On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 09:37:57 -0800, you wrote:
>Lewis:
>This is a fun one...
>You're right on with the stats.
>
>Personnally, I think that this is a two-sided case. If I were in the jury,
>I guess I would go for the plaintiff as well (just out of spite for McDs -
>big bucks).
The other side of the coin: these excessively large settlements only benefit
two people. The plaintiff, and their attorney(ies). Who is hurt? You and I.
We get higher prices as a result. Is MickeyD's affected? I assure you they
don't dip into their profits to cover the settlement, they just raise prices.
Just wanted to throw that out if you or others get a chance to sit on one of
these ridiculous cases. If someone is injured through negligence of a company,
they deserve compensation, but maybe it should be a reasonable compensation.
There was NOTHING reasonable about a 2-million dollar judgement for the damage
done. Trying to make a point to the company doesn't hurt the company, but it
does hurt the rest of us and DOES have a snow-ball (copy-cat) affect and is now
rampant and we are all paying daily.
Rob
>
>Futhermore, I would get ticked if I got lukewarm or cold coffie too!
>Get kinda cranky in the morning too without my coffie. |:>(
>
>Tom B. 57 Stepside 3200
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lewis Osborn [SMTP:losborn@teleport.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 9:10 PM
>To: oletrucks-digest@autox.team.net
>Subject: Re: [oletrucks] Off-topic: Older vs. Newer vehicles- which is
>safer?
>
>From: Tom Burt <tburt@hirose.com>
>
>>SOAP BOX, SOAP BOX TIME!!!
>>The reason the lady won the case with MacDonalds (MD) coffie burn was
>>because her prosecuting attorneys found out that MD superheats
>(pressure
>>and temp) their coffie to get a better yeild out of their grounds.
>This is
>>a landmark case that brought about the warning labels on the cups. A
>>reasonable cause I think.
>
>Gotta comment on this one. That "super hot" coffee had generated some
>700 complaints in several (I don't remember the exact number) of years
>prior to the law suit. The jury's original award of ~$3 million was
>based upon the money McD's made from their coffee in a 24 hour period.
>At $0.50 a cup, that's 6 million cups of coffee a DAY. Your calculator
>had better be capable of scientific notation if you hope to get an
>answer on those percentages. A McD's customer had a LOT better chance
>of winning the lottery than being burned by a cup of their coffee. You
>know, I'll bet that McD's gets more than that many complaints that the
>coffee is too cold - or too weak - or too strong.
>
>Heck, if I'd have pulled a stunt like that, I'd have done my best to
>make sure that nobody ever found out how stupid I'd been.
>
>So, I can't agree that the cause was reasonable, I'm afraid.
>
>Lewis - K7LVO Valley of the Rogue-Medford, OR
>"The Forty" - 40 Chevy PU - One Owner
>http://www.teleport.com/~losborn/1940.html
>
>
>
>oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
>
>oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
|