On Aug 13, 11:57 am, Steve Wertz > wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:07:21 -0000, maxine in ri wrote:
> > There was the case of an allegedly kosher butcher in NJ or NY who was
> > passing off non-kosher meat to his clientel. The rabbis and community
> > took care of it.
>
> They blessed him and put him through the meat grinder?
>
> -sw

If only! <g>

maxine in ri

On Aug 13, 12:37 pm, Peter A > wrote:
> In article >, cathy1234
> @mailinator.com says...
>
> > > Suppose you went to a hardware store and asked for 1000 pound cable
> > > and they sold you 250 pound cable, and as a result someone was killed.
> > > Should you have checked?
>
> > Yes. It's called "taking responsibility for your own actions".
>
> That applies to the hardware store as well as to the buyer.
>
> Will you please explain why an individual must be responsible for his
> own actions while a business does not?
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

Both need to take "reasonable caution" to be certain that what they
exchange
is what they requested.

Most of the time, if a restaurant makes a mistake on an order, they
will
comp the food, replace it, or give the diner a credit for a future
meal.

If the diner has severe allergies, it is imperative that they ask no
matter what,
to be certain that the allergen is not a "secret ingredient." There
was a
case in RI a while back where a girl with a severe peanut allergy
ordered
a bowl of chili. Never thought that the chef would use peanut butter
as an
ingredient. She died.

Who would be to blame there? The chef? The diner?

I have a friend whose daughter is also extremely allergic to nuts.
She has
finally, after 25 years, found some medicine (at $1200 per month or
per shot,
I forget which), which will ease her symptoms from anaphalyxis to
itchy rash.
She still talks with the chef whenever she eats out, and reads labels
on everything.

maxine in ri

On Aug 13, 8:11 pm, "Debbie" > wrote:
> Paul M. Cook wrote:

> >> I've worked food service and restaurants. The coffee pots, urns,
> >> whatever always have temperature controls. The brewing water was
> >> 190F and the heat pad temperature was usually around 150 or so.
> >> Plus or minus 5 degrees. That was the way it was done wherever I
> >> worked. The coffee really cools off very fat especially while it is
> >> dripping into the pot from the brew basket. To keep it at 190 or 200
> >> meant that the water would evaporate very quickly and the coffee
> >> would have a terrible burned taste. People would send it back and
> >> the whole pot would get tossed.
>
> So THAT is why McD's coffee consistantly tastes so incredibly horrible! I
> always figured it was piped in from miles away via a massive pipeline
> system.
>
> Debbie

Gee, and I always thought it was the dishwater they used<G>.

maxine in ri

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> Nancy Young wrote:
> > "Paul M. Cook" > wrote
> >
> >> What's changed at McDs since the last time I consumed there? Back
> >> in the day they had something called hamburgers and something else
> >> called cheeseburgers. The wrappers were different colors, the
> >> cheeseburger being yellow. So if the guy wanted a hamburger why did
> >> he order a cheeseburger?
>
> Don't forget, he was eating in the dark watching a movie or a video or
> something. I don't know about you, but I always eat in the dark.
>
> >> I'm nobody to let irresponsible corporations off the hook, but this
> >> person clearly failed to exercise due diligence. Knowing you'll die
> >> from cheese should make you avoid places that sell it or prepare it.
> >> This reeks of opportunistic setup.
> >
> > The story stinks to high heaven. Wonder what part of his anatomy they
> > pulled that 10 million dollar figure from, too. The whole scenario
> > reeks.
> >
> That figure was pulled out of the lawyers' anatomy. 10 million seems to
be
> the figure of choice these days, especially if he/they are going to get
10%
> of whatever is awarded. And make no mistake... some jury will award this
> guy a lot of money or they'll settle. And other lawsuits will follow,
just
> watch.


From experience I know a lawyer's cut is more like 65%. I also know that
there is a myth about jury awards. Almost without exception a judge strikes
down most all of the jury award. They will only let the amount stand if
they find seriously egregious behavior on the defendant's part. In the McDs
case of the woman scalded by the coffee, the judge did in fact find this to
be the case and yet he still reduced the award by 80%. There are very
powerful people, and rich, in this world who stand to benefit immensely from
tort "reform" laws which basically remove an injured party's right to a day
in court. That is why you saw such a massive misrepresentation of the
coffee case and why the truth somehow slipped away in the dark of night.
Those forces would have you think that the system is running rampant and
everybody is getting rich with frivolous suits at your expense and that is
not the case at all. I'm no fan of lawyers as a rule but when you need
them, you want to know they are there.

Paul

"Peter A" > wrote in message
> It's an accepted point of law, for ages, that a business is responsible
> for mistakes that its employees make. There is no difference between an
> employee and the "business itself." The employee represents the business
> and therefore his/her actions are legally actions of the business.

Right, so they should replace his burger with a cheese free one. End of
story. No lawsuit needed.

"Omelet" > wrote in message
>
> Responsible women carry condoms in their purses.
> The trick is getting a guy to wear them. Many men hate them.
>

Not a trick at all. No condom, no nookie. It should be that simple. If it
is not that simple, ditch the guy NOW.

"Peter A" > wrote in message
> But it's not their own actions, it's someone else's actions. You are
> asking an individual to be responsible for someone else's mistake. How
> is that right?

If my life depends on it I take responsibility to check things. I take
medication. Every prescription, every time I check the pill to be sure it is
the one I'm supposed to have. They even give me a papere with the refill
describing what the pill looks like.



>
> It is certainly prudent for a person with a serious allergy to take
> precautions, but that does not make it OK for restaurants to serve food
> that is not what they say it is.

Right, give the man a new burger.


>
> It is impossible to go through life without relying on other people. If
> you offer a product then you assume responsibility that the product is
> what you say it is. Responsibility works both ways.

But does that mean he is entitled to thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands
of dollars in damages? The lawsuit is frivolous and should be tossed out.
Better yet, the guy should get a fine for bringing such a suit. We are
dealing with low paid, under educated workers, not skilled professionals.
Take precaution accordingly.

Doug Weller > wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:04:09 -0500, in rec.food.cooking, David Fetter
> wrote:
>
>>jmcquown > wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2x2xq8
>>>
>>> So, he ordered two quarter pounders without cheese. And the
>>> excuse for this lawsuit is he didn't notice it had cheese on it
>>> because he was eating in a dark room. What?!
>>>
>>> If you place a special order shouldn't you check it before you
>>> leave the establishment? I eat my burgers plain. It's been a
>>> long time since I was at a McD's but I always checked to make sure
>>> my burger was to order before I drove off. I guess it's a good
>>> thing for McDonald's he didn't order coffee, too.
>>
>>The real coffee story is a lot less flattering to McDonalds than you
>>appear to assume here.
>>
>>http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
>
> That's the old ATLA, Association of Trial Lawyers of America,

[/Ad hominem/ elided.]

I'll take note that you didn't bother to take on any substance of what
was there and leave it at that.

>>Eating at McDonalds at all is a poor decision on several grounds, some
>>listed below:
>>
>>* What little taste there is in the stuff is awful.
>
> Some stuff they do is tasty, other stuff they do I don't like. Taste
> is personal. I like some of their new baguettes.

Good for you. How long do you think they'll be available? I recall
plenty of trial balloons they've put up, but in the end, their top
sellers are grease, salt and sugars, lightly masquerading as other
things.

>>* It's expensive compared to, say, a taco truck or whatever else is
>>local to you.
>
> And you think that's guaranteed tasty and healthful? If so, I've a
> bridge I'd like to sell you.

Yes, it does have a better guarantee. A taco truck has to be
*extremely* careful because they don't have a crack legal team to bail
their sorry asses out when they get shit in the meat as McDonalds does
with depressing regularity.

>>* The "food" is jammed with ingredients like HFCS which is *really* bad for you.
>
> Yes, sugar can be bad for you. It's McDonald's fault people overeat, they
> make the food so cheap and tasty it can't be resisted.

The cheapness, such as it is, results from the farm bill and a bunch
of other subsidies to big business, some directly to McOpCo. I guess
that doesn't fit with your macho libertarian fantasy, though.

> Oh, no, sorry, it's nasty and expensive. That's how they get people
> to overeat those bad things like HFCS which no one else of course
> uses, especially local taco trucks which use only organic and
> healthy ingredients.

I have yet to see anything in a taco truck which contains this. Taco
trucks are about the only place I can go to get a Coke with cane sugar
in it

>>Cheers,
>>David (a former McDonalds employee)
>
> And maybe a very disgruntled one who things they done him wrong?

No, they did me right. I was in high school, and they taught me:

* How to lift heavy weights correctly
* How to do enormous amounts of work on a tight schedule
* How important it was for me to find something else to do in the long run

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter > http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter

A wealthy man who votes against his own interests and in the interests
of the average American is a saint. A wealthy man who votes in the
interest of gaining more wealth is just another gluttonous Republican.
A working man who votes Republican is a fool.

In article >,
Elisa > wrote:
>This will make you laugh: my daughter doesn't like cheese on her burgers
>(no allergy, just a preference). I have ordered a hamburger many times for
>her at McDonald's and it ALWAYS has cheese on it. Then, I tried saying
>"hamburger, no cheese" and they get it right. So, now I order it that
>redundant way every time.

I have a mild dairy allergy but I have always hated cheese. The
McDonald's fish sandwich comes with cheese by default, and I didn't
notice that. Cheese with fish? That was inconceivable to me. At
least I noticed before biting into it, and the McDonalds staff was
nice enough to make me a replacement at no extra cost to me.

-A

Peter A wrote:

> The lawsuit does seem overboard and the relatives may in fact be
> greedy. Still, that does not absolve McD's for responsibility for
> selling a product that was not what it was claimed to be. I am
> puzzled as to why so many people are anxious to absolve corporations
> for responsibility for their errors. Individuals have
> responsibilities but so do businesses.

Seen from here in Italy, the USofA are going nuts regarding to refunds: the
elder who took 2.9 million US$ for a coffee-burn is totally ridiculous to
me, it's total nonsense.
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

The Truthful Assh0le wrote:

> If the idiot would have died, it would have improved the gene pool.

Agreed.
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

Peter A wrote:

> Do you peel apart all your food to see what's inside? Or, do feel that
> you should be able to trust the restaurant to give you what you
> ordered?

If you have a friggin' lethal allergie YES! I'd double check everything. I'm
not so dumb to believe that a fast food joint can serve *perfection*.
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

On Aug 14, 6:17 am, "Vilco" > wrote:
> Peter A wrote:
> > The lawsuit does seem overboard and the relatives may in fact be
> > greedy. Still, that does not absolve McD's for responsibility for
> > selling a product that was not what it was claimed to be. I am
> > puzzled as to why so many people are anxious to absolve corporations
> > for responsibility for their errors. Individuals have
> > responsibilities but so do businesses.
>
> Seen from here in Italy, the USofA are going nuts regarding to refunds: the
> elder who took 2.9 million US$ for a coffee-burn is totally ridiculous to
> me, it's total nonsense.

I agree. Payments to plaintiffs should be for actual losses only.
Any punitive
damages (and I think punitive damages are required in many cases)
should
be paid to some relevant charity. There's no need for someone to get
a
huge windfall because some company was irresponsible.

Even the value of a human life can be calculated. I'd say mine is
worth about as
much as the life insurance that I carry, although it might be more
generous to
calculate the value of my future earnings.

Pain and suffering? Life is full of pain and suffering. I could burn
myself with
coffee that I made at home, suffer just as much, and not get a dime.

Cindy Hamilton

Vilco wrote:

>
> > The lawsuit does seem overboard and the relatives may in fact be
> > greedy. Still, that does not absolve McD's for responsibility for
> > selling a product that was not what it was claimed to be. I am
> > puzzled as to why so many people are anxious to absolve corporations
> > for responsibility for their errors. Individuals have
> > responsibilities but so do businesses.
>
> Seen from here in Italy, the USofA are going nuts regarding to refunds: the
> elder who took 2.9 million US$ for a coffee-burn is totally ridiculous to
> me, it's total nonsense.


There is an old joke about an Italian who asks an American cousin if it is
true that in the US you can trip on a sidewalk and sue the city for $1
million. The cousin says it is true, and the Italian announces that he
wants to move to the US. The American cousin warns him that it takes a long
time to go to school to become a lawyer and pass the bar exams. The Italian
says " I don't want to be a lawyer. I want to fall on sidewalks."

Vilco wrote:
>
> Peter A wrote:
>
> > Do you peel apart all your food to see what's inside? Or, do feel that
> > you should be able to trust the restaurant to give you what you
> > ordered?
>
> If you have a friggin' lethal allergie YES! I'd double check everything. I'm
> not so dumb to believe that a fast food joint can serve *perfection*.

That is the point that some people seem to be overlooking. The fact <?>
that is such a serious, potentially fatal allergy, makes it important that
the person check for himself.

And I don't buy the story that it was too dark to see because they were
watching a movie. That is hogwash. They had to have enough light to see
the remote controls for the TV and VCR or DVD, to find their gourmet
burger treats. That "cheese" practically glows in the dark.

Dave Smith wrote:

> There is an old joke about an Italian who asks an American cousin if
> it is true that in the US you can trip on a sidewalk and sue the city
> for $1 million. The cousin says it is true, and the Italian announces
> that he wants to move to the US. The American cousin warns him that
> it takes a long time to go to school to become a lawyer and pass the
> bar exams. The Italian says " I don't want to be a lawyer. I want to
> fall on sidewalks."

LOL
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

Dave Smith wrote:

>
> There is an old joke about an Italian who asks an American cousin if it is
> true that in the US you can trip on a sidewalk and sue the city for $1
> million. The cousin says it is true, and the Italian announces that he
> wants to move to the US. The American cousin warns him that it takes a long
> time to go to school to become a lawyer and pass the bar exams. The Italian
> says " I don't want to be a lawyer. I want to fall on sidewalks."

<chuckle>

But it's not just in the US that this sort of thing goes on.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/N...163918,00.html

<quote>
Man sues over 40 cent loss
13/08/2007 18:50 - (SA)

Berlin - A man who paid 40-euro cents more than he expected for a call
to a German television quiz show has filed fraud charges, police said on
Monday.

Having devised a formula to answer the question "How much milk do 10
oxen produce in 10 minutes if five oxen produce five litres in five
minutes?", the man went to a pay phone and made what he thought would be
a 50-cent call.

However, he was angered when the cost came to 90 cents, and even more
incensed because the phone-in show said the question was actually a
riddle with no answer.

"Don't forget that an ox is a castrated bull," said a spokesperson for
police in the western city of Muenster.

The man did not see the funny side, and went to a police station at
03:00. to file charges. Police and state prosecutors are now
investigating whether or not he has a case.
</quote>

Do you think he has a case?
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible

On Aug 13, 11:56?pm, (axlq) wrote:
> In article >,
>
> Elisa > wrote:
> >This will make you laugh: my daughter doesn't like cheese on her burgers
> >(no allergy, just a preference). I have ordered a hamburger many times for
> >her at McDonald's and it ALWAYS has cheese on it. Then, I tried saying
> >"hamburger, no cheese" and they get it right. So, now I order it that
> >redundant way every time.
>
> I have a mild dairy allergy but I have always hated cheese. The
> McDonald's fish sandwich comes with cheese by default, and I didn't
> notice that. Cheese with fish? That was inconceivable to me. At
> least I noticed before biting into it, and the McDonalds staff was
> nice enough to make me a replacement at no extra cost to me.

Lot's of folks are TIAD afflicted, they eat fish smothered with cream
of mushroom soup too.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> On Aug 14, 6:17 am, "Vilco" > wrote:
> > Peter A wrote:
> > > The lawsuit does seem overboard and the relatives may in fact be
> > > greedy. Still, that does not absolve McD's for responsibility for
> > > selling a product that was not what it was claimed to be. I am
> > > puzzled as to why so many people are anxious to absolve corporations
> > > for responsibility for their errors. Individuals have
> > > responsibilities but so do businesses.
> >
> > Seen from here in Italy, the USofA are going nuts regarding to refunds: the
> > elder who took 2.9 million US$ for a coffee-burn is totally ridiculous to
> > me, it's total nonsense.
>
> I agree. Payments to plaintiffs should be for actual losses only.
> Any punitive
> damages (and I think punitive damages are required in many cases)
> should
> be paid to some relevant charity. There's no need for someone to get
> a
> huge windfall because some company was irresponsible.


FWIW.... I don't think there should be any punitive damages at all. This is
civil law, not criminal law. If there was a law against what the defendant
had done he could be charged under the appropriate statute. Then a fine
could be levied and the state would get the money.

> Even the value of a human life can be calculated. I'd say mine is
> worth about as
> much as the life insurance that I carry, although it might be more
> generous to
> calculate the value of my future earnings.


That is a tricky one. Just for arguments sake..... suppose the plaintiffs
are the family of a severely disabled child. In order to look after the
child they have had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on
renovations. They need to hire nurses to provide 24/7 care and it costs a
small fortune for medication and treatment. The person stands no hope of
getting an education and getting a job, but the cost of sustaining his life
is enormous. If some individual or company were to be found liable for the
loss of that person's life it might possibly be argued that they actually
saved the plaintiffs a hell of a lot of money. I don't think I would go so
far as to suggest that the defendant should actually be paid on account of
the financial savings that resulted from their negligence.
>
> Pain and suffering? Life is full of pain and suffering. I could burn
> myself with
> coffee that I made at home, suffer just as much, and not get a dime.


Yep. If you trip down the stairs at your house you get some of your bills
paid if you have insurance. Other wise you are SOL. Fall down the stairs
on a commercial property and you can start planning on how you are going to
spend your windfall.

Doug Weller wrote:

> No, they are responsible for their own actions though. Anyone with a
> possibly deadly intolerance for something so obvious shouldn't rely on
> anyone else.
> Doug

If McDonald's is found guilty, using comparative negligence, what
percentage of damage should be McDonald's fault and what percentage is
Jeromy Jackson's?

Becca

Vilco wrote:

> Seen from here in Italy, the USofA are going nuts regarding to refunds: the
> elder who took 2.9 million US$ for a coffee-burn is totally ridiculous to
> me, it's total nonsense.

It is to some of us too.

But then again, I read a few years back about the Italian man (almost 30
yrs old?!) who took his parents to court in Italy to force them to
continue to support him until he married and moved out. I recall that
being a bit whacko too....?

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> There is an old joke about an Italian who asks an American cousin if it
>> is
>> true that in the US you can trip on a sidewalk and sue the city for $1
>> million. The cousin says it is true, and the Italian announces that he
>> wants to move to the US. The American cousin warns him that it takes a
>> long
>> time to go to school to become a lawyer and pass the bar exams. The
>> Italian
>> says " I don't want to be a lawyer. I want to fall on sidewalks."
>
> <chuckle>
>
> But it's not just in the US that this sort of thing goes on.
>
> http://www.news24.com/News24/World/N...163918,00.html
>

Wasn't it not more than 10 years ago that the U.S. sent a team (perhaps 100+
or 1,000+) of U.S. lawyers to China to teach them a thing or two.
I'm sure that China is lawyered-up by now, too.
Dee Dee

"axlq" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Elisa > wrote:
>>This will make you laugh: my daughter doesn't like cheese on her burgers
>>(no allergy, just a preference). I have ordered a hamburger many times
>>for
>>her at McDonald's and it ALWAYS has cheese on it. Then, I tried saying
>>"hamburger, no cheese" and they get it right. So, now I order it that
>>redundant way every time.
>
> I have a mild dairy allergy but I have always hated cheese. The
> McDonald's fish sandwich comes with cheese by default, and I didn't
> notice that. Cheese with fish? That was inconceivable to me. At
> least I noticed before biting into it, and the McDonalds staff was
> nice enough to make me a replacement at no extra cost to me.
>
> -A

That's nice to hear. I've seen them make a mistake and slam the mistake
into the wastebasket. I'm sure that makes the customer feel good.
Dee Dee

Paul M. Cook wrote:

> always have temperature controls. The brewing water was 190F and the heat
> pad temperature was usually around 150 or so. Plus or minus 5 degrees.
> That was the way it was done wherever I worked. The coffee really cools off
> very fat especially while it is dripping into the pot from the brew basket.
> To keep it at 190 or 200 meant that the water would evaporate very quickly
> and the coffee would have a terrible burned taste. People would send it
> back and the whole pot would get tossed.
>
> Paul

Most of Mrs. Liebeck's award of $2.9 million, was in punitive damages,
because McDonald's chose to ignore the court order, for them to lower
the temperature of their coffee. Her attorney's found several cases,
where McDonald's was ordered by the courts to lower the temperature of
their coffee. This appeared to anger the jury, because McDonald's
refused to listen to repetitive court orders and they refused to look
out for the best interest of their customers (over 700 cases of burns
from McDonald's coffee). The judge reduced the amount to $640,000, but
I believe they settled for an amount less than that.

Becca

Goomba38 wrote:

> But then again, I read a few years back about the Italian man (almost
> 30 yrs old?!) who took his parents to court in Italy to force them to
> continue to support him until he married and moved out. I recall that
> being a bit whacko too....?

ROTFL, the asshole. How did it end up? I'm almost sure he couldn't get much
from any judge.
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

Vilco wrote:
> Goomba38 wrote:
>
>> But then again, I read a few years back about the Italian man (almost
>> 30 yrs old?!) who took his parents to court in Italy to force them to
>> continue to support him until he married and moved out. I recall that
>> being a bit whacko too....?
>
> ROTFL, the asshole. How did it end up? I'm almost sure he couldn't get much
> from any judge.

He won!!! The article told about how common it is for Italian men to
live home with Momma until they marry.. and this man just couldn't seem
to find a job or a wife to suit him. His parents wanted him to move on
(and out!) and he balked and then took them to court.
I wish I could find the news article about this again...

Goomba38 wrote:

>> ROTFL, the asshole. How did it end up? I'm almost sure he couldn't
>> get much from any judge.

> He won!!! The article told about how common it is for Italian men to
> live home with Momma until they marry.. and this man just couldn't
> seem to find a job or a wife to suit him. His parents wanted him to
> move on (and out!) and he balked and then took them to court.
> I wish I could find the news article about this again...

Sad people. Anyway, I don't think he managed to win some million US$.
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

In article >,
says...
> Most of Mrs. Liebeck's award of $2.9 million, was in punitive damages,
> because McDonald's chose to ignore the court order, for them to lower
> the temperature of their coffee. Her attorney's found several cases,
> where McDonald's was ordered by the courts to lower the temperature of
> their coffee. This appeared to anger the jury, because McDonald's
> refused to listen to repetitive court orders and they refused to look
> out for the best interest of their customers (over 700 cases of burns
> from McDonald's coffee). The judge reduced the amount to $640,000, but
> I believe they settled for an amount less than that.
>
> Becca
>

THANK YOU! So many people are totally ignorant of the facts of the
McDonalds/coffee lawsuit but just keep whining about it. Morons.


--
Peter Aitken

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:37:02 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

>Peter A wrote:
>
>>
>> Chatty, you are a sweet lady but but you are totally clueless.
>
>Gee, another backhanded compliment. You are a real "peach" Peter.
>>
>> It's an accepted point of law, for ages, that a business is responsible
>> for mistakes that its employees make. There is no difference between an
>> employee and the "business itself." The employee represents the business
>> and therefore his/her actions are legally actions of the business.
>>
>>
>In an "ideal world", yes. However, most of the employees (in the real
>world) who work at burger joints (or any other company for that matter)
>don't give a hoot about who is responsible for what - they are just
>there to earn a living. They know full well that if anybody is going to
>be sued, it's not the employees - it's the company. So consequentially,
>they (the employees) make mistakes and don't lose much sleep over it.
>People like our Mr. Allergic-to-Cheese know that too, hence the lawsuit.

so in your view the company has no responsibility whatsoever? someone
harmed by a company's action must find the individual employee
responsible and force him to make it good?

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:37:06 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>
>Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 14, 6:17 am, "Vilco" > wrote:
>> > Peter A wrote:
>> > > The lawsuit does seem overboard and the relatives may in fact be
>> > > greedy. Still, that does not absolve McD's for responsibility for
>> > > selling a product that was not what it was claimed to be. I am
>> > > puzzled as to why so many people are anxious to absolve corporations
>> > > for responsibility for their errors. Individuals have
>> > > responsibilities but so do businesses.
>> >
>> > Seen from here in Italy, the USofA are going nuts regarding to refunds: the
>> > elder who took 2.9 million US$ for a coffee-burn is totally ridiculous to
>> > me, it's total nonsense.
>>
>> I agree. Payments to plaintiffs should be for actual losses only.
>> Any punitive
>> damages (and I think punitive damages are required in many cases)
>> should
>> be paid to some relevant charity. There's no need for someone to get
>> a
>> huge windfall because some company was irresponsible.
>
>
>FWIW.... I don't think there should be any punitive damages at all. This is
>civil law, not criminal law. If there was a law against what the defendant
>had done he could be charged under the appropriate statute. Then a fine
>could be levied and the state would get the money.
>

the punitive damages are to 'discourage' the company from continuing
the practice that led to harm. in the mcdonald's case, they had
burned many people before this old lady, and had ignored the
complaints. i would waste no sympathy on them.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:31:15 -0400, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>Vilco wrote:
>
>> Seen from here in Italy, the USofA are going nuts regarding to refunds: the
>> elder who took 2.9 million US$ for a coffee-burn is totally ridiculous to
>> me, it's total nonsense.
>
>It is to some of us too.
>

and most of them to whom it seems ridiculous know nothing about the
case, other than what they learned from late-night comedians.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:30:28 -0500, "jmcquown"
> wrote:

>zxcvbob wrote:
>> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> (David Fetter) wrote:
>>>> The real coffee story is a lot less flattering to McDonalds than you
>>>> appear to assume here.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
>>>
>>> An interesting read. Thank you.
>>
>> McD's screwed up bigtime by not taking the case seriously, and they
>> got out-lawyered. Being right is not necessarily a good defense.
>>
>When I brew coffee at home I have a reasonable expectation that it will be
>HOT. I've never checked the temperature but I do know if I spill it on
>myself I'm going to get burned. Personal responsibility aside, what
>happened to common sense?
>
>Jill
>
....and you don't serve it when it's still hot enough to cause third
degree burns. apparently you have more common sense than mcdonald's.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:16:57 +0100, Doug Weller
> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:04:09 -0500, in rec.food.cooking, David Fetter
>wrote:
>
>>jmcquown > wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2x2xq8
>>>
>>> So, he ordered two quarter pounders without cheese. And the excuse
>>> for this lawsuit is he didn't notice it had cheese on it because he
>>> was eating in a dark room. What?!
>>>
>>> If you place a special order shouldn't you check it before you leave
>>> the establishment? I eat my burgers plain. It's been a long time
>>> since I was at a McD's but I always checked to make sure my burger
>>> was to order before I drove off. I guess it's a good thing for
>>> McDonald's he didn't order coffee, too.
>>
>>The real coffee story is a lot less flattering to McDonalds than you
>>appear to assume here.
>>
>>http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
>
>That's the old ATLA, Association of Trial Lawyers of America, now calling
>themselves The American Association for Justice, originally the National
>Association of Claimants’ Compensation Attorneys. But as John Fabian Witt,
>Professor Law and History at Columbia, wrote, "At KFC (né Kentucky Fried
>Chicken), the chicken is still fried. At Altria (né Philip Morris), the
>cigarettes still cause cancer. And at the American Association for
>Justice, some will say that the trial lawyers are still chasing
>ambulances." Some people might call the name Orwellian, I couldn't
>possibly comment.
>>

so the lawyers' association is lying about the woman being
hospitalized for third-dgree burns?

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:

>
> so in your view the company has no responsibility whatsoever? someone
> harmed by a company's action must find the individual employee
> responsible and force him to make it good?

OK, if you insist. As far I am concerned the only "responsible" thing
that McD's could do (in this case) is fire the employee(s) that made the
*alleged* mistake, thereby putting some poor sucker(s) out of a job. I
am fairly sure that the employees in question didn't "plan the downfall
of the company" by putting cheese on a couple of burgers. Gimme a break!
Mr Allergic-to-Cheese is a "chancer" and that is putting it politely.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible

blake murphy wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:30:28 -0500, "jmcquown"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>When I brew coffee at home I have a reasonable expectation that it will be
>>HOT. I've never checked the temperature but I do know if I spill it on
>>myself I'm going to get burned. Personal responsibility aside, what
>>happened to common sense?
>>
>>Jill
>>
>
> ...and you don't serve it when it's still hot enough to cause third
> degree burns. apparently you have more common sense than mcdonald's.
>


More like, don't eat or drink something until it's cooled down
enough. Something most of us learned as children.

McD's sells food to go. Hotter is better for those that don't want
cold coffee by the time they get to the office. Don't want it
that hot? Wait a few minutes.

By your ridiculous standard, home cooking is dangerous. Food is
often hot enough to hurt you straight out of the oven. It usually
is, actually. By your logic that makes it a dangerous practice
requiring government intervention.

--
Reg

blake murphy wrote:
>
>
> >FWIW.... I don't think there should be any punitive damages at all. This is
> >civil law, not criminal law. If there was a law against what the defendant
> >had done he could be charged under the appropriate statute. Then a fine
> >could be levied and the state would get the money.
> >
>
> the punitive damages are to 'discourage' the company from continuing
> the practice that led to harm. in the mcdonald's case, they had
> burned many people before this old lady, and had ignored the
> complaints. i would waste no sympathy on them.


If the state thinks there is a problem they have the authority to enact
legislation or to pass regulations to prohibit or to control the practice.
That was not the case, so what the courts are doing with punitive damages
in essentially fining them for something that is not illegal. Perhaps
punitive damages should be limited to cases where the defendant was shown
to have disobeyed the law.

Steve Wertz wrote:
>
>
> > Were I deathly allergic to cheese I wouldn't be buying cold cuts from
> > a deli that sells cheese.
>
> All the delis I patronize have separate slicers for cheese and
> meat and are pretty religious about using the right one. They
> even store the cheeses separate from the meat (in most, but not
> all stores).


That is not the case with most of the stores I deal with. Several of them
have only once slicer.

ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>
> OK, if you insist. As far I am concerned the only "responsible" thing
> that McD's could do (in this case) is fire the employee(s) that made the
> *alleged* mistake, thereby putting some poor sucker(s) out of a job. I
> am fairly sure that the employees in question didn't "plan the downfall
> of the company" by putting cheese on a couple of burgers. Gimme a break!
> Mr Allergic-to-Cheese is a "chancer" and that is putting it politely.

Fire the one one who made the mistake? Fast food joints are staffed with
students and other people who do not have the skills for better employment
or who are looking for something better. They make mistakes, and when the
mistakes are brought to their attention they correct the order. In most
cases it is not the end of the world. Most people would gladly take a
cheeseburger instead of a hamburger and not say a word. If they fired
everyone who made a mistake they would lose al of their help. Most of those
places have a hard enough time keeping staff.


In this case, we are expected to believe that the plaintiff repeatedly
specified no cheese, but when he got home it was too dark to see that there
was cheese on it, though he was able to find the controls to turn on the TV
and DVD or VCR. The guy is a lame brain and his demise could only benefit
the gene pool.

blake murphy wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:31:15 -0400, Goomba38 >
> wrote:
>
>> Vilco wrote:
>>
>>> Seen from here in Italy, the USofA are going nuts regarding to refunds: the
>>> elder who took 2.9 million US$ for a coffee-burn is totally ridiculous to
>>> me, it's total nonsense.
>> It is to some of us too.
>>
>
> and most of them to whom it seems ridiculous know nothing about the
> case, other than what they learned from late-night comedians.
>
> your pal,
> blake
>
Not true, Blake. Even cooler coffee would have burned this lady because
she had it between her legs, and she didn't remove her pants and the hot
liquid was held against her skin which helped extend the burn time on
such tender skin. She was an idiot for putting a hot cup of coffee in
between her legs while driving.

Goomba38 wrote:
> > >
> Not true, Blake. Even cooler coffee would have burned this lady because
> she had it between her legs, and she didn't remove her pants and the hot
> liquid was held against her skin which helped extend the burn time on
> such tender skin. She was an idiot for putting a hot cup of coffee in
> between her legs while driving.

She wasn't driving. She was a passenger. But the vehicle was moving,
obviously since they got it at a drive thru.
I have spilled hot coffee on myself while driving or as a passenger.......
but not all over my crotch because I know better than to stick a cup of
coffee between my legs.