowner]

[Richard at Remax]

Haha yes that's where I got the title of the thread from. Classic.

[rondvu]

Next thing the panhandlers will sue the city for not providing shelter and toilets facilities while they hold up there God bless sign?