"Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burnt 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 degrees 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."
There are many other references around, but that's a start.
No. That's not a start. You claimed that your lawyer friend told you about 180 to 190 degree heat possibly causing 3rd degree burns, about multiple surgeries, and about inability to urinate including possibly requiring a new opening surgically placed. Etc.
Those are pretty amazing claims, and more than a notch above what you quote from the Wikipedia article. I am not saying they are not true, but I've never heard of such stuff. I doubt that the press would pass up on something along those lines.
Please provide appropriate cites for your friend's claims. Or just say that you're not sure.
I'm tired of all the stupid people in the world that sue over the most ridiculous things. Hot Coffee? iPhone price cut? AT&T contract YOU signed up for? Please. Stop your whining...you're all a bunch of babies. If you can't handle the always changing world of tech, then stay out!!!
While the woman is an idiot and of course will not win her case, the lawyer has gotten exactly what she wants out of the deal. Everyone now knows her name and has read about her and her dinky little law practice. She couldn't pay enough money for all of the free advertising that she is getting for filing this lawsuit.
No. That's not a start. You claimed that your lawyer friend told you about 180 to 190 degree heat possibly causing 3rd degree burns, about multiple surgeries, and about inability to urinate including possibly requiring a new opening surgically placed. Etc.
Those are pretty amazing claims, and more than a notch above what you quote from the Wikipedia article. I am not saying they are not true, but I've never heard of such stuff. I doubt that the press would pass up on something along those lines.
Please provide appropriate cites for your friend's claims. Or just say that you're not sure.
I wasn't the one who claimed she needed a new urethra. If you scroll down the Wikipedia article, you will see the references. Also, you will also note that the Wikipedia article also mentions she required multiple skin grafts. I am unsure if she required reconstruction of her urethra (I never said that), but it is possible if she had severe enough burns to her genitalia.
As a physician, I can attest that what it only takes about 15 seconds of contact time with liquid at 180 degrees to cause third-degree burns. I am an emergency physician who routinely treats burn patients.
This crap makes me sick. Its really sad how a huge amount of the worlds population doesnt have running water or food and here in the good ol US of A we got jackass people pissing on about their iPhones and boo hoo im gonna go cry about my phone and sue companies. These people need to be locked in porta potties and lit on fire.
If this jerk knew anything about apple..or maybe just anything in general. She wouldnt buy the latest computer tech that just came out and that no one knows anything about. Especially the day it comes out, cause their just going to release something new in a month or two. So suck it up, learn, and DEAL WITH IT!
The coffee thing is much too easily dismissed and misused. If people understood how that all started, how bad her burns were, how hot the coffee was in that particular McDonalds due to a malfunction.
If people understood that she simply wanted them to cover her medical expenses for the burn at first, how they laughed her off... and that's how she eventually EARNED a serious amount of money. If it was a frivolous suit, she would have lost... that should tell you a lot. Let's not bitch and complain about the fact that we have rights and protections, that even when you're the little guy, you can force the big guy to listen and do right by you. It's a very good thing.
Apple released one slick product, and nobody needs this product, nobody is being hurt by this product. Things depreciate that fast and faster. Let me tell you what my last month's rent is worth to me now... not much.
The iPhone was for those that could afford to buy it, people mistakenly assume that because they want Apple products, that that means it was intended for them. In the electronics industry, depreciation is a function of time, it's not a smooth function, and it often can't be predicted.
I'm still waiting to replace my Palm Tungsten E b/c according to my calculations the successor to the Tungsten E2 and TX should have arrived a couple of years back... it hasn't, and it's not looking like it ever will. I feel like a total chump for not buying a TX two years ago because I'd already be needing to replace it and instead I'm still waiting. Let me tell you, there's been a lot of important things I've missed b/c I wanted to save a few bucks on my PDA.
This idea that because prices drop you shouldn't buy, is a mistake. It only stands to reason that Apple would release the iPhone at a higher price when all that would have happened is that ebayers would have made a bunch of money instead of Apple had they released it low. Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft should have done the same with their consoles. Even the idea of a rebate after the fact is a great idea.
Let's stop with the nonsense when it comes to optional, cherry on top, type of things. These aren't subject to monopolies, (if they weren't unique items, we wouldn't want them), these are totally free will items that were purchased with a clear head and at a very well defined price. Now, malfunctions, wrong specs, bad build quality ... that's law suit material, this price change is not.
I will say this though, Apple made a mistake in not offering a rebate from the beginning. It's always a long term bad thing to spite the people who like your products the best. Your real fanatics, your base... why spite them? I don't have an iPhone, it got tempting at $299.00 + unlocking but now that the unlocking is a big deal... well nevermind.
About unlocking: It's such a high profile device that of course it's going to continue to be re-locked. For the same reason, it's going to continue to be unlocked. It's just unfortunate that it's not this hush-hush thing you can just do an move on because of the celebrity of the iPhone.
This same celebrity is why it's even a big deal that it dropped in price. I support Apple on this. I think if I were an iPhone customer that purchased it right away, I'd support them on this. There's no sense in having these sitting on the shelves, these need to be popular enough so that they don't vanish.
Anyhow, it's weird to be rooting for the big guy... but I absolutely am. Especially when the little guy throws out such absurd numbers. Over $1 million dollars? Yeah right. Please don't ever go to an outlet mall because you'll have a heart attack. Never go to end of season sales without medical personnel. If you bought a t-shirt for $40.00, you obviously liked it, could afford it and should be happy. I don't see how my buying later on for $4.00 should motivate you to do anything except perhaps change your shopping habits.
Coffee is *supposed* to be too hot when you first get it. You shouldn't even be able to take a sip without burning your tongue for at least 3-5 minutes.
Unfortunately this is only obvious to those who have *common sense*...
This lawsuit will go no where, just like the one where that guy sued for 1 million dollars over a pair of pants
No one held a gun to this ladies head forcing her to buy anything. If she felt it cost too much then she should have just waited, and then there wouldn't have been an issue. Someone should tell this lady that you can't sue someone else just because you might be stupid, or the courts would need an express lane.
Comments
How about starting with Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
"Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burnt 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 degrees 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."
There are many other references around, but that's a start.
No. That's not a start. You claimed that your lawyer friend told you about 180 to 190 degree heat possibly causing 3rd degree burns, about multiple surgeries, and about inability to urinate including possibly requiring a new opening surgically placed. Etc.
Those are pretty amazing claims, and more than a notch above what you quote from the Wikipedia article. I am not saying they are not true, but I've never heard of such stuff. I doubt that the press would pass up on something along those lines.
Please provide appropriate cites for your friend's claims. Or just say that you're not sure.
No. That's not a start. You claimed that your lawyer friend told you about 180 to 190 degree heat possibly causing 3rd degree burns, about multiple surgeries, and about inability to urinate including possibly requiring a new opening surgically placed. Etc.
Those are pretty amazing claims, and more than a notch above what you quote from the Wikipedia article. I am not saying they are not true, but I've never heard of such stuff. I doubt that the press would pass up on something along those lines.
Please provide appropriate cites for your friend's claims. Or just say that you're not sure.
I wasn't the one who claimed she needed a new urethra. If you scroll down the Wikipedia article, you will see the references. Also, you will also note that the Wikipedia article also mentions she required multiple skin grafts. I am unsure if she required reconstruction of her urethra (I never said that), but it is possible if she had severe enough burns to her genitalia.
As a physician, I can attest that what it only takes about 15 seconds of contact time with liquid at 180 degrees to cause third-degree burns. I am an emergency physician who routinely treats burn patients.
If this jerk knew anything about apple..or maybe just anything in general. She wouldnt buy the latest computer tech that just came out and that no one knows anything about. Especially the day it comes out, cause their just going to release something new in a month or two. So suck it up, learn, and DEAL WITH IT!
If people understood that she simply wanted them to cover her medical expenses for the burn at first, how they laughed her off... and that's how she eventually EARNED a serious amount of money. If it was a frivolous suit, she would have lost... that should tell you a lot. Let's not bitch and complain about the fact that we have rights and protections, that even when you're the little guy, you can force the big guy to listen and do right by you. It's a very good thing.
Apple released one slick product, and nobody needs this product, nobody is being hurt by this product. Things depreciate that fast and faster. Let me tell you what my last month's rent is worth to me now... not much.
The iPhone was for those that could afford to buy it, people mistakenly assume that because they want Apple products, that that means it was intended for them. In the electronics industry, depreciation is a function of time, it's not a smooth function, and it often can't be predicted.
I'm still waiting to replace my Palm Tungsten E b/c according to my calculations the successor to the Tungsten E2 and TX should have arrived a couple of years back... it hasn't, and it's not looking like it ever will. I feel like a total chump for not buying a TX two years ago because I'd already be needing to replace it and instead I'm still waiting. Let me tell you, there's been a lot of important things I've missed b/c I wanted to save a few bucks on my PDA.
This idea that because prices drop you shouldn't buy, is a mistake. It only stands to reason that Apple would release the iPhone at a higher price when all that would have happened is that ebayers would have made a bunch of money instead of Apple had they released it low. Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft should have done the same with their consoles. Even the idea of a rebate after the fact is a great idea.
Let's stop with the nonsense when it comes to optional, cherry on top, type of things. These aren't subject to monopolies, (if they weren't unique items, we wouldn't want them), these are totally free will items that were purchased with a clear head and at a very well defined price. Now, malfunctions, wrong specs, bad build quality ... that's law suit material, this price change is not.
I will say this though, Apple made a mistake in not offering a rebate from the beginning. It's always a long term bad thing to spite the people who like your products the best. Your real fanatics, your base... why spite them? I don't have an iPhone, it got tempting at $299.00 + unlocking but now that the unlocking is a big deal... well nevermind.
About unlocking: It's such a high profile device that of course it's going to continue to be re-locked. For the same reason, it's going to continue to be unlocked. It's just unfortunate that it's not this hush-hush thing you can just do an move on because of the celebrity of the iPhone.
This same celebrity is why it's even a big deal that it dropped in price. I support Apple on this. I think if I were an iPhone customer that purchased it right away, I'd support them on this. There's no sense in having these sitting on the shelves, these need to be popular enough so that they don't vanish.
Anyhow, it's weird to be rooting for the big guy... but I absolutely am. Especially when the little guy throws out such absurd numbers. Over $1 million dollars? Yeah right. Please don't ever go to an outlet mall because you'll have a heart attack. Never go to end of season sales without medical personnel. If you bought a t-shirt for $40.00, you obviously liked it, could afford it and should be happy. I don't see how my buying later on for $4.00 should motivate you to do anything except perhaps change your shopping habits.
Coffee is *supposed* to be too hot when you first get it. You shouldn't even be able to take a sip without burning your tongue for at least 3-5 minutes.
Unfortunately this is only obvious to those who have *common sense*...
This lawsuit will go no where, just like the one where that guy sued for 1 million dollars over a pair of pants
No one held a gun to this ladies head forcing her to buy anything. If she felt it cost too much then she should have just waited, and then there wouldn't have been an issue. Someone should tell this lady that you can't sue someone else just because you might be stupid, or the courts would need an express lane.