On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 01:48:59 GMT, zadoc wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:14:20 -0800, Stuart Grey
wrote:

Jerry Foster wrote:
"Jan Nielsen" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 06:46:00 -0500, Cliff wrote:


The 2005 Stella Awards

It's time once again to review the winners of the Annual "Stella
Awards." The Stella Awards are named after 81 year-old Stella Liebeck
who
spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's (in
NM). That
case inspired the Stella awards for the most frivolous, ridiculous,
successful lawsuits in the United States.

Here are this year's winners:

Most of them fabricated it seems:

http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html
--
- JN -


Not only are the "cases" cited a bunch of bull, the real case that gave its
name to these phony "awards" was anything but frivolous and this whole thing
is a slander of Mrs. Liebeck. She suffered massive burns and required
several surgeries and weeks of hospitalization. The problem was that
McDonalds was serving coffee that was as much as fifty(!) degrees hotter
than what other establishments put out. Their reason was that their
marketing research showed that coffee kept near boiling gave off an aroma
that inspired people to buy more of their breakfast products. By the time
Mrs. Liebeck got scalded, they had already paid off several hundred claims
for burns from their coffee, but considered it a small price to pay for the
increased sales. Which is why the jury clobbered them.

For the whole story, see:

http://caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts

LOL! That website is for the association of lawyers that raked in 40% of
that multi-million dollar fiasco. A little conflict of interest, there!

The simple fact is, most people believe in the idea of personal
responsibility.

You seem to be missing the point, which is that the drink was served
at far too high a temperature to be safe. If it was capable of
causing such damage, it was obviously unsafe.

You seem to be missing the point. If this woman can't handle a cup of coffee,
she probably wouldn't be competent to handle a piece of bubblegum. :/

Am sure that all readers have consumed a lot of restaurant coffee in
their lives, and one usually assumes that it will be served at a safe
temperature.

Nope. This one ASSumes that it will be served hot and checks.

Are you assuming that you need to inspect all the food you are served,
that if you, for instance, ate one of their hamburgers that had pieces
of broken glass in it that it was your fault because you hadn't
carefully inspected it?

How about one that was poisoned? Are you a toxicologist, and if so,
do you carry an analytical lab around with you?

Is this a red herring or just a common smokescreen? It doesn't seem to have much
to do with a cup of hot coffee.

Personal responsibility only runs so far, and people shouldn't have to
protect themselves against irresponsible retailers intent on turning a
fast buck.

Retailers shouldn't have to protect themselves against stupid customers either.

However, as a result of this case, am willing to bet that both the
company and the franchisee will be more responsible in the future.

They will charge more to the customers, but that won't guarantee they will be
more responsible. All this case will result in is that the customers will get
colder coffee. :/

If you are frail, and order hot coffee while driving in
a car, you were grossly negligent in taking care of yourself. It is not
up to the people who sell you the coffee to tell you that you're too
stupid and irresponsible - not old and mature enough, to handle coffee.

It is if the coffee is inherently unsafe, which it obviously was or
the jury wouldn't have ruled in the victims favor, which they did.

Wrong. Juries don't always rule based on logic. They often return verdicts based
on emotion.

Do you have anything against the rule of law?

The law is an ass(sometimes). To use an old quote.