Defending the Truth

I have known for years that lawsuits are rampant in America. I have even mentioned in another thread the case of a woman suing McDonald's when she spilled hot coffee in her lap and being awarded over a million dollars. But I think I heard the grandaddy of them all earlier this evening at a dinner party I attended at a friend's house.
An acquaintance of mine told me that recently his father had a heart attack while driving his car and crashed through the fence of another home and struck a tree; in which he was killed. Last week his mother received a letter from a lawyer seeking compensatory damages for the damage to a lawn, a gate that was crashed through, and get this- damage to a large oak tree in the front lawn of the homeowner!(Apparrently, this tree has "appeal value" that was lost.
What I want to know is: why is it that we seem to think suing somebody is now the way of life in America these days? A man died, yet his estate is being sued for the effect of his heart attack. (Yes, he had insurance. Apparently, they will not pay for the tree and lawn; but I have to check back later on this).Before I posted thisLetter, was looking through my local phone book. You should see how many lawyers are blatantly seeking clients that want to sue someone else! Now I know why there are so many lawyer jokes.

I don't believe I read your previous post about the lady who spilled McDonald's coffee in her lap.

Though I am NOT in favor of frivolous lawsuits - nor figuring out a way to make your neighbor pay off your mortgage - the woman at McDonald's had 3rd degree burns (burns that are often life threatening) and had every right to sue. I applaud her legal victory.

What were the circumstances of her case, Tristan?

If the cup burst or something, then I agree it would be McDonald's to blame. But if she simply knocked the cup over into her lap, surely that's her fault?

Culpability and ethics. That's what is boils down to. If people take responsibility for their actions and act in a reasonable/ethical manner, we wouldn't have this issue. The problem is that people can no longer accept responsibility for anything.

The McDonalds woman is a flippin moron. Ethically she is just as guilty as McDonalds because she chose to ignore obvious facts. Legally however, she had a case apparently.

The disparity between ethics and the law causes the problem.

Yes, she certainly does have a legal case.

After REPEATED complaints - both in writing to the head office and individual franchises - MANY MANY people complained that the coffee at McDonald's was served too hot. As it turned out, they knew full well that they served was 50 DEGREES over the safety standard.

I agree with the jury and the award 100%. Thank God that cup of coffee merely caused 3rd degree burns on this woman's lap (requiring several surgeries and skin grafts) and not on a baby's face.

That's why any place that sells coffee now, the cups say Caution contents HOT!

What is the safe temp for hot coffee anyway?

I'm not sure - but not boiling

What???

The perfect temperature for coffee to be brewed at is just over 90 degrees - it should come out of the machine at that temperature. You probably can't drink it until it's cooled down to, I don't know, 60 degrees or so - but if the safety standard is recommending 50 degrees below the temperature it's brewed at, it would be tepid - and stale.

Safe, yes. Drinkable, no.

90 degree coffee will cause 3rd degree burns?

I don't know what the safety standard is ... the safety standard (which, as Starbucks, etc. certainly serve hot coffee) obviously isn't 50 degrees. I think you msread my statement. The coffee standard wasn't 50 degrees - McDonald's was serving 50 degress HOTTER than the safety standard.

The only things that cause more division in America than abortion and p.c. vs. mac is the McDonald's lawsuit! LOL

I don't know about 3rd degree, but I've certainly been scalded by water at that temperature.

OK, let's say they make really bad coffee at McDonald's (a perfectly feasible possibility) and use boiling water. That's 100 degrees, so it can't possibly be MORE than that.

Now, if the law says it should be served 50 degrees LESS than that, that's 50 degrees - which is drinkable, but a pretty darned cold starting point for a coffee, though still marginally better than the tepid coffee I mentioned if it was 50 degrees less than 90 (that would be 40 - really tepid).

I don't want boiling coffee, but I don't want cold coffee either!