I'm waiting to hear of the first case were some shark
sues an individual on behalf of another because he
did NOT sue the guy that ran into the back of his car
at a traffic light... Think of the mental anguish he would
suffer waiting for the guy he hit to start litigation. "Were you
NOT sued by the other person involved in you recant auto
accident? Call the lawyers at Dewy Cheatem and Howe. The call is
and you pay nothing until we collect the money you deserve."
Philip Schmid wrote:
That was kind of my point. The response to there being too many lawsuits
and such being that McDonalds would still be serving hot coffee just begs
the question that if its ok to sue a company for having hot coffee then we
might as well go all the way and sue every homeowner that has coffee that
someone might deem too hot and we might spill on ourselves. Just the whole
ridiculous loop of stupidity it would create. But I agree, throw people in
jail for wasting the taxpayers money for frivolous lawsuits.
Why, the public chooses to go to McDs. They can choose to not go there. I'm
reminded of the case where the 2 obese kids sued McDs for making them that
way and the judge pretty much said they had a choice and they continued to
eat there and that their lifestyle contributed to it.
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:03:49 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Does a worker have to belong to a union to be dissatisfied with the
safety of his product? Did any worker at McDonalds ever raise the
question of possible injury because the coffee was too hot? Or did they
just go with the flow because they were afraid to rock the boat?
Typical nanny government mentality. McDonalds didn't burn anyone. The
people that spilled hot coffee on themselves burned someone. Now if a
McDonalds counter persone spilled coffee on you and burned you, then
maybe you could rightfully claim that McDonalds burned you.
Except that asbestos was considered safe for many years. I assum the
Corning reference is actually meant to be Dow Corning and, in that case,
silicone implants have still not been indicated as unsafe in the MANY
studies done since the initial suits were filed.
Typical airhead thinking. I suppose if McDonalds handed you a jar of
nitroglycerine and said "have a nice day", it would be your fault what
happened next? Different only in degree, not in kind.
I'm sure you'll laugh and think "what an idiot", but pause and think
about the concept. The company is putting a product into the hands of
the public which can cause moderate to serious injury, without a warning
or caution of any kind. Lawsuit city, well deserved.
You're making things way too easy for your critics. If I indeed ordered
a jar of nitrogylcerine without knowing how to handle it, that would be
my fault not McD's.
You saved us the trouble.
If that's the case, then it should legally be required to take an IQ
test before you are allowed to order a cup of hot coffee to go (back to
the nanny state to protect - literally - idiots from themselves). But
you'd think that if someone could own a license and drive a car to the
drive thru that they would have the IQ necessary to know that hot things
are, umm, hot, and that hot things will, umm, burn you if you spill them
on you without you having to be told same.
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
Umm, coffee is supposed to be, umm, hot, not umm, dangerous. It should
not, umm, send you to the umm, hospital if you umm, spill some.
As umm, dumb as they were, McDonalds now umm, gets it. Why don't umm,
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.