Here it goes... Family sues Disney over April accident

[trr1]

:shrug:where were the parents at the time of the accident?

 

[Oddysey]

I agree with the people who say this is what courts were designed for.

And since it came up, McDonalds deserved to lose the coffee case. You can't litigate cases like this from brief media snippets.

Why did they deserve to lose the coffee case? Not trying to argue, but legitimately curious because you are probably the first person I have heard say this. I am probably ignorant to the logistics of the case because I only relied on media snippets and word of mouth with regards to this story. If you would enlighten me it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[TimNRA757]

:shrug:where were the parents at the time of the accident?

Grocery shopping.

 

[WDWmazprty]

Grocery shopping.

figures. :brick:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Why did they deserve to lose the coffee case? Not trying to argue, but legitimately curious because you are probably the first person I have heard say this. I am probably ignorant to the logistics of the case because I only relied on media snippets and word of mouth with regards to this story. If you would enlighten me it would be greatly appreciated.

You can look online to firm up the details if you like, but off the top of my head:

The court found McDonalds was storing its coffee at dangerously high temperatures, and had continued to do so despite numerous customer complaints. The woman who sued them suffered severe burns after having the coffee on her skin for just a few seconds, and had to have serious medical treatment including skin grafts.

The reason I think this is such an important thing to remember is that the McDonalds case has become the poster child for "frivolous lawsuits" when in fact it was anything but. It inevitably gets mentioned in discussions like this because people feel like they are honestly informed about the situation because they read or heard a story about it.

Thanks for the civil tone BTW.

 

[WDWmazprty]

You can look online to firm up the details if you like, but off the top of my head:

The court found McDonalds was storing its coffee at dangerously high temperatures, and had continued to do so despite numerous customer complaints. The woman who sued them suffered severe burns after having the coffee on her skin for just a few seconds, and had to have serious medical treatment including skin grafts.

The reason I think this is such an important thing to remember is that the McDonalds case has become the poster child for "frivolous lawsuits" when in fact it was anything but. It inevitably gets mentioned in discussions like this because people feel like they are honestly informed about the situation because they read or heard a story about it.


Thanks for the civil tone BTW.

Ok, I understand the details, but regardless, its still HOT coffee and SHE spilled it on herself, correct? Maybe it was hotter than it should've been, and feel bad about her injuries, but it's HOT coffee:shrug:.Just speaking on the McD's case alone, she should've lost IMHO.

And I also appreciate the civil tone to voice our opinions.:sohappy:

 

[Master Yoda]

You can look online to firm up the details if you like, but off the top of my head:

The court found McDonalds was storing its coffee at dangerously high temperatures, and had continued to do so despite numerous customer complaints. The woman who sued them suffered severe burns after having the coffee on her skin for just a few seconds, and had to have serious medical treatment including skin grafts.

The reason I think this is such an important thing to remember is that the McDonalds case has become the poster child for "frivolous lawsuits" when in fact it was anything but. It inevitably gets mentioned in discussions like this because people feel like they are honestly informed about the situation because they read or heard a story about it.

Thanks for the civil tone BTW.

Like you said the McDonalds coffee case is really the poster child for poor or agenda driven reporting and not frivolous lawsuits as it is often made out to be. Here are the details via wikipedia. From what I remember of the case they appear to be accurate. Also a point to add for clarification....the recommended max temperature for any hot drink in 160 F.

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, an 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. McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Prior to her lawsuit, there had been approximately 700 other burn cases involving McDonald's between 1982 and 1992. Stella 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.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[10] 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.[11] 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.[12] Two years of medical treatment followed.

 

[WDWmazprty]

Like you said the McDonalds coffee case is really the poster child for poor or agenda driven reporting and not frivolous lawsuits as it is often made out to be. Here are the details via wikipedia. From what I remember of the case they appear to be accurate. Also a point to add for clarification....the recommended max temperature for any hot drink in 160 F.

Thanks Yoda!

Now the question is would it still have burned her as bad if the coffee was at 160 degrees? Because to me, thats still HOT!!:wave:

 

[Phonedave]

I couldn't imagine! I hope that the situation has worked itself out!

It did. At first nobody knew they were foster parents. I found out through some police I knew. I told my lawyer that I didn't want to be a ______________, but if they were going to push this, we might have to make a call to DYFS. That case got dropped quickly. Then ... the BIRTH PARENTS (who happend to be the sister of the foster mother) turned around and sued both me and the foster parents. You can't make this stuff up.

My insurance company assigned me a clone of Matlock - looked, acted, and talked, exactly the same. We never even gave a deposition. They ended up settling for $20,000 - no personal exposure to me.

I now have $1M in umbrella liability - the $150 a year it costs me is well worth never having to go through that again.


-dave

 

[Master Yoda]

Thanks Yoda!

Now the question is would it still have burned her as bad if the coffee was at 160 degrees? Because to me, thats still HOT!!:wave:

You can get a 1st degree burn with temperatures as low as 120 F but it takes prolonged exposure. In the case of drinks served at 160 F it would be pretty hard to get anything past a 1st degree burn if it was spilled or drunk as it would quickly cool and no longer pose a serious threat. In the particular McDonalds case they were serving drinks that were only a few degrees shy of boiling as required by company policy.

 

[_Scar]

The public should sue the parents for being dumba**es.


Can we citizens arrest?

 

[WDWmazprty]

the public should sue the parents for being dumba**es.


Can we citizens arrest?

:roflol::roflol::roflol:

 

[Phonedave]

I agree with the people who say this is what courts were designed for.

And since it came up, McDonalds deserved to lose the coffee case. You can't litigate cases like this from brief media snippets.

The McDonald's case was a bit different. And I agree, they should have lost that one.

But then, we don't know all the facts about this one either.


-dave

 

[Kobe!!]

So since the sidewalk was to close to the street, shouldn't they move the sidewalks on Main Street....:shrug:

 

[rkelly42]

I first want to say that this was a tragic accident and I feel for all parties involved(the family and the bus driver as well as witnesses). Second I never want to know what that feeling is like and why people turn to a monatary(sp?) means to compensate for a loved ones death. I just hope that the family will find some peace and they can move on with their lives. As for the lawsuit, it sounds pretty thin. More than likely there will be a settlement and probably will not be fair to Disney as I do not see how this was their fault but that is the way the system operates.

 

[Phonedave]

Thanks Yoda!

Now the question is would it still have burned her as bad if the coffee was at 160 degrees? Because to me, thats still HOT!!:wave:

Just to add fuel to the hot coffee case.

After the grandmother burned herself, she went to McDonalds and asked for money. She asked for compensation to cover her medical bills that insurance did not. No pain and suffering, no "inflicting damage on McDonald's" She simply asked that they cover her out of pocket expenses.

They told her to go take a hike.


-dave

 

[WDWmazprty]

Just to add fuel to the hot coffee case.

After the grandmother burned herself, she went to McDonalds and asked for money. She asked for compensation to cover her medical bills that insurance did not. No pain and suffering, no "inflicting damage on McDonald's" She simply asked that they cover her out of pocket expenses.

They told her to go take a hike.


-dave

Well, jeez, they could've at least did that to keep it out of the courts. Thats probably why they awarded her the win, because Ronald didnt want to be a little nice. :hammer:

 

[mrbghd]

Ugh, it was already determined that it was not the bus driver's fault. But of course, the media will probably ignore this fact to make Disney look evil.

The suit is not ultimately not about the driver. For the purposes of the suit, his actions are irrelevant other than he was drivign the vehicle. The main thing of importance in this suit is the idea that Disney should have seen something like this occurring and should have planned accordingly.

I am not taking any position on this suit as I am not privy to all of the facts of the case. But, if it was reasonable for Disney to foresee that a person would ride a bike on the road that didn't have a sidewalk and then get hit, this case may have merit.

 

[trr1]

Grocery shopping.

for real?

 

[mrbghd]

Why did they deserve to lose the coffee case? Not trying to argue, but legitimately curious because you are probably the first person I have heard say this. I am probably ignorant to the logistics of the case because I only relied on media snippets and word of mouth with regards to this story. If you would enlighten me it would be greatly appreciated.

To interject, McDonalds was aware of a design defect with the way the coffee was served and ignored it/refused to fix it. This defect was directly responsible for the injury the woman suffered.