And the "something for nothing" begins

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Aug 15 2007, 10:12 AM) [snapback]496075[/snapback]</div>

Sorry eagle, two different things. In the earlier "coffee" thread I read the links to the legal websites. McDonald's kept their coffee significantly hotter than the rest of the industry so it would last longer. I believe it was hot enough to cause 2nd degree burns. McDonald's policy was to pay any medical claims because it was cheaper than pouring coffee down the drain. Somehow her request for reimbursement was not honored which resulted in the suit. The jury award was based on the coffee profits and multiplied as punitive damages. I don't know how much she has actually received.

Since the basketball player has filed suit, IMO she has confirmed Imus' original statement. This is a nuisance case which should be thrown out and the plaintiff & counsel kicked in the butt by the bailiff.

 

It's HOE! Not Ho, you nappy-headed ignoramuses and I'm suing the next person that refers to my wife's maiden name as a woman of illrepute. :angry:


Wildkow [attachmentid=10692]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Aug 15 2007, 07:12 AM) [snapback]496075[/snapback]</div>

At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens says he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."

At that point, Mr. Goens and the other jurors knew only the basic facts: that two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit, filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective" because it was so hot.

What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror Jack Elliott.

Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years of settling coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one to trial. After all, the plaintiff was a sympathetic figure - an articulate, 81-year-old former department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed suit before. In fact, she said, she never would have filed this one if McDonald's hadn't dismissed her requests for compensation for pain and medical bills with an offer of $800.

Then there was the matter of Mrs. Liebeck's attorney. While recuperating from her injuries in the Santa Fe home of her daughter, Mrs. Liebeck happened to meet a pair of Texas transplants familiar with a Houston attorney who had handled a 1986 hot-coffee lawsuit against McDonald's. His name was Reed Morgan, and ever since he had deeply believed that McDonald's coffee is too hot.

For that case, involving a Houston woman with third-degree burns, Mr. Morgan had the temperature of coffee taken at 18 restaurants such as Dairy Queen, Wendy's and Dunkin' Donuts, and at 20 McDonald's restaurants. McDonald's, his investigator found, accounted for nine of the 12 hottest readings. Also for that case, Mr. Morgan deposed Christopher Appleton, a McDonald's quality assurance manager, who said "he was aware of this risk…and had no plans to turn down the heat," according to Mr. Morgan. McDonald's settled that case for $27,500.

Now, plotting Mrs. Liebeck's case, Mr. Morgan planned to introduce photographs of his previous client's injuries and those of a California woman who suffered second- and third-degree burns after a McDonald's employee spilled hot coffee into her vehicle in 1990, a case that was settled out of court for $230,000.

Tracy McGee of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, the lawyers for McDonald's, strenuously objected. "First-person accounts by sundry women whose nether regions have been scorched by McDonald's coffee might well be worthy of Oprah," she wrote in a motion to state court Judge Robert Scott. "But they have no place in a court of law." Judge Scott did not allow the photographs nor the women's testimony into evidence, but said Mr. Morgan could mention the cases.

As the trial date approached, McDonald's declined to settle. At one point, Mr. Morgan says he offered to drop the case for $300,000, and was willing to accept half that amount.

But McDonald's didn't bite.

Only days before the trial, Judge Scott ordered both sides to attend a mediation session. The mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000, saying a jury would be likely to award that amount. The company didn't follow his recommendation.

Instead, McDonald's continued denying any liability for Mrs. Liebeck's burns. The company suggested that she may have contributed to her injuries by holding the cup between her legs and not removing her clothing immediately. And it also argued that "Mrs. Liebeck's age may have caused her injuries to have been worse than they might have been in a younger individual," since older skin is thinner and more vulnerable to injury.

The trial lasted seven sometimes mind-numbing days. Experts dueled over the temperature at which coffee causes burns. A scientist testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third-degree burns, so it didn't matter whether Mc Donald's coffee was hotter. But a doctor testifying on behalf of Mrs. Liebeck argued that lowering the serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees.

The testimony of Mr. Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, "There are more serious dangers in restaurants."

Mr. Elliott, the juror, says he began to realize that the case was about "callous disregard for the safety of the people."

Next for the defense came P. Robert Knaff, a human-factors engineer who earned $15,000 in fees from the case and who, several jurors said later, didn't help McDonald's either. Dr. Knaff told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually.

To jurors, Dr. Knaff seemed to be saying that the graphic photos they had seen of Mrs. Liebeck's burns didn't matter because they were rare. "There was a person behind every number and I don't think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that," says juror Betty Farnham.

When the panel reached the jury room, it swiftly arrived at the conclusion that McDonald's was liable. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," says Ms. Farnham. "They were not taking care of their consumers."

Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.

The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million.

McDonald's has since asked the judge for a new trial. Judge Scott has asked both sides to meet with a mediator to discuss settling the case before he rules on McDonald's request. The judge also has the authority to disregard the jury's finding or decrease the amount of damages.

One day after the verdict, a local reporter tested the coffee at the McDonald's that had served Mrs. Liebeck and found it to be a comparatively cool 158 degrees. But industry officials say they doubt that this signals any companywide change. After all, in a series of focus groups last year, customers who buy McDonald's coffee at least weekly say that "morning coffee has minimal taste requirements, but must be hot," to the point of steaming.

 

Courtesy of a lawyer-turned-cartoonist ...

[attachmentid=10694]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roryjr @ Aug 15 2007, 11:52 PM) [snapback]496714[/snapback]</div>

And now any black woman who admits going to Rutgers will be assumed to be a "nappy headed ho".

They may have had no national reputation before, but they have one now and it isn't positive. It's slander.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 16 2007, 12:56 PM) [snapback]496970[/snapback]</div>

To the entire thinking world, the reputations of the players were actually enhanced as the incident progressed. Why? Because a group of young women showed the world how to act with grace and dignity in the face of bigotry, even if it's masked in alleged humor.

Seriously, do you really think that there are people who thought less of Kia Vaughn because of what Imus said? I have heard nothing but complimentary words about the women. So, where is the tarnished reputation?

Ms. Vaughn and the rest of the Rutgers women would have entered the upcoming season as heroines and beacons. Instead, her decision to cheapen this with a lawsuit sullies the good name she mistakenly believes has been ruined.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 16 2007, 05:29 AM) [snapback]496765[/snapback]</div>

(cleaning the Iced Tea off of the monitor) :lol: :lol: :lol:

hmm we could sue the 7-11's & circle k's for haveine too hot of coffee..... B)

 

We (you and I) are the total loosers here. The Insurance Industry plays us like the retards we all are. We have a good case against a defendant that truly wronged us ... and the Insurance Industry twists it (via the media and gobs of money) to look like law suit abuse. Thus, the industry takes away ALL our rights to get a remedy from a defendant. To all who Poo Poo plaintiffs, just remember, when it's YOUR turn, and YOU can't get a remedy (the MD that cuts your kids face off, the neighbor kid sets your house on fire, the drunk that runs into you, the resteraunt that serves up bacteria, or burns and burn and burns people, etc) because the Insurance industry has chopped you off at the knees (via law changes that make it nearly impossible to get into court) before you can even get a trial, remember how you laughed at those litigous skum bags.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Aug 16 2007, 02:40 PM) [snapback]497096[/snapback]</div>

Did the train just leave the tracks, or is it just me?

What the hell does the Imus lawsuit have to do with insurance?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 16 2007, 01:49 PM) [snapback]497103[/snapback]</div>

It's the concept of everyone that files a lawsuit is a lazy get something for nothing scumbag out to leach the system. Because obviously there is no such thing as a justifiable lawsuit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 16 2007, 03:02 PM) [snapback]497113[/snapback]</div>

Well, that pretty clearly seems to be the case here. Don't you find it the least bit ironic that she did not file her lawsuit until hours after Imus and CBS had reached a $20 million settlement?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 16 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]496970[/snapback]</div>

How does this apply to "any woman that admits going to Rutgers"? Not sure how you think they don't have a positive reputation after the way they handled the situation. I heard nothing but positive things about them. Do you really think that someone can create a bad reputation just by making a comment?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 16 2007, 12:56 PM) [snapback]496970[/snapback]</div>

"Hey, I'm not nappy headed." --someone from Rutgers.

IMO she's a hoe (a blunt gardening tool) and her lawyer is a tool as well. I'd like to see Judge Judy handle this one.

In the meantime, HTFU.

http://www.dumpalink.com/videos/Harden_up_...ralia-9390.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 16 2007, 02:49 PM) [snapback]497103[/snapback]</div>

Did the turnip truck just drive by? You don't think Imus has an umbrella policy? Ours is at $2,000,000. You think it's the cop who beat Rodney King that paid the settlement? You think it's some college that pays for harrasment when the prof makes a vile comment to you? You don't think Imus' plaintiffs will draw the radio network in via joint and several liability? Wishin' we could ALL live in such a simple little world. Sorry. It's all about the insurance policy, and the attornies / systems that defends their interests.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roryjr @ Aug 16 2007, 09:21 PM) [snapback]497580[/snapback]</div>

The attacks on the USS Cole and the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were NOT on "our shore."

Did you forget about the 2006 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Damascus? That was under Bush's watch. Fortunately, one car bomb went off prematurely and the second failed to explode.