Is she the same moron that spilled hot coffee between her legs while driving a standard automobile?? But then again, she won that law suit, so who's the moron here????"
Your statement is upsetting to me. You are making brash judgements and are speaking out of ignorance.
The lady who spilled coffee between her legs was a 79 year old woman NOT DRIVING and actually sitting in the passenger seat of a PARKED CAR. Try to imagine the following scenario. A 79 yr old woman who probably doesn't have full dexterity in her hands buys a cup of coffee. She takes the coffee to the car which her daughter is probably driving. The coffee is extremely hot and she wants to take the lid off, perhaps to cool it down and to maybe add some sugar. So, she puts it between her legs so that she can use both hands to pry the lid off. In doing so, the lid pops off and the coffee spills. She is wearing polyester pants. Not only was McDonalds coffee some of the hottest coffee you can buy at that time, but it was so hot that it was exponentially more likely to cause 3rd degree burns than coffee at any other place. Polyester+burning hot coffee= polyester fused to woman's skin. Not a very nice thing to happen to anybody. She stayed in the hospital for eight days, underwent skin grafting, and lost 20lbs(20% of her body weight). At that time the coffee was hotter than McDonalds' competitors. McDonalds was previously warned by a consumer group that their coffee was too hot and that it would burn people. The lady filed a lawsuit only intending to cover her medical expenses, not as a matter of greed. McDonalds rejected her offers and instead only counter offered her $800. Subsequent attempts to settle were rejected by McDonalds. McDonalds had already settled numerous suits in the past for as much as $500,000. They knew the coffee was too hot. Rather than arguing based on the merits of the case, McDonalds acted in a callous manner and basically said that a few burn cases when they were making $1.35 million a day weren't worth the time the company could take to make it less likely that people would get burned. The jury awarded an outlandish amount in punitive damages, but the judge reversed and awarded $640,000. Even at that, the lady appealed the decision and settled out of court for a smaller amount, probably because she didn't want the extra money.
Knowing more of what actually happened, I don't think she is a moron. Maybe you might be able to answer your own question.
You, other commentators in general, and even the author to some extent are making blind statements without showing that you have knowledge of the case and the background issues. Some of the underlying issues that I can see might be brought up are actually pretty interesting, and while on the surface it may look like this case is about personal responsibility and parenting, it's likely not. I think an issue behind this lawsuit is whether corporations ought be able to be so pervasive in their advertising to the point that it may cross some people's personal boundaries. Is it okay for McDonalds to employ psychologists and to use cognitive development to exploit the undeveloped minds of children to get them to consume or put pressure on society to consume their products without the will and consent of the parent. Is it fair to allow them to do this given that the majority of the population does not have an understanding of psychology, cognitive science, what they are doing, and how they are doing it?
Comment Reply
"Anonymous
Is she the same moron that spilled hot coffee between her legs while driving a standard automobile?? But then again, she won that law suit, so who's the moron here????"
Your statement is upsetting to me. You are making brash judgements and are speaking out of ignorance.
The lady who spilled coffee between her legs was a 79 year old woman NOT DRIVING and actually sitting in the passenger seat of a PARKED CAR. Try to imagine the following scenario. A 79 yr old woman who probably doesn't have full dexterity in her hands buys a cup of coffee. She takes the coffee to the car which her daughter is probably driving. The coffee is extremely hot and she wants to take the lid off, perhaps to cool it down and to maybe add some sugar. So, she puts it between her legs so that she can use both hands to pry the lid off. In doing so, the lid pops off and the coffee spills. She is wearing polyester pants. Not only was McDonalds coffee some of the hottest coffee you can buy at that time, but it was so hot that it was exponentially more likely to cause 3rd degree burns than coffee at any other place. Polyester+burning hot coffee= polyester fused to woman's skin. Not a very nice thing to happen to anybody. She stayed in the hospital for eight days, underwent skin grafting, and lost 20lbs(20% of her body weight). At that time the coffee was hotter than McDonalds' competitors. McDonalds was previously warned by a consumer group that their coffee was too hot and that it would burn people. The lady filed a lawsuit only intending to cover her medical expenses, not as a matter of greed. McDonalds rejected her offers and instead only counter offered her $800. Subsequent attempts to settle were rejected by McDonalds. McDonalds had already settled numerous suits in the past for as much as $500,000. They knew the coffee was too hot. Rather than arguing based on the merits of the case, McDonalds acted in a callous manner and basically said that a few burn cases when they were making $1.35 million a day weren't worth the time the company could take to make it less likely that people would get burned. The jury awarded an outlandish amount in punitive damages, but the judge reversed and awarded $640,000. Even at that, the lady appealed the decision and settled out of court for a smaller amount, probably because she didn't want the extra money.
Knowing more of what actually happened, I don't think she is a moron. Maybe you might be able to answer your own question.
You, other commentators in general, and even the author to some extent are making blind statements without showing that you have knowledge of the case and the background issues. Some of the underlying issues that I can see might be brought up are actually pretty interesting, and while on the surface it may look like this case is about personal responsibility and parenting, it's likely not. I think an issue behind this lawsuit is whether corporations ought be able to be so pervasive in their advertising to the point that it may cross some people's personal boundaries. Is it okay for McDonalds to employ psychologists and to use cognitive development to exploit the undeveloped minds of children to get them to consume or put pressure on society to consume their products without the will and consent of the parent. Is it fair to allow them to do this given that the majority of the population does not have an understanding of psychology, cognitive science, what they are doing, and how they are doing it?
January 6, 2011 - 2:52amThis Comment
Reply