News6 mins ago
Litigation
Answers
No best answer has yet been selected by pezza........ Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Do you mean in the UK? or the global society as a whole?
The answer is quite obviously yes....people suing McDonalds because they spilled hot coffee in their lap....stating that because the cup didn't say the contents would be hot it was McD's fault....I mean Christ on a BMX people....another prime example of why some people should be shot at birth.
What actually happened was a passenger in a car bought a coffee and tried to open it whilst the car was at a standstill. The coffee was between 180-190 degrees fahreheit, a temperature which would cause automatic and instantaneous scalding of skin, flesh and muscle. A burn hazard exists about 140 degrees.
McDonalds were found to be well aware that this temperature of coffee was dangerous and yet it was their preferred temperature for serving coffee. There were many other cases of similar things happening too. The jury awarded the woman $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages.
More here: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b77256026e6.ht
m
You target=_blank>http://www.duhaime.org/Law_fun/lawsuit.htm
>You
Gef, I'm not entirely sure what 'Waldo is talking mince' means, but I assume from the context it's somewhat derogatory. Thanks so much for your brilliant contribution. If you actually bothered reading the article, you would have seen that what you or I might call a 'piping hot' coffee is *at least* 30 degrees cooler than that which McDonalds served. McDonalds were *not* sued because some twit spilt the coffee, but because it was dangerous for human consumption. The case was actually valid. Or maybe you think it's acceptable for food retailers to sell food in the full knowledge that if it were consumed it would injure someone?
Perhaps I haven't explained it terribly well, but *there was* a legitimate case against McDonalds, and the publicly circulating version of tale is *wrong* in all the significant details. Read the link, as I say. It is *not* about stupid idiots failing to taking responsibility for their own actions. For what's it's worth, I am not in favour of a litigation culture, but the Maccy D's coffee story as presented was factually incorrect. My apologies for attempting to point this out; maybe I won't bother in future.