Yay Government health care:(

[KJUN]

It is not uncommon for people on the southern boarder states to go to Mexico to buy their prescription drugs. They are 50 to 60% cheaper in Mexico. My brother is a pharmaceutical representative and I asked him why the difference. He said it was in part to what the market can bear. The people in Mexico simply cannot pay our prices. But more than that is the fact that in Mexico they simple do not have the threat of law suits that we have.

It's also not always of the same quality, though.

I'll pay extra for some things.

 

[KJUN]

Merit? Come on...it's coffee. It is SUPPOSED to be hot. Temperature is relative, and what is too hot for one coffee drinker is just right for another. The nature of the drink dictates caution when taking a sip.

.........

I think their should be a law against suing someone because you're an idiot. Just my humble opinion...

Just gotta say that I loved reading this post! Let's face it - I'd understand suing over cold coffee (not the iced coffee, of course) more than over hot coffee.

And to Nova, I know there was merit to that case (coffee hotter than their own company regs said it should be, lose lid, yadda yadda yadda). Still the IDIOT tried to buy a hot drink while driving. Sure, I do that, too....but when I spill it, it is my fault. ....and even if someone split it ONE me from the vendor, it wouldn't be worth what they were awarded in that particular case.

We should NEVER award stupidity!

...and I'm not sure this is any more off topic than most of the other posts in this thread. Yes, the coffee instance doesn't relate to health care directly, but that was just an aside in one of my posts. Something to laugh over as an instance of how the courts are hurting the prices of many goods/services through allowing frivolous lawsuits to be economical feasible to the lawyer and the crackpot that hires him/her.

 

[Lucille]

It's also not always of the same quality, though.

I'll pay extra for some things.

Interesting. I had always heard that the pharmaceuticals there offered by the giant pharmaceutical companies were identical to those sold here.

Wade, could you ask your brother? If what I heard is incorrect I'd like to know.

 

[tyflier]

My Chris I agree with you again- coffee is hot duh!!! And I do my part as a smoker daily so you won't be paying to wipe my butt or drool, feed me, bath me, or turn me every few hours so I don't get bed sores

YAY for Common Ground!!

See...everyone can find a reason to agree if they look hard enough...

 

[wade]

Interesting. I had always heard that the pharmaceuticals there offered by the giant pharmaceutical companies were identical to those sold here.

Wade, could you ask your brother? If what I heard is incorrect I'd like to know.

They are exactly the same. According to my brother there is no difference. I take a drug called Nexium for my bad stomach. It is quite expensive. The Mexican drug is exactly the same, comes in the same bottle I get from my pharmacy here. I have really good insurance so it is cheaper for me to pay the copay than to buy in Mexico. The few times I have bought in Mexico, you have to bring a prescription bottle with you from the states and you are only allowed to bring 3 months supply back across the border.

 

[Nova_C]

Well, okay, let's talk about it here, then:

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49¢ cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds. Two years of medical treatment followed.

There is no worse type of burn than 3rd degree and she required skin grafts. Treatment required two years. Originally, she only asked that McDonald's cover her medical costs ($11K), but they refused, offering her $800. That was why she sued.

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.

(Emphasis mine)

So they knowingly served coffee at a temperature that would burn the person drinking it if they didn't let it cool first. And they had already been paying out money to burn victims for a while without changing the temperature they served the coffee at.

Whether or not she should have won is a valid debate, but this was not a frivolous lawsuit, nor should she be derided and the fact that the "Stella Awards" were named after her is pretty ridiculous.

 

[tyflier]

She bought hot coffee in a styrofoam cup and held it between her legs. Coffee is hot and styrofoam is pliable, by their very nature. Using the two in combination assumes a certain amount of responsibility to avoid being burned. The blame doesn't lie with the coffe OR with the cup. The blame lies strictly with the activity of attempting to hold it between her knees in a vehicle. This will almost always result in a burn if your coffee is served properly.

McDonald's served their coffee at a temperature that was cooler than what boiling water for tea would be expected to be served at. Anyone that regularly drinks coffee or tea will tell you that you should test the temperature before you take a swig. And you don't hold it near the family jewels.

I think it is a frivolous lawsuit. Why should McDonald's be held responsible for the bad decisions of individuals? Don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for the old lady, but truth be told...that was a pretty stupid thing to do. Had she not done that, she would not have been burned. You could sit here and argue all day that the temperature would have burned her had she taken a sip, but the fact remains that had she not made the bad decision to hold the coffee in her lap, this conversation wouldn't be taking place.

I would also wager that if this was a middle aged man, the suit would have been thrown out. I have nothing to support this in any form, other than "gut instinct", but I would be willing to bet that the entire lawsuit was based on sympathy for a percieved victim. Change the person to someone a less vulnerable, the sympathy goes away, and the lawsuit becomes frivolous.

Tell me Mickey D's sold coffe to a 5 year old that burned themselves, and I'm all for holding them responsible. But a 79 year old woman should, at this point in her life, understand how to handle hot drinks. And she is certainly old enough to take responsibility for her own bad decisions, even when they hurt.

 

[Nova_C]

Anyone that regularly drinks coffee or tea will tell you that you should test the temperature before you take a swig.

I've been a coffee drinker since I was 7, drank coffee with many, many people and this is the first time I've heard anyone say that.

Have you ever required hospitalization for drinking coffee? If you did, if the coffee was so hot it caused permanent damage to the inside of your mouth, permanently scarring tissue and removing your ability to taste anything every again and the coffee had been made by a business, you would find the business had no responsibility for your disablement?

I would also wager that if this was a middle aged man, the suit would have been thrown out.

Then why was McDonald's paying off other burn victims to the tune of half a million dollars?

Another question, kind of vague, but related: Does a person doing something stupid with a product, revealing a major flaw in the product that causes that person severe injury or death, absolve that corporation of any responsibility regarding that defect?

 

[tyflier]

I've been a coffee drinker since I was 7, drank coffee with many, many people and this is the first time I've heard anyone say that.

My dad told me "Be careful. It's hot." the very first time he gave me a sip of his coffee. I was about 6. I've been careful ever since. I also make sure to warn my daughter when she gets her hot chocolate, be it home made or store bought..."Careful, honey. It's hot." She's 6. She usually responds with, "I know dad. That's why it's called hot chocolate." :shrugs:

Have you ever required hospitalization for drinking coffee?

No, I haven't. Coffee is hot, so I am usually careful when I get some.

If you did, if the coffee was so hot it caused permanent damage to the inside of your mouth, permanently scarring tissue and removing your ability to taste anything every again and the coffee had been made by a business, you would find the business had no responsibility for your disablement?

If I made coffee in my home and required hospitalization from burns to my mouth, should I sue the coffee maker manufacturer, or the electrician that installed my outlet? Either one seems just as reasonable as the other.

The short answer...if I burn myself drinking hot coffee, I messed up. It's coffee. It's hot. Be careful.

Then why was McDonald's paying off other burn victims to the tune of half a million dollars?

I couldn't even begin to answer that without without a TON more information. I am in no way prepared to assume liability because of a pay off, and I am in no way prepared to assume negligence without even knowing what happened. I can only discuss this situation, because this is the only situation with any information available at the moment.

Another question, kind of vague, but related: Does a person doing something stupid with a product, revealing a major flaw in the product that causes that person severe injury or death, absolve that corporation of any responsibility regarding that defect?

I imagine that a lot of that will depend on the product, the manner in which it was being used, and the manner in which it broke.

If a man is holstering his gun after routine target practice, and there is a mechanical malfunction of the safety, and he shoots himself or something(someone) else, the gun manufacturer is liable, providing there were no alterations made to the weapon.

However, if a guy turns his gun around and uses it as a hammer, and the safety fails and shoots him in the face...is the gun manufacturer responsible?

 

[Nova_C]

If I made coffee in my home and required hospitalization from burns to my mouth, should I sue the coffee maker manufacturer, or the electrician that installed my outlet? Either one seems just as reasonable as the other.

Not comparable in the least because you chose the temperature. My hypothetical was if you didn't.

The short answer...if I burn myself drinking hot coffee, I messed up. It's coffee. It's hot. Be careful.

Okay.

I couldn't even begin to answer that without without a TON more information. I am in no way prepared to assume liability because of a pay off, and I am in no way prepared to assume negligence without even knowing what happened. I can only discuss this situation, because this is the only situation with any information available at the moment.

You brought up what would happen in other cases. So I guess my response to you is what you yourself said.

I imagine that a lot of that will depend on the product, the manner in which it was being used, and the manner in which it broke.

If a man is holstering his gun after routine target practice, and there is a mechanical malfunction of the safety, and he shoots himself or something(someone) else, the gun manufacturer is liable, providing there were no alterations made to the weapon.

However, if a guy turns his gun around and uses it as a hammer, and the safety fails and shoots him in the face...is the gun manufacturer responsible?

That's a good response to my hypothetical, so let's examine that:

Did the safety fail because of damage caused by the hammering? Or was the safety defective? Let's say defective since that's really where we started.

Did the gun go off because of the hammering? Let's say yes.

Was the gun loaded by the person doing the hammering? Let's say yes.

With these questions, I can honestly say the dumb shmuck did it to himself, but then again, this isn't analogous to the Liebeck case and not really what I meant by my hypothetical, but then again, I was pretty vague. Here's my issue with it:

The purpose of the gun is to fire a bullet in order to cause injury or death. It can be used in other ways, the this is the primary purpose.

Is the purpose of coffee to cause severe injury? I think we can agree it is not. The fact that it did means something was wrong with the situation. Was it because it was spilled? Sure. Was it because it was too hot? Here's where people differ.

And a lot of people differ, as I've been discovering. And this is why there was a lawsuit, because people differ on this. And enough people believed that the coffee was too hot in order to award to the plaintiff in the case. But this is really immaterial to whether or not the case is frivolous.

Really, that's the question here, Ty: Was the case frivolous. Whether she should have won or not is immaterial. That means there is one question, and only one:

Do you believe that coffee should be brewed at a temperature that can cause severe injury to anyone who drinks it?

 

[tyflier]

Not comparable in the least because you chose the temperature. My hypothetical was if you didn't.

I don't choose the temperature, the manufacturer of the coffe maker does. It's a self-regulated hotplate and heating element. There is no temperature setting, so I have no choice in the temperature. Just as McDonald's doesn't select a temperature on their coffee makers, they only hit the start button.

If anyone is responsible beside the person holding hot coffee in their lap, or not using coffee, it is the manufactureer of the heating elemt used in the coffee maker, not the end user. If you are going to hold the end user responsible, give the end user a thermostatic control.

You brought up what would happen in other cases. So I guess my response to you is what you yourself said.

I didn't bring up any other cases. I wagered that if this exact scenario happened to a different individual, one less vulnerable, the case would lose sympathy and therefor legitimacy. I stand by that. There is no way of knowing, so I will not try to convince you I am "right". But I also won't change that opinion.

That's a good response to my hypothetical, so let's examine that:

Did the safety fail because of damage caused by the hammering? Or was the safety defective? Let's say defective since that's really where we started.

Prove the defect is caused by the manufacturer or you have no case.

Did the gun go off because of the hammering? Let's say yes.

I thought that was implied, but ok for clarifying.

Was the gun loaded by the person doing the hammering? Let's say yes.

Again, implied in the scenario, but thanks for clarifying.

With these questions, I can honestly say the dumb shmuck did it to himself, but then again, this isn't analogous to the Liebeck case and not really what I meant by my hypothetical, but then again, I was pretty vague. Here's my issue with it:

The purpose of the gun is to fire a bullet in order to cause injury or death. It can be used in other ways, the this is the primary purpose.

I agree. He's a dumb schmuck. The nature of the gun being a weapon is inconsequential. It was the choice to use it in a fashion not recommended by the manufacturer that caused the accident, not the gun's nature.

Perhaps a more accurate analogy would be the idiot that fires a gun while there is a person downrange and he shoots them. Is the gun manufacturer than responsible, or the idiot that made a bad choice that resulted in injury due to the nature of a gun being a weapon?:shrugs:

Is the purpose of coffee to cause severe injury? I think we can agree it is not. The fact that it did means something was wrong with the situation. Was it because it was spilled? Sure. Was it because it was too hot? Here's where people differ.

The purpose of coffee is to be hot. In order to brew coffee it is necessary to achieve a specific temperature. By it's nature, this temperature is sufficient to cause burns ranging from minor to possibly severe. There is no other way to brew coffee.

When you order coffee, there is an immediate implication that it will be hot. If you get burned using it, it is because of lack of responsibility

And a lot of people differ, as I've been discovering. And this is why there was a lawsuit, because people differ on this. And enough people believed that the coffee was too hot in order to award to the plaintiff in the case. But this is really immaterial to whether or not the case is frivolous.

Really, that's the question here, Ty: Was the case frivolous. Whether she should have won or not is immaterial. That means there is one question, and only one:

Do you believe that coffee should be brewed at a temperature that can cause severe injury to anyone who drinks it?

I believe that coffee cannot brew at a temperature that is insufficient to cook the grounds. This temperature will always have the potential to cause burns. Depending on age, health, general skin suppleness, and a myriad of other reasons, these burns can range in severity a great deal.

The fact that coffee cannot be made without being hot is a clear indication that the ladie's actions were irresponsible. Despiyte any sympathy I might have for her, it is her own irresponsiblity and poor decision making that led to her injury, not McDonald's.

This is a frivolous case, in my humble opinion. As long as the facts presented in your initial quotations are accurate, I will stand by that opinion.

Fair enough if we disagree. That's why there are courts to make those decisions. I don't have to agree with them to respect the job they have and do.

 

[Nova_C]

I honestly don't get a lot of what you said because you seem to be not getting a lot of what I'm saying, but I'm not sure that matters. Your last statement suggests that you don't think it was frivolous since you say a court should sort this stuff out. Frivolous lawsuits are lawsuits that should never be brought to court. But you say right before that statement that you think this is a frivolous lawsuit.

I just don't get it, Ty, I just...

I don't even know what to say, so I guess....okay?

 

[tyflier]

I honestly don't get a lot of what you said because you seem to be not getting a lot of what I'm saying, but I'm not sure that matters. Your last statement suggests that you don't think it was frivolous since you say a court should sort this stuff out. Frivolous lawsuits are lawsuits that should never be brought to court. But you say right before that statement that you think this is a frivolous lawsuit.

I just don't get it, Ty, I just...

I don't even know what to say, so I guess....okay?

Frivolous cases get thrown out. There are plenty of cases that, get brought before a judge, and are thrown out. These are frivolous cases. Not because they never made it before a judge, but because they were thrown out before a trial.

Somebody has to decide that a case is frivolous. That's usually a judge...

I believe that this case should have been thrown out. What are you debating?

 

[danielle]

So now we're talking about coffee. Come on Nova coffee is hot and no when you brew it in your home you can't choose the temperature it brews out at, only the temp you'll actually drink it at. I drink McDonald's, Starbucks, and 7-11 coffee as well as brew my own daily. Everyone knows you take a small sip first don't imply you don't that's not even logical. People test food and drinks alike for temperature to AVOID getting burned because as Chris said from the time your a small child and around, or eating anything hot the first thing your parents say is careful its hot. Child replies hot? Parent says yes, child still tests it, and says ow hot!- as lesson is learned This is a lesson everyone under the sun has learned usually before their even potty trained so no this woman should not have been able to sue.

One would assume with her cotton sweat pants on she felt the warmth before even taking off that lid the minute she put it between her legs. Common sense should have said ouch thats hot let me put this in the cup holder so it can cool off- this is what the average person does when something is hot. However, this bright lady said the hell with her already responding pain receptors and did it anyway, spilling it, and causing her own injury- that's her fault as unfortunate as it is. We see the same issues with American malpractice suits ALL the time. Patient is told to do one thing, doesn't listen, dies or sustains major injury, and sues. Stupidity should be just as punishable IMO common sense after all is free. Take out coffee places brew their coffee hot because you are taking it out to drink elsewhere and no one digs cold coffee unless iced- if your stupid enough to not use caution you should be held liable for your own stupidity.

 

[wade]

I bought a cup of coffee and put it between my legs and drove away. I had to hit the gas a little to get into traffic and some of the very hot coffee spilled on my leg. I quickly grabbed the burned spot with my hand and in the process stuck my finger through the side of the Styrofoam cup. Have you ever seen a man sing soprano in heavy traffic.

It never occurred to me to sue someone. I bought the coffee and I spilled it. Who was at fault?

 

[tsst]

... It never occurred to me to sue someone. I bought the coffee and I spilled it. Who was at fault?

The Ethiopians. :grin01:

http://www.ico.org/coffee_story.asp

 

[tyflier]

I bought a cup of coffee and put it between my legs and drove away. I had to hit the gas a little to get into traffic and some of the very hot coffee spilled on my leg. I quickly grabbed the burned spot with my hand and in the process stuck my finger through the side of the Styrofoam cup. Have you ever seen a man sing soprano in heavy traffic.

It never occurred to me to sue someone. I bought the coffee and I spilled it. Who was at fault?

You needed to sue the guy in front of you for not going fast enough, the guy behind you for going too fast, the people that made the entrance for not making the transition smooth enough, the person that sold you the coffee for brewing too hot, the manufacturer of th4e coffee maker used for using a thermostat that was set to high, and the maker of your car for not putting a cup holder on the steering wheel.

That oughtta set you up for a little while, eh?

The sad part...there's likely a lawyer that would take very one of those cases...

 

[Outcast]

Chris, I don't agree with most of what you have to say, most of the time. But on the current discussion, I am right there with you buddy...

 

[wade]

I have a friend that was water skiing and a drunk on a jet ski ran into him. He spent several days in the hospital. He had two attorneys come to see him in the hospital and tried to talk him into suing the other guy.

 

[medusacoils]

I bought a cup of coffee and put it between my legs and drove away. I had to hit the gas a little to get into traffic and some of the very hot coffee spilled on my leg. I quickly grabbed the burned spot with my hand and in the process stuck my finger through the side of the Styrofoam cup. Have you ever seen a man sing soprano in heavy traffic.

It never occurred to me to sue someone. I bought the coffee and I spilled it. Who was at fault?

I would sue Toyota, Ford, Chevy or whatever company manufactured the vehicle you were driving because if cars came with Auto-Pilot, you wouldn't have had to pay attention to the road or stop quickly.

If that fails, sue God! He shouldn't have made burns possible. :shrugs:

Wayne