Thread: I didn't know the coffee was hot!

$10 million is a number that screams "My self-respect has a price", because instead of pressing charges on the man, she decides to take the route that has the higher reward.

Fucking sad.

Originally Posted by The-J

because instead of pressing charges on the man

Ridley was arrested in February 2011 for attempted murder as well as killing another woman in Phoenix, Ariz. He committed suicide in prison last year.

Originally Posted by MJ DeMarco

Ridley was arrested in February 2011 for attempted murder as well as killing another woman in Phoenix, Ariz. He committed suicide in prison last year.

Didn't catch that part of the story. My bad.

My statement still stands, though.

Good lord that's gruesome. I can't even think rationally after reading what he did to her. Seems like there's been a lot of really sick shit in the news lately.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. All you have to do is file a complaint. If I wanted to sue Donald Trump for $10 million because I had a wet dream ... I could. And the media might even pick up the story. Of course, my suit would be promptly thrown out not long thereafter and I might face sanctions.

Will the plaintiff in the Match.com case prevail ...? No chance in hell. It is a nuisance suit -- plain and simple. I do not, however, expect Match will settle. That would set a terrible precident and invite copycat suits. Were I Match's lawyers, I'd tell my client to make an example out of them and make the other lawyer suffer. He or she will never see a dime. Quite honestly, I doubt the case would even get to a jury. I think Match would all but certainly prevail on a Motion for Summary Judgment.

Just more proof there are far too many desperate lawyers in this country ... and tort reform is overdue.

I might well be winding down my legal career (trading time for money) in pursuit of Fastlane opportunities, but I'll say this ... having a law degree and significant litigation experience ... all but guarantees this kind of bullshit will never wrack havoc on my businesses. I love to litigate and it costs me nothing. I'll rip their F'n heads off. It's a great defensive weapon. Plus ... when you can anticipate how the opponent might come at you ... you can stack the deck in your favor so these types of things don't happen (or as often).

If you are ever contemplating law school ... That's the reason to go -- Empowerment. The ability to stand up for yourself and fight back (without breaking the bank). It's incredible peace of mind.

Still ... this type of news story pisses me off too. When you start making money ... you've got a bulls-eye on your back. It's the price of playing poker these days.

If they had "disclosed the dangers of online dating", she would just have sued for something else.
She's not seeking justice, but a paycheck. Frankly I think it should be punished.

America has the most lawyers per capita. There is one lawyer for ever 265 Americans. Among the Top 7 "lawyerly countries", the US has about 50% of the lawyers (source: Wikipedia).
I personally feel that we as a nation have lost our sense of accountability and replaced it with a mentality of victimhood.
Granted, there are plenty of instances when injustice is done and the courts need to step in to right what is wrong. However, it seems like ‘right and wrong’ seems to have less and less to do with what happens in the courts and more to do with the mighty dollar.

In the same article they close with this:

This isn't the first time the online dating site has been sued for acts of violence. Carole Markin, a Hollywood producer, says she was raped by a man she met on Match.com and is demanding a sexual predator screening system be installed in the site.

So I don't know the whole story behind the other case, but....

She is demanding changes to the site.

Not asking for money.

She is asking the company to make changes to serve their customers better (make it safer).

I see a different mindset in this second case.

It also opens opportunities. If Match.com does not do this, but other site does it, maybe they can attract more the female audience and make it better for them.

I assume the title of this thread is in reference to the lady who burned herself with McDonald's coffee?

The issue was actually less to do with her burning herself and more to do with McDonald's practice of serving coffee at hotter temperatures than would normally be expected elsewhere.

From wiki:

Originally Posted by wiki

Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees 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. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false, finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.[17]) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[6] However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.[18]

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[6] 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 °F (54 °C) 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.[19]

Not saying these facts necessarily justify a lawsuit but a lot of people who reference this case don't know the particulars of why the case had a leg to stand on in the first place.

Originally Posted by andviv

She is demanding changes to the site.

Not asking for money.

I think this scenario once again parallels business. Is the risk worth the reward? Does this site have enough risk minimizing features for me to want to partake? No - leave, Yes - join. If no, can I fill that need with a new business?

These stupidity cases of people not doing their due diligence or forcing private risk as public losses kill me inside.

Originally Posted by dknise

I think this scenario once again parallels business.

Yes, but...

She is asking for a change that probably benefits the users. It is a safety issue.

Similar to the McDonald's coffee issue, this is establishing a precedent and later, after multiple concerns, demonstrates the company is careless about their customers and don't mind their safety.

Originally Posted by dknise

If no, can I fill that need with a new business?

And I think here is where the opportunity is... most women will tell you about how scary online dating is cause you don't have any background info on the potential dates... If somebody seizes this then they have an advantage.

I think it would be stupid by match.com to ignore something like this, from a business perspective.

Originally Posted by andviv

Yes, but...

She is asking for a change that probably benefits the users. It is a safety issue.

I see what you're saying... but she's not asking, she's DEMANDING with a lawsuit. What happened to making choices and taking self responsibility for your actions?

If the consumers REALLY cared enough about McDonalds and Match not making proper safety changes, they can CHOOSE not to shop there. It's that simple, just like they had a choice in the first place.

I'm not going to comment on the frivolousness of the suit (or not). I have had my share of filing suits so let's just say that I appreciate having attorneys around more than not.

With regards to the title of this thread, "I didn't know the coffee was hot!", it may or may not be relevant, but to those who are unfamiliar with the 1994 case of Liebeck v McDonalds, this case revolved around Liebeck being burned by hot coffee and then suing McDonalds.

For better or worse, after the incident Liebeck had rung up approximately $11k in medical expenses and then asked McDonald's for $20k to compensate her for damages, ongoing medical treatment and lost wages.

To counter, McDonald's offered $800. And the rest is history.

The Real Details of the Hot Coffee Lawsuit

"The company admitted that in the decade before Liebeck’s incident, upwards of 700 customers had filed complaints about its coffee causing burns. McDonald’s argued that the 700 complaints were only one for every 24 million cups of coffee sold, though, so the danger was statistically insignificant. (Note to any aspiring trial lawyers out there: it’s probably not a good idea to bring up statistical significance when there’s a severely burned grandmother sitting in front of a jury.)"

NB: McDonald's response, although in retrospect seems regretful, is actually fairly typical of a large corporation - complacent and arrogant. Since I have a little bit of means, this tactic usually backfires with me and gets me even angrier. At this point, if I feel strongly about my case, I will go all-in and make them pay through the nose - way above and beyond what I originally asked for via punitive damages. But that's my personality flaw.

Originally Posted by andviv

In the same article they close with this:



So I don't know the whole story behind the other case, but....

She is demanding changes to the site.

Not asking for money.

She is asking the company to make changes to serve their customers better (make it safer).

I see a different mindset in this second case.

It also opens opportunities. If Match.com does not do this, but other site does it, maybe they can attract more the female audience and make it better for them.

This is very funny that MJ picked the topic title as he had. Ricks touched on the point - the coffee burn lady simply wished for medical treatment AND to look at MCDonalds practice of having the coffee hotter so they can save on coffee bean amount since at higher temps you couldn't tell you're drinking worse quality coffee.


It's just that the case is so widely misunderstood that even when I go to Europe people bring it up as the "America is very....strange" go to point.