Todd McFarlane must pay $15 million to ex-hockey player [Archive]

malchyor

07/12/2004, 16:02

um...huh?

did anybody who actually read spawn actually get the reference?

how did they come up with that $15 million figure? i mean, that's way more than actually read spawn, world-wide. on top of that, how many are hockey fans? and how many of those had their view of the player changed as a result of his name being used as a crime boss (as opposed to the upstanding member of canadian society that i'm sure he is....)?

that's just amazing. stupid lawsuit. stupid result. and really, stupid stupid mcF for not being creative enough to make up his own fictional character's name.

AEONFLUX

07/12/2004, 16:03

God bless trial lawyers, tort law, and frivolous lawsuits.

I should sue Dairy Queen, because when I sip a Mister Misty to fast I get a killer headache. :)

Doomtoy

07/12/2004, 16:08

McFarlane's Canadian, and is a big hockey fan. Easy for even a kiddie lawyer to make the connection that McFarlane chose the name of a notoriously brutal Canadian hockey player for his notoriously brutal mob boss.

And McFarlane is filthy rich, so he's a prime target.

And how common is the name "Tony Twist" anyway?

Not too bright of McFarlane, though. Then again, he was just getting started... prolly had very little idea how big a money machine Spawn was going to become.

McFarlane is filthy rich, and will be appealing this case until the toads come home. Then again, it's a sharp blow. And lawyers ain't cheap. Wonder how much fluid cash ole Todd has on hand? Maybe he'd be willing to license out some Spawn action for IndyClix II, now...:grin:

Ignatz_Mouse

07/12/2004, 16:09

I don't know how silly this is, because I have no way of knowing what the damage was. It may be set that high to represent a punative damage, since it was clearly no accident.

As far as the McDonald's suit, it had far more merit than is generally presented, including warnings to that McDonald's prior about the temperature of the coffee.

rouge2

07/12/2004, 16:12

I wonder if anyone's approached Neil Gaiman about licensing Angela or Medieval Spawn for Indy Clix?

:)

Gorodish

07/12/2004, 16:15

Originally posted by Ignatz_Mouse

As far as the McDonald's suit, it had far more merit than is generally presented, including warnings to that McDonald's prior about the temperature of the coffee.

Thank You.

It's little known but true that

1) The woman suffered 2nd degree burns

2) She originally only approached McDonalds to pay medical expenses not covered by Medicare

3) There were Corporate Standard Operating Procedures that specified a coffee temperature well in excess of the temperature needed to inflict 2nd degree burns.

McDonalds could have settled this matter well before the lawsuit stage but chose not too as a matter of Coporate policy.

squirrelfarmer

07/12/2004, 16:19

I don't have any warning reports on this forum and all I can say is stupid, stupid, stupid our great nations tax dollars at work... I'm so glad I can support our judicial system for nonsense like this!!!!

Ignatz_Mouse

07/12/2004, 16:20

I thnk there were second degree burns, actually. I know she needed skin grafts.

webhead817

07/12/2004, 16:22

Originally posted by Gorodish
Thank You.

It's little known but true that

1) The woman suffered 2nd degree burns

2) She originally only approached McDonalds to pay medical expenses not covered by Medicare

3) There were Corporate Standard Operating Procedures that specified a coffee temperature well in excess of the temperature needed to inflict 2nd degree burns.

McDonalds could have settled this matter well before the lawsuit stage but chose not too as a matter of Coporate policy.

But she spilled the coffee on herself, did she not? I'm not doubting that they could have settled the case, but I remain unconvinced on this one.

Ro-gan

07/12/2004, 16:27

This is not as bad as the lawsuit I read about in the papers a few years ago:

Some person actually filed a civil suit against God (yes, the Entity) because someone in the Catholic Church told him that if he prayed really hard God would grant his prayers. Subsequently, he prayed to win some big Lotto and lost. Hence, the lawsuit which actually named "God" as the defendant.

What makes this story unbelievably ridiculous is that the law suit actually made it far enough in the legal system that a judge had it land on top of his pile of judgements.

Thankfully, he threw it out.

Sadly, the judge felt he had to write a 3-5 page legalese paper citing why it was thrown out. Yeah, like "just try and get God to show up for the trial never crossed his mind." Sheesh!

Ro-gan

07/12/2004, 16:31

Let's also not forget the people that are filing lawsuits against many of the Fast Food giants (i.e.: McDonalds, Wendys and BK) because they got fat from eating their food products 2-3 times a day for years.

More examples of people really needing to be taken out of the Darwinian gene pool.

Ignatz_Mouse

07/12/2004, 16:37

Webhead-- yes, the lady had some liability as well. That's one thing that makes a case like that so controversial. Somebody who spills coffee on themselves is one thing-- but they should not get third degree burns as a result.

And the people suing over getting fat AMAZE me. I hope to god this gets shut down. I happen to like seeing the tobacco industry get nailed for decades of lying and actively trying to addict people, but there has to be a line somewhere. As far as I know, people don't develop a chemical dependency on fast food.

webhead817

07/12/2004, 16:47

Originally posted by Ignatz_Mouse
Webhead-- yes, the lady had some liability as well. That's one thing that makes a case like that so controversial. Somebody who spills coffee on themselves is one thing-- but they should not get third degree burns as a result.

Burger King owes me a new pair of slacks then, I got my lunch there the other day and spilled ketchup all over my pants leg. I mean, they give me a dark red liquid as food! I can't help it that I spilled it all over my lap. Burger King should have known that ketchup can stain my pants.

Funky Jett

07/12/2004, 16:47

She spilled it on her privates. 2nd degree, 1st degree... whatever, it still burned her. However, you kind of have to expect that coffee will be served hot. And she accidently squeezed her legs together to pop the lid off herself, from what I understand.

In her honor, there is an annual Stella Awards given to the most frivolous lawsuits brought in front of the courts each year. Unfortunately, almost all of the older ones are urban legends (the list with the guy from OKC is entirely a hoax), but supposedly the newer lawsuits are real. I just read the 2004 winners, so I'm trying to find a link.

uss_Titans

07/12/2004, 16:53

Err.....My name is JOHN TRINH.
I am a well built, and very vicious Hero clix player.
I almost kill my opponent once with my metal dice.
(Humm.........Cant wait till I get my 15M$$$$....Please mr. Mc farlanes.....read this email)

**No actual hero clix player was harm during writing of this Email***

uss_Titans

07/12/2004, 16:56

hi my name is john trinh and i like men!!!:devious:

SumYungGai

07/12/2004, 16:57

First off, the Tony Twist thing seems stupid. I don't know that much about it.

Secondly, as is has been mentioned a few times in this thread, the McDonalds lawsuit was completely valid. McD had been warned on numerous occasions that they were keeping their coffee at an unsafe temperature. They neglected to solve this problem because it would cost them too much money. They just assumed the problem would never effect them. They were wrong. The woman who sued was burned so badly that she required multiple skin grafts. If the coffee had been from anywhere else, Burger King, Starbucks, even the generic corner coffee shop, the coffee would have been twenty degrees cooler. She would have required some burn treatment, but not surgery. Before this case, McD Corp had settled over 700 cases of people being scalded by their coffee, but they refused this woman's case because of the cost of her seven days in the hospital. This case forced McD to admit wrongdoing and fix the problem. If anyone besides McD deserves any malice in this case, it is the 700 hundred people who took the quick buck. If they had brought a lawsuit against McD, the case would have been settled sooner and for less money. Thus the woman would never have sued in the first place.

While it is considered "cool" and "witty" to deride the United States' legal system, I am glad we have the chance to seek recompense from the corporate giants. As long as we still have that right, I will gladly suffer the frivolous lawsuits.

Incidently, I am not a lawyer.

Deadpool91

07/12/2004, 17:03

twist made more money on the suit than he ever did in hockey that's for sure.

Ignatz_Mouse

07/12/2004, 17:08

And, as was originally pointed out, her original claim was only for medical cost coverage. The huge award was done by the judge, so that McDonalds would take it seriously. That's what punative damages are about.

Webhead-- false analogy. If they server ketchup with a dye that could permanently dye your skin, and had been told not to, you'd be closer.

webhead817

07/12/2004, 17:10

Originally posted by Ignatz_Mouse
Webhead-- false analogy. If they server ketchup with a dye that could permanently dye your skin, and had been told not to, you'd be closer.

Hunh? What does it have to with my skin? Does it matter if it damaged my person or property?

Ignatz_Mouse

07/12/2004, 17:14

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A429950

A nice, and very brief summary which includes details like the jury reducing the award for the woman's part in spilling coffee and how the award came in part due to McDonald's lying to the jury.

In case anybody thinks I have it in for big corporate America, I used to work at McD's Corp, though well after this incicent. I bear them no malice-- it was just bad, wrong judgment on their part, and I bet you'd still find a lot of people who work there who feel that way.

webhead817

07/12/2004, 17:19

So they settled after all? Hunh.

I wonder...isn't there some sort of law about how hot coffee can be before it's served? I mean, just because it was warmer at McD's than it was at Burger King, I don't know that that means anything by itself.

You know, I used to work with a girl...somehow she had managed to spill some hot cocoa on herself...pretty bad burns...too bad there was no one for her to bring suit against.

EmperorNorton

07/12/2004, 17:22

I love the american legal system. It always makes me laugh.
I imagine it to be like Ally McBeal with lots of John Cage action.

EmperorNorton

ZZZ

07/12/2004, 17:22

I am sorry but there are a few things wrong with the McDonald's lawsuit.

1. Coffee is served hot...not REALLY warm. Hot. When she ordered it, she knew that she was gewtting something hot. Everyone else's mommies always told them about hot things.

2. Coffee, and drinks in general, belongs in a cup holder/beverage holder...if she didn't have one, she shouldn't have purchased that HOT coffee. (Did I mention that coffee is served HOT?)

3. I have had coffee from McD's. You can tell by the temperature of the cup that it is extremely hot...extremely hot means DON'T PUT IT BETWEEN YOUR LEGS! Most children know better than to store something HOT against their skin.

Is it sad? Yes. Does it ####? Yup. Does she deserve compensation for a lack of common sense and intelligence...NO WAY! I am sorry, but if we are rewarding stupidity in this country, there is going to be an awfully long line for collection.

Her fault, her loss...lesson learned...that's how it should have been.

ZZZ

07/12/2004, 17:33

okay, I read the little thing about the truth of the suit and the bottom line is...DON'T OPEN HOT COFFEE IN YOUR CAR...cars move, they are unsteady...HOT things require care and steadiness...different reason, same result, same culpability.

Ignatz_Mouse

07/12/2004, 17:34

ZZZ: The jury dinged her 20% for her part in it. Read the link.

Webhead-- if you can't see why your analogy is flawed, then you are missing the point. All Ketchup will stain. Not all coffee will cause 3rd degree burns in seconds. McDonald's coffee was far hotter than anybody elses, according to studies, and they had plenty of appeals to lower it and past incidents of bad burns to make it clear to them. They chose to ignore them.

I think part of the problem here is that the jury award was not meant to reward the old woman, but to punish McDonald's for:

Lying about other coffee incidents

Not acting on an issue it knew was serious

Taking the posiition that settlements and lawsuits would be cheaper than making the coffee cooler

Not settling with the woman in the first place

SumYungGai

07/12/2004, 17:37

So it means nothing to you that the jury found McDonalds criminally and deliberately negligent in this case? In your opinion coffee should be served hotter than it is safe for humans to touch it? No one serves coffee like that.

McD's defense was that their coffee was served 20 degrees hotter than anyone else's because no one drinks their coffee right away. The company that pioneered eating on the go claimed that people don't like to drink their beverages immediately after purchasing them. What kind of thinking is that?

The woman's potential stupidity was not the court case. What was being determined was McDonald's corporate stupidity. It was stupid to serve coffee that hot. Now they are not allowed to anymore.

MKelly67

07/12/2004, 17:37

An example for all the common sense activists.

Lets say a car company has a SUV and has tires on it that blow out at speeds over 65 mph. They know this and do not tell anyone. You are driveing down the highway and start going down a hill. You get to 66 mph and a tire blows out and you crash into a ditch and are paralyzed from the waste down. Is it your fault for going faster than the speed limit? Is it your fault for not finding out that the car company has these bad tires?

Ignatz_Mouse

07/12/2004, 17:38

ZZZ, the car was stopped when she spilled it.

ZZZ

07/12/2004, 17:38

I read the link...she shouldn't have opened it...stupidity deserves no reward. dinging her 20% does nothing to stem the flow of frivolous lawsuits. Hot is HOT...don't be stupid...her fault...her loss.

Castiglione

07/12/2004, 17:40

Originally posted by Gorodish
3) There were Corporate Standard Operating Procedures that specified a coffee temperature well in excess of the temperature needed to inflict 2nd degree burns.

This was the catch- McDonald's had been warned previously to lower the temperture of their coffee.

They didn't because:
A) With water that hot, they can re-use the grounds to make a 2nd pot of coffee

B)People rarley asked for a free refill when the coffee was that temp.

The damages awarded to the woman were largely puniative, ie- A punishement large enough to induce compliance. If it was mom and pops diner, the award would have been nowhere near as large. It takes alot of zeros to put the hurt on the Clown...

BudPalmer

07/12/2004, 17:41

I thank Ignatz for showing me the ignorance in my view of the Coffee case. I can still say the Twist case is as silly as people suing fast food chains because they got fat eating fast food.

ZZZ

07/12/2004, 17:42

okay, Ignatz...try this experiment. Take a HOT cup of coffee and sit in your car, now try to remove the lid and add your cream and sugar. Now do it with the same temperature coffee at your kitchen table. which one is easier? Which one didn't make you cringe and worry over the possibility of spilling in your lap...SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE OPENED IT. My 3 year old nephew even knows that much.

Bluebeard

07/12/2004, 17:43

Eh, at least that's 15 Million he won't be wasting on baseballs that will be worthless in a couple years. I like Hockey a whole lot more than spawn or McFarlane, so while it is a pretty dumb lawsuit, I still can't feel bad for McFarlane.

Castiglione

07/12/2004, 17:45

ZZZ, the point everone is making is that the lawsuit WASN'T frivolous.

The Clown was in error for using dangerously hot water in an effort to cut costs.

I have spilled my share of coffe, and a good portion of it in my lap. I have NEVER been burned by coffee out of a normal human coffe maker. Heck, look around next time you go to McD's in the am....wha do you see? Everyone takes the lid off thier coffee and lets it sit for awhile. I don't have to do that if I go anywhere else...

Yes there are frivolous lawsuits, THIS wasn't one of them. Deal.

Ignatz_Mouse

07/12/2004, 17:46

It's not a frivolous lawsuit if it corrects a problem. 700+ cases of burns that McD's felt the need to settle. Coincidence? Coffee far hotter than anybody else's. Coincidence?

The point of the legal system is to correct problems like this one. Selling dangerously hot coffee with disregard to safety (by McD's own admission in court) is a problem.

What increases the flow of frivolous lawsuits is the media reprting this case all wrong, trumpeting the high figure and not the appeal, glossing over the fact that she originally only asked for enough to cover expenses of burns that should not have happened, etc.

A guy in legal at McD's told me that they deal with tons of cases after this, of people trying to cash in. (I worked there for two years in the year after the case made the news.) If the media (and all the people happy to repeat the story without the facts) were more responsible, there wouldn't be so many lame attempts to milk the system. I don't consider the original lawsuit and settlement offer frivolous in the least. It only escallated when McD's refused to take responsibility. The woman did not deserve permanent scarring and 20,000 in medical bills for spilling coffee thae should never have been that hot.

ZZZ

07/12/2004, 17:47

It was frivolous. Coffee is hot. Our society is too litigious. Deal.

EmperorNorton

07/12/2004, 17:48

Originally posted by MKelly67
An example for all the common sense activists.

Lets say a car company has a SUV and has tires on it that blow out at speeds over 65 mph. They know this and do not tell anyone. You are driveing down the highway and start going down a hill. You get to 66 mph and a tire blows out and you crash into a ditch and are paralyzed from the waste down. Is it your fault for going faster than the speed limit? Is it your fault for not finding out that the car company has these bad tires?

When you hold a cup of coffee, do you feel that it is hot?
That's the difference...

EmperorNorton

Ignatz_Mouse

07/12/2004, 17:54

You can't tell that it's so hot you'll need a week-long hospital stay if you spill it.

The Escapist

07/12/2004, 17:56

1. McDonald's was not found criminally negligent. It was a civil case, not a criminal case. Criminal negligence only applies in criminal prosecutions.

2. At least that woman was hurt and hard verifiable injuries. I've read other cases that would make your head spin.

United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and his Staff
Mayo filed a civil rights action against Satan claiming that Satan and his servants placed obstacles in his path and caused his downfall. (I wish this wasn't a real case, but sadly it is.)

Lodi v. Lodi
Mr. Lodi sued himself essentially claiming ownership in himself as the plaintiff and that he, as defendant, was controlling himself against the wishes of himself as plaintiff. The basic point was he wanted the court to take control of himself away from him (defendant) and then give it back to him (plaintiff). (I don't know what is stupider.....suing Satan or suing yourself....)

ZZZ

07/12/2004, 17:57

Sure you can. I am sure that your hands are sensitive enough to touch that you can feel the difference between scalding heat and warmth...if it's scalding, don't open it. All those people taking the lids aff and letting it cool AT McDonalds are the smart ones...they sense that the coffee is hot and allow it to cool before doing anything else to it like drinking it, or taking it to thier cars to add cream and sugar.

Ignatz_Mouse

07/12/2004, 17:57

Originally posted by BudPalmer
I thank Ignatz for showing me the ignorance in my view of the Coffee case. I can still say the Twist case is as silly as people suing fast food chains because they got fat eating fast food.

Seems that way. I do wonder where the figure came from, and what the reasoning was. I don't know anything about Twist except what I've read about this case (darned little) so I don't know if it could have had any kind of financial impact. If the award was punative, again I wonder why-- McFarlane's rich, but not like McDonald's rich. Even the coffee thing, at it's pre-appeal peak, was a lot less than this.

Maybe McFarlane also poured hot coffee in the guy's lap. ;)

Gorodish

07/12/2004, 17:58

Ignatz is carrying the ball sufficiently well here I think, but I would make one point. When a drink or food is served by a Restaurant, it is assumed immediately safe for human consumption. In the McDonald's case, the coffee was clearly not safe and McDonald's knew this. Ergo, this lawsuit is not frivolous. It's the equivalent of knowingly serving tainted beef. The consumer expects not to get sick after eating it.

shock man x

07/12/2004, 18:01

The Twist thing Is stupid.

The Mcdonalds thing, while apropiate for correcting a real problem, opened the Pandora's Box on frivolous lawsuits to come after it.

The thing that worries me is if something like the "fast food made me fat" that places like McDonalds will just close up shop and then there will be NO fast food joints. Might be getting carried away with this but I for one still like to grab the ocational burger from a fast food joint.

ZZZ

07/12/2004, 18:01

That is not the equivalent at all...if you let your coffee sit, it will cool...if you let your tainted beef sit, it won't improve and become fine for consumption. Again, what you need is common sense...you can feel the heat in your hand...use your head. Frivolous.

webhead817

07/12/2004, 18:03

Originally posted by Ignatz_Mouse
Webhead-- if you can't see why your analogy is flawed, then you are missing the point. All Ketchup will stain. Not all coffee will cause 3rd degree burns in seconds. McDonald's coffee was far hotter than anybody elses, according to studies, and they had plenty of appeals to lower it and past incidents of bad burns to make it clear to them. They chose to ignore them.

But see, my point is that all hot coffee will burn you if you pour it all in your lap. It might be 1st or 2nd or 3rd, but it will still burn you.

That's my point.

Gorodish

07/12/2004, 18:03

Another point on frivolous lawsuits. The vast majority of these 'goofy' lawsuits are filed but never tried. Anyone can file a lawsuit, but it takes a lot more effort to win one, or even to get it to court.

MKelly67

07/12/2004, 18:03

Originally posted by EmperorNorton
When you hold a cup of coffee, do you feel that it is hot?
That's the difference...

EmperorNorton

Company was liable for their actions. It is the same thing.

Ignatz_Mouse

07/12/2004, 18:04

Escapinst: If I said negligent, I apologize. Perhaps "irresponsible" would be a better word.

Those are indeed ridiculous lawsuits. I assume they all get thrown out pretty quickly, no?

ZZZ: I'm sorry, but I can't tell the 20-degree difference though an insulated cup, and if I think the coffee is at a reasonable temperatue (ie, not hospital-stay-inducing hot) I'm not going to treat it like uranium. I've spilled hot liquids on myself before, and never had to go to the hospital for a week. Thanks to our legal system, a lot fewer people are at risk of that now.

EmperorNorton

07/12/2004, 18:04

Okay, I agree that McDonald's wasn't doing the right thing.
But the woman surely didn't deserve that much money. So the court said it was 20% her fault. I'd say it's like 90% her fault.
My decision would have been to force McDonald's to pay her medical bills and to change their coffee to a lower temperature.

EmperorNorton

MKelly67

07/12/2004, 18:07

Definition of negligence

NOUN:
1. The state or quality of being negligent.
2. A negligent act or a failure to act.
3. Law -- Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

Pretty self explanatory to me.

ZZZ

07/12/2004, 18:10

Emperor Norton, you and I are on the same page...and Ignatz, you might want to see a neurologist if you can't tell that something you are holding in your hand is going to burn you. You may have nerve damage. Insulated cup or no, it doesn't negate the heat, it just lessens it.

Gorodish

07/12/2004, 18:11

Ignatz_Mouse

07/12/2004, 18:14

Norton: For all we know, that may have been the result (although I woudl guess that they also paid her legal bills). The high figure was lowered on appeal, and then some other amount agreed to between the woman and McD's and not revealed.

Webhead: Definitions: The treatment of burns depends on the depth, area and location of the burn. Burn depth is generally categorised as first, second or third degree. A first degree burn is superficial and has similar characteristics to a typical sun burn. The skin is red in colour and sensation is intact. In fact, it is usually somewhat painful. Second degree burns look similar to the first degree burns; however, the damage is now severe enough to cause blistering of the skin and the pain is usually somewhat more intense. In third degree burns the damage has progressed to the point of skin death. The skin is white and without sensation.

There's a big difference between 2nd degree burns (which we have probably all had) and third degree burns (which most of us havent).

ZZZ

07/12/2004, 18:15

1. Unlikely. And you are the one expecting immediate suitability. It is not implicit, much as you take it as such.

2. Mine is...I can tell if the thing I am holding is likely to burn me or not...burns, being rather unpleasant, are something I tend to take care to avoid.

Ignatz_Mouse

07/12/2004, 18:17

ZZZ: Those styronfoam cups do a pretty good job. I could probably tell with a carboard cup with a cuff, but not a styrofoam cup.

ANd hey, you have dodged one of my points to you all along. Regradless of whether the woman should have been paid anything, was would the appropriate penalty for McDonald's be?

Gorodish

07/12/2004, 18:19

Originally posted by ZZZ
1. Unlikely. And you are the one expecting immediate suitability. It is not implicit, much as you take it as such.

2. Mine is...I can tell if the thing I am holding is likely to burn me or not...burns, being rather unpleasant, are something I tend to take care to avoid.

1. Actually, it's the law thats expecting this. Just like a motor vehicle is assumed to be drivable and a book is suumed to be readable. It's a inherent part of the legal definition.

2) No, it's not and you could easily set up an experiment to proove it. Your nerve ending are not sufficiently precies to distinguish between 150 degrees, 180 degrees, and 220 degrees. They'll all feel really hot.

ZZZ

07/12/2004, 18:19

Styrofoam is far from a perfect insulator...I can tell that the coffee is hot...McD's should have had to lessen the temp of their coffee if it was a problem and that is all. Punitive damages...phah!

Gorodish

07/12/2004, 18:22

Originally posted by ZZZ
Styrofoam is far from a perfect insulator...I can tell that the coffee is hot...McD's should have had to lessen the temp of their coffee if it was a problem and that is all. Punitive damages...phah!

Exactly! and they did know it was a problem and repeatedly refused to do anything about it. Hence the punitive damages. The punishment wasn't for buring one old woman but rather for failing to correct the problem after repeatedly injuring people.

Ignatz_Mouse

07/12/2004, 18:22

Ignoring my point. And you can tell 160 from 180 degrees though styrofoam!? Neat!

I never said I couldn't tell it was hot, just that I couldn;t tell that it was so hot I could be hospitalized-- a condition of coffee oputside the norm for anybody;s coffee but McDonald's.

szude

07/12/2004, 18:22

Originally posted by Ignatz_Mouse

And the people suing over getting fat AMAZE me. I hope to god this gets shut down. I happen to like seeing the tobacco industry get nailed for decades of lying and actively trying to addict people, but there has to be a line somewhere. As far as I know, people don't develop a chemical dependency on fast food.

Nice, except recently they started giving out awards to smokers who started AFTER the warning labels were put on packs. How does that compute?

I have long hated tobacco companies. Which is why these lawsuits piss me off....they make me side with those same companies. Don't do that to me. How about the Oregon woman who got $35 gajillion or whatever, not because she smoked. Because her dad did. For 50 years. THEN died.

Aren't you responsible for the choice you make when you decide what to put in your body?

EmperorNorton

07/12/2004, 18:24

Originally posted by Gorodish
2) No, it's not and you could easily set up an experiment to proove it. Your nerve ending are not sufficiently precies to distinguish between 150 degrees, 180 degrees, and 220 degrees. They'll all feel really hot.

But when I feel something is hot I don't care if it is 150 degrees hot or 220 degrees hot. Either way, I don't want to spill it in my lap.
I wouldn't even want to spill coffe on me if it was luke warm or cold.

EmperorNorton

Ignatz_Mouse

07/12/2004, 18:31

Originally posted by EmperorNorton
But when I feel something is hot I don't care if it is 150 degrees hot or 220 degrees hot. Either way, I don't want to spill it in my lap.
I wouldn't even want to spill coffe on me if it was luke warm or cold.

EmperorNorton

But if you knew it could cause hospitalization, I'm guessing you would not even take the chance on opening it in your car at all. If it would merely hurt, or cause superficial burns, you might.

Regarding the tobacco companies, I think there's a line somewhere, obviously. I don't know anything about those awards, so I can't say, but on the surface, it does sound silly.

EmperorNorton

07/12/2004, 18:35

Originally posted by Ignatz_Mouse
But if you knew it could cause hospitalization, I'm guessing you would not even take the chance on opening it in your car at all. If it would merely hurt, or cause superficial burns, you might.
I wouldn't either way. I know I would spill it on me. I always do.

EmperorNorton

Lonehawk

07/12/2004, 18:48

Originally posted by EmperorNorton
But when I feel something is hot I don't care if it is 150 degrees hot or 220 degrees hot. Either way, I don't want to spill it in my lap.
I wouldn't even want to spill coffe on me if it was luke warm or cold.

EmperorNorton

Ok - this is about face but relevent.

In my day job I get to play with fun stuff like dry ice and liquid nitrogen. Both are extremely cold (-80C and -180C respectively). I can tell you straight away that if you come into contact with either you feel no difference in temperature - it's just very cold. The difference is that liquid nitrogen will give you really bad burns (3rd degree) very very quickly, especially if it comes into contact with clothing against the skin.

At work it is my responsibility to ensure that people unaware of the dangers don't come within a mile of any cryogenic substance. And I also make sure that anyone who has to use the stuff is fully aware of the dangers, and how to handle the substances. In H&S terms this is called a risk assessment.

The same applies to heat. Something feels hot but it's impossible to tell exactly how hot without the liquid coming into direct contact with the skin. No one sets out to spill any hot liquid. But it happens a lot and McD were aware that it happens because there had been 700 cases settled beforehand. They would have carried out their own risk assessment and then they CHOSE TO IGNORE IT. And that is why they were hit with a punative action.

SITHSPAWN

07/12/2004, 18:59

Well, I guess Spawn 2 is never going to happen. He should have saved the money from the baseballs. That was a really wise buy, what are they worth now that the record was broke again?

I like Spawn! I hope this doesn't affect it.

darkkrisp

07/12/2004, 19:06

Originally posted by ZZZ
That is not the equivalent at all...if you let your coffee sit, it will cool...if you let your tainted beef sit, it won't improve and become fine for consumption. Again, what you need is common sense...you can feel the heat in your hand...use your head. Frivolous.

My god you are a hard headed ignorant person. THE COFFEE WAS AT A HIGHER TEMPERATURE THAN WHAT WAS SAFE!!!! Yes hot coffee equals hot. The coffee that was served was unsafe temperature and not in compliance with set regulations therefore it caused a lot of permanent and painful damage instead of a little burn. You and your caveman logic over and over unga coffee hot unga no spill on self bad unga. People spill coffee on themselves all the time nothing bad happens no why? The coffee temperature is regulated and does not scare and give terrible burn damage to people or you would here alot more then this poor lady you choose to rag on. If you want to try and be the most ignored so you can fell could just start a thread asking people to ignore you instead of you're dumb argument and ignorance over and over. excuse me while I check ignore this user, happy?

hail_eris

07/12/2004, 19:37

There are always going to be two seemingly rational arguments to both sides of this issue. The first is that, without tort reform, outrageous jury awards will only spiral further out of control (see MLB player salaries) and encourage still more reckless behaviour on the part of individuals. The other side cautions that capping awards in civil suits will allow corporate irresponsibiltiy to run unchecked. Frequently, judges (or juries, depending on the court) will levy a fine based purely on the shock value, knowing that it will be reduced on appeal. These are designed to make headlines, and few, if any, are ever actually paid out. The California energy suit is a wonderful example of this. It turned out that it was cheaper to finance a recall election and a gubernatorial run than it would have been for the deregulated energy companies to pay the fine levied by Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante's office. I'm not trying to put a political spin on this thread (don't close it, in other words), I'm simply showing one option open to large corporations in lieu of paying million- or billion-dollar judgments. An extreme option, perhaps, but one that presented itself in the wake of the massive tobacco settlement. Legal recourse against corporate or government entities is a fairly recent phenomenon (earliest examples may include the radium watch dial suits in the late 1920s). This may sound non-commital on the issue, but the fact is, if a business choses to exploit all the advantages of declaring itself a corporate entity (effectively becoming a person in the eyes of the law), it should be forced to deal with the potential hazards of personhood (ask any homeowning friends why they maintain fences around their swimming pools or keep their sidewalks clear of ice). On a strictly personal note regarding this particular case, I say kick McFarlane while he's down. Earlier this year, he finally exhausted all of his appeals against Gaiman and had to give the man his due. McFarlane has spent almost a decade jerking around his betters - it's about time he got some payback. And if that seems harsh, remember that justice has no teeth if it lacks some measure of pain for the guilty, redemption for the victim, and a bit of cautionary schadenfruede for the observer.

Doomtoy

07/12/2004, 20:05

Shannon Wheeler dedicated an issue of "Too Much Coffee Man" a while back to an excellent illustrated primer on the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit.

A few details that seem to have escaped some people:

1. Stella wasn't driving the car. She was in the front passenger seat.

2. The car was parked at the time of the incident. Parked. Not in motion.

3. Stella was not attempting to drink the coffee. She was trying to get the lid off to add cream and sugar.

4. Stella was eighty-something years old at the time of the incident.

After the incident, Stella did not sue McDonalds. She instead attempted to get them to lower the temperature of their coffee with a letter writing campaign.

They refused.

She then asked them to help pay off the cost of her major surgery and skin grafts -- many thousands of dollars.

McDonalds' offered $400.

So she sued.

The question at the trial was not "Did Stella know the coffee was hot?" This is idiotic. Stella knew quite well coffee is hot. The question was "Did McDonalds serve their coffee at a temperature unsafe for the average person, and did they do so knowingly?"

Ultimately, the answer was "Yes, and we don't care how many people get hurt because of it."

The jury found in Stella's favor... not really because of her injuries, but due to McDonalds' incredibly stupid and insensitive defense of their actions.

They dismissed 700 OTHER lawsuits stemming from the temperature of their coffee as "statistically insignificant."

They insisted that second degree burns to a little old lady's crotch shouldn't be all that important, because a little old lady is old, and has very little use left in the parts she wants repaired anyway.

The jury, outraged at McDonalds' cavalier attitude, hammered them for punitive damages of 2.7 million dollars.

The judge thought this was a little nuts, and cut the award to about a fifth of that.

The jury also agreed that Stella was partly responsible for the action (she did, after all, dump a cup of boiling hot coffee in her lap), and reduced the compensation they gave her by 20%.

And ever since then, two groups of people have been making hay like mad: McDonalds, who strikes poses as the poor, poor, maligned target of idiotic lawsuits by the foolish and greedy... and those whose political agenda would call for caps on punitive damages, or restrictions on who can file lawsuits, and for what.

As to the ORIGINAL QUESTION... well... I remember Tony Twist. He was a disgusting, greasy, horrible caricature of an Italian mob boss in Spawn comics. And if I thought that Todd McFarlane had based the character on ME, or hung MY name on that disgusting cruddy character, I'd be all over McFarlane about it.

But I'll wait until I know more before I judge.

Briel

07/13/2004, 03:25

Mcfarlane named a mobster character after Twistelli as a joke because he knew the guy and apparently the guy was more of a thug than a hockey player.

This suit just proves he is still a thug.

Most people would be amused that there name is in a comic whether as a villain or not. There is no physical resemblanse to the real Twistelli, nor any hockey references either.

McFarlane used real names of people he has known for all the characters to give a more realistic feel for the names.

Whether anyone likes McFarlane or not is beside the point. If the character was remotely like the guy maybe at a stretch. A thug was just ably assisted by either 12 morons who just wanted to go home, or 1 judge who loves hockey, in extorting money.

This is not good. McFarlane would be better off using the 15 Mil to hire a hitman (just kidding).

This type of suit has just opened any cartoonist who used a name or talked about a public figure in any way shape or form to being raped for cash.

By this reckoning, George Bush could sue every cartoonist in America and surpass Bill Gates as the richest man in the world.

Truly unfunny.

khai-huyen ng

07/13/2004, 17:45

in response to the recent,disrespectful,and vulgar comment about mr john trinh in the earlier threads (july 12th post), that appeared to be posted by himself turned out to be actually posted by me.my name is khai-huyen nguyen and i work with john.while he signed on and left his account idle i took it upon myself to write that indecent comment about him (so it would make it look like he wrote it himself), which does not happen to be true.i just want to apologize to the people who read that and above all else john trinh himself.i myself thought this would be a joke, but i took it too far.also to add i am an idiot that doesnt think things through and i also was dropped when i was a kid (several times).so john trinh i would like to say "I'M SOOOOOOOO SORRY, FORGIVE ME!!!"

ZZZ

07/13/2004, 17:50

Wow, darkkrisp...I am the ignorant one? I have merely been stating my replies rationally and arguing my side of the debate...I still feel that our society is too litigious and that everyone and their brother takes things to court far too easily. Stella reaped benefits from someone who was not directly responsible for her injury. You can argue until the cows come home that McD's was responsible...I still argue that she shouldn't have opened the coffee in the car and that her burns were her own fault. McD's should have had some regulatory agency to monitor them if they were breaking the rules...it is not for the courts to reward people because they did something which most people with common sense would not have. darkkrisp...I am not the one attacking another person for arguing a dissenting opinion...you are entitled to your opinion...I am entitled to mine. Welcome to 21st century America; feel free to have an opinion all your own.

EmperorNorton

07/13/2004, 17:55

Hey, not everybody is born a caveman. Some people still have to evolve... :laugh:

EmperorNorton

ZZZ

07/13/2004, 17:57

Ignatz...although I may have been overstating my position, some people still obviously grasped my point. If I know through feeling (which I do, styrofoam or not) that the liquid inside the cup is at a temperature that I consider uncomfortable and if I have an aversion to causing myself discomfort (which I have) then I am going to do everything in my power to be careful with said liquid so as not to cause my self that discomfort. Thanks Emperor Norton for your perspicuousness.

Ignatz_Mouse

07/13/2004, 18:05

ZZZ, I think you miss the very fundamental point that coffee is not usually hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, nor are people generally likely to suspect it will, given everybody else serves it cooler.

I understand that you think our society is too litigous. I do too. But using this case to make the point actually *encourages* people to sue, since the facts are exagerrated into a jackpot reward, and the seriousness of the injury and the steps leading to litigation are omitted.

You're doing your cause a misservice by picking on this case. There are plenty of sillier ones at the Stella Awards site that make the point much more clearly. In this case, the public good was served in that McDonald's did lower the temperature somewhat and awareness of the danger of their coffee became widespread. You're all hung up on the woman, missing the impact to McD's (and the good it caused).

And your solution-- having regulations-- really rubs me the wrong way. The last thing we need are more laws to enforce things like drink temperature. Start that, and then you'll have to measure the temperature of everything served anywhere. Bleah.

EmperorNorton

07/13/2004, 18:05

Originally posted by ZZZ
Thanks Emperor Norton for your perspicuousness.
You're welcome (or so I guess...I don't know the word and it is not in my dictionary...)

EmperorNorton

ZZZ

07/13/2004, 18:16

Ignatz...I am not convinced that the results were for the public good...McD's coffee was hotter than other people's. What next? The Barber has to use duller razors because his razors are sharper than everyone else's and somebody shifts during a shave and gets cut? I agree more regulation is not needed, but everyone is insisting on making McD's pay, so I say better a regulation than an encouragement to tie up our legal system with frivolous lawsuits. There is enough real crime to litigate without that. EmperorNorton...it means your ability to see through the words of my argument to the point which I was conveying.

ZZZ

07/13/2004, 18:24

Also, what I am suggesting, regulation, is not even additional. There is already a regulation requiring that coffee (food in general) be served at an acceptable temperature...it apparently wasn't being enforced...I suggest follow through and enforce the existing regulation. Yes the coffe was REALLY hot...I'm not missing that point. lot's of things are dangerous...do we have to idiot-proof them all?...that does the public a greater disservice, IMO, than McD's coffee being served hot enough to burn you severely.

hail_eris

07/13/2004, 18:26

It should also be stated that McDonald's generated virtually all of the news releases regarding the Stella case. The early '90s were a period of imperial overreach for the company, and this was one of those "any press is good press" situations. Also note that once all those shock value totals were played out in the media, the company eventually settled for far less. Once lawyers fees were paid, it's estimated that Stella, the elderly poster child of tort reform, actually recovered little more than the medical expenses that she originally sought. And before you cry out that the US is too litigious, take a look at libel law in the UK. It's a rare week that someone's not suing one of the major daily newspapers.

ZZZ

07/13/2004, 18:29

I don't know what it's like in the U.K., but I am not at all hesitant to decry the litigiousness of American society.

Maximcards

07/13/2004, 18:35

Personally I like the warning label on irons telling you not to iron your clothes while they are on you.

ZZZ

07/13/2004, 18:37

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Maximcards...THAT is funny.

Ignatz_Mouse

07/13/2004, 18:37

ZZZ, I guess we disagree. The means by which "reasonable coffee temp" gets enforced *is* lawsuits. There were people trying to get McD's to lower the temp prior to the suit, to no avail. It took that suit to get it to happen. You see regulation as a better solution, I disagree.

The point of being able to sue is to cpover matters that it would be ludicrous (or impossible) to pass laws to deal with individually. I don't want that to go away because the system is sometimes abused. And it certainly wasn't abused here, where the woman went through many, many steps prior to bringing suit.

ZZZ

07/13/2004, 18:45

That's the beauty of things, Ignatz...we can disagree. I disagree that the courts are the means of enforcing regulation...there are agencies which do that. It, by no means, should end up in civil court.

Also, suing people is not to take care of things that aren't covered by law. It is to determine, in cases where it is fuzzy, where the law lies in relation to the situation. (okay, that is oversimplified, but it is more in that direction)

Ashlar38

07/13/2004, 18:47

I've met Tony Twist and I know his father well and Tony and his whole family are the sort of folks that a negative portrayal in this way would really be a slap against their high moral standards and community standing. This is a great Canadian family folks and altho' Tony was an 'enforcer' type of hockey player in the NHL and definitely tough, he is also the fellow who raises money for charity in the off season - without going to get a name for himself in the process. His Dad and Grandad were respected RCMP members, Tony was in the NHL - a real Canadian family and well liked by all who know them.

So if the judge ruled that Todd MacFarlane disparaged this fellow's otherwise upstanding image without his permission, (I've seen the comic clippings of what was written), then Tony deserves it. The Twists are not people for whom their good name means nothing - their good name was worked for and *is* good and that should not be taken lightly.

GroovyBoy

07/13/2004, 19:32

Originally posted by ZZZ
okay, Ignatz...try this experiment. Take a HOT cup of coffee and sit in your car, now try to remove the lid and add your cream and sugar. Now do it with the same temperature coffee at your kitchen table. which one is easier? Which one didn't make you cringe and worry over the possibility of spilling in your lap...SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE OPENED IT. My 3 year old nephew even knows that much.

So all companies should be able to produce products as dangerous as they choose with no threat of penalty because everyone should have the common sense to know the hazard in every product? Thank God you don't work for OSHA or any other organization dedicated to the safety of humans...

ZZZ

07/13/2004, 19:44

Okay, Groovyboy? You completely missed the point there. We are not talking products in general...we are talking coffee...something that is commonly understood to be served HOT. People should have the common sense to know the hazard of HEAT.

GroovyBoy

07/13/2004, 19:46

Originally posted by ZZZ
I still argue that she shouldn't have opened the coffee in the car and that her burns were her own fault. McD's should have had some regulatory agency to monitor them if they were breaking the rules

1) Yes, nobody should ever open their coffee to insert sugar or cream. It was a stationary car, making it the same as sitting anywhere. Hello? Anybody home?

2) I believe the regulatory agency you're looking for might be known as THE LAW. How does the law punish wrongdoers in civil cases? By monetary fines...

ZZZ

07/13/2004, 19:48

Okay, Groovy boy...all of these points have already been argued and answered...read the thread in its entirety before attacking me.

GroovyBoy

07/13/2004, 19:58

Originally posted by ZZZ
Okay, Groovyboy? You completely missed the point there. We are not talking products in general...we are talking coffee...something that is commonly understood to be served HOT. People should have the common sense to know the hazard of HEAT.

I know the hazard of heat, but I've never spilled any hot food or drink that has been served to me by an establishment that has caused 3rd degree burns. Heck, when I was a server, I was constantly carrying heated plates, bumping my arm against the stoves, heating lights, and coffee makers, and even then I didn't get any 3rd degree burns. To even think that McDonalds wasn't culpable for their part is plain silly. What about a company that knowingly makes dynamite less stable than industry standards and settles 700 cases out of court? Sure, construction workers and landscapers know the hazard of explosives, but decreased stability is gonna mean more accidents no matter what. Accidents happen (welcome to the real world). You're ignoring the 700 people before Stella. Was it all their faults, too? Has every accident that ever happened to you your fault? If a product is fundamentally unsafe and you use it within reasonable limits, how can you be responsible for the results (yes, spilling some coffee is a pretty reasonable result, it happens to people all the time and has become a scenario for several paper towel commercials)?

GroovyBoy

07/13/2004, 19:59

I read the whole thread. You answered them? Um, where?

ZZZ

07/13/2004, 20:07

Yes, but spilling coffee in a car is not within reasonable limits. As I said, mess with your coffee in a stable environment, not a car. Play it smart. Also, making dynamite less stable is not the same...less stable dynamite would indeed likely lead to more accidents...however, hotter coffee doesn't lead to more spills...hotter coffee is not less stable and more likely to explode, or spill. However, I would expect that if construction workers were informed that the dynamite that they were using was unstable, just as Stella knew the coffe was hot, they would exercise extra care to prevent accidents. She did not exercise that additional care.

GroovyBoy

07/13/2004, 20:21

Well, as we know, Stella was never told that her coffee was SO MUCH HOTTER THAN ANY OTHER COFFEE SHE'D BUY ANY PLACE ELSE that if she spilled it, instead of getting a painful yet minor ouchie (like she would with COFFEE SHE'D BUY FROM ANYPLACE ELSE), she'd actually get burns so bad she'd need to be hospitalized for a week.

[Did the capital letters help you finally notice the fundamentally difference you've been missing?]

Of course, if she had T-800 Terminator hands like you, I suppose she'd know how much hotter the coffee was compared to all other places within one-tenth of a degree... :cheeky:

ZZZ

07/13/2004, 20:21

"1) Yes, nobody should ever open their coffee to insert sugar or cream. It was a stationary car, making it the same as sitting anywhere. Hello? Anybody home?"
The answer to that is in your first attack...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ZZZ
okay, Ignatz...try this experiment. Take a HOT cup of coffee and sit in your car, now try to remove the lid and add your cream and sugar. Now do it with the same temperature coffee at your kitchen table. which one is easier? Which one didn't make you cringe and worry over the possibility of spilling in your lap...SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE OPENED IT. My 3 year old nephew even knows that much.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2) I believe the regulatory agency you're looking for might be known as THE LAW. How does the law punish wrongdoers in civil cases? By monetary fines..."

That answer is found here...

"That's the beauty of things, Ignatz...we can disagree. I disagree that the courts are the means of enforcing regulation...there are agencies which do that. It, by no means, should end up in civil court."

As I said...argued and answered.

ZZZ

07/13/2004, 20:23

Continue to argue all you like GroovyBoy...You are arguing dead points which have already been addressed in this thread. If you have something new to add, feel free to let me know.

GroovyBoy

07/13/2004, 20:27

Attack? Those were comments. Man, are you defensive. You don't hate lawsuits because you have a persecution complex, do you?

Oh, those were answers? I kinda considered those rehashed ramblings. Okay, so if you aren't going to induce monetary fines, what exactly do you do to enact compliance? Jail the McDonalds execs? Line them up against a wall and shoot them? What exactly do you propose as an alternative motivation?

ZZZ

07/13/2004, 20:33

--------------------------------------------------------------- "Thank God you don't work for OSHA or any other organization dedicated to the safety of humans..."
--------------------------------------------------------------

An attack.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Man, are you defensive. You don't hate lawsuits because you have a persecution complex, do you?

Oh, those were answers? I kinda considered those rehashed ramblings.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Another attack. I am not defensive, I am observant. I didn't say that monetary fines are not the answer...I said that monetary rewards in Civil cases are not the answer. Regulatory measures through proper channels are the answer, not, as I stated earlier, civil suits.

GroovyBoy

07/13/2004, 20:41

Actually, being thankful you don't work for OSHA isn't an attack, it's me being thankful. And I really did consider those rehashed ramblings. The fact that you got all upset isn't my fault (well, and it means it's probably also close to the truth, but hey, let's not go there right now, as you seem to be sensitive to that kinda thing). Of course, since what hurt you were my words, intended or not, maybe you should sue me. I mean, it's true I didn't warn you that my comments are a few degrees hotter than industry standard. Hey, you aren't reading this on a laptop from the passenger seat of a car, are you?

ZZZ

07/13/2004, 20:52

Wow...that's the best you can come up with? Stating it in that manner is clearly indicating a lack of faith in my ability in that area...indicating a lack of faith toward me is an attack. I am not upset in the least, perhaps you are projecting your own feelings. Also, you can only rehash if you have stated something before. Those statements were answers to new points supported with prior postings. I was not merely saying the exact same thing over and over again. As far as litigation goes, I am sure that I have made my position quite clear on that matter. I don't want to rehash that for you. I didn't need a warning from you that your words were "hotter than industry standard." See, my "T-800" hands and I were sensitive enough to that slight difference in temperature to realize any "danger" to us. Finally, you'll be happy to know that I am safely interfacing with the internet from the safety of my own desktop computer. Now I have better things to do than argue the same tired points with you, Groovy boy...goodbye.