Martin

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:39:10 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On 8/09/05 10:11, in article [email protected],
    >"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> It's still sold scolding hot in McDs and elsewhere in NL. In a an
    >> exhibition hall I picked up a paper cup of coffee which collapsed, the
    >> coffee was hot enough to blister my hand.
    >So sue!

and make a lawyer rich?

    >But it is a mystery why American coffee is super hot. Expresso does not
    >seem to come super hot. I wonder if anybody has made a study.

Report back when you have :-)
--
Martin

Earl Evleth

On 8/09/05 12:06, in article [email protected],
"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> So sue!
    >
    > and make a lawyer rich?


In the US they get a piece of the action, maybe 30%. It they don't win
they don't collect. So both the victim and the lawyer become "rich"
if this formula works well. Otherwise, I don't know what the traps are.

I assume lawyers who operate in this fashion only take cases which
have a likelihood of producing a big settlement.

I personally don't know anybody who has ever sued in this kind of case.
So while the big awards get played up in the press. Our daughter
was driving a pick up truck in California years ago, when a guy
crossed over and hit her head on. No debate on who was at fault. The
guy was also drunk. He had no insurance, but in California they do
have a state fund for that. She had banged up knees and facial damage.
The knees had to be operated on, that ran $10,000 or so and the state
settlement was another $10,000 for future medical complications.
She had additional operations later and all that money was also used up.
I suspect she could have gotten a lot more if the guy was well insured
or was personally wealthy.

So she did not strike it rich. Obviously I would have taken a lot more
money to "compensate" for the pain she has gone through but I don't know
how you can place a figure on suffering.

Captain Dondo

Earl Evleth wrote:

    > The greatest mystery of cycling is why cyclists put themselves through
    > hell. It does not look like fun at all.

"It's a different sort of pain." I can't imagine, for example, sitting
in a bingo hall for hours on end, or being subject to a three hour long
opera....

    >
    > When one vacations in France in the summer one sees a lot of people out on
    > the roads on bikes, some are dressed up in cycling outfits. We in the
    > Var and took one trip up one of the main peak overlooking Toulon. A narrow
    > road, no other motorists but a number of cyclists trudging up to the top.
    >
    > I imagine they feel "holier than thou" but then they earned
    > a right to.

Usually we feel tired, cramped, and holier than thou. ;-)

There is nothing like the feeling you get after pounding up some mother
of a mountain, and enjoying the view and the descent.

If you get a chance, listen to "Acoustic Motorbike" by Luka Bloom.

"I cycled into Curry, with an apetite that could eat the hind lef off
the Lamb of God, (although you know I would never do such a thing)"

That about sums it up.

And Europe is a cyclist heaven. Great roads, lots to see, towns close
together....

Earl Evleth

On 8/09/05 17:40, in article [email protected], "Captain
Dondo" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > And Europe is a cyclist heaven. Great roads, lots to see, towns close
    > together....


A number of years ago I was attending a scientific retreat at Arachon,
most of the people were from the University of Bordeaux. One afternoon
the arranged a bicycle trip (a lot of the people were amateurs) and
I had not been on a bike in n-years. 5 minutes out and up the first
hill my thighs cramped.

That was the last time I got on a bike.

But I watch the Tour de France!

Carole Allen

You do realize that that award was substantially reduced by the
courts. Had they agreed to simply pay her medical bills there would
have been no lawsuit. Here there was an award of punitive damages -
some states do not have punitive damages (Washington doesn;t).

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious
injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the
past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never
so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very
serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and
buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk
who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have
brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not
dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the
case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously
hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post
warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most
customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's
was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company.
When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's
had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and
rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The
equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation
generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the
sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a
fact not widely publicized in the media.



On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:43:26 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
    >You don't make million dollars off a law suit in France!
    >³Coffee Spill Burns Woman; Jury Awards $2.9 Million,²

Carole Allen

Or she could have maintained uninsured/underinsured coverage and made
an additional claim again her own policy.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:05:21 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
    >I personally don't know anybody who has ever sued in this kind of case.
    >So while the big awards get played up in the press. Our daughter
    >was driving a pick up truck in California years ago, when a guy
    >crossed over and hit her head on. No debate on who was at fault. The
    >guy was also drunk. He had no insurance, but in California they do
    >have a state fund for that. She had banged up knees and facial damage.
    >The knees had to be operated on, that ran $10,000 or so and the state
    >settlement was another $10,000 for future medical complications.
    >She had additional operations later and all that money was also used up.
    >I suspect she could have gotten a lot more if the guy was well insured
    >or was personally wealthy.
    >So she did not strike it rich. Obviously I would have taken a lot more
    >money to "compensate" for the pain she has gone through but I don't know
    >how you can place a figure on suffering.

Earl Evleth

On 9/09/05 5:25, in article [email protected], "Carole
Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Or she could have maintained uninsured/underinsured coverage and made
    > an additional claim again her own policy.

I don't know what she did on that. She did move from California to New York
and then to Florida over the following years.

The US is a Federal chaotic system where people do move. Medical insurance
companies might not exist nation wide, the same with car insurance.

My point is, however, is that the total $20,000 payment was not excessive,
since it was eventually used up. Nor did she get some large amount
for pain and suffering.

And the French system of compensation is worse. Nobody has mentioned other
European countries but I suspect that it is much the same.

Bigbrian

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 03:23:22 GMT, [email protected] (Carole Allen)
wrote:

    >You do realize that that award was substantially reduced by the
    >courts. Had they agreed to simply pay her medical bills there would
    >have been no lawsuit. Here there was an award of punitive damages -
    >some states do not have punitive damages (Washington doesn;t).
    >McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
    >the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
    >hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
    >McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious
    >injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the
    >past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never
    >so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
    >McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very
    >serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and
    >buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
    >McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk
    >who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have
    >brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not
    >dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
    >McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the
    >case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously
    >hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post
    >warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most
    >customers wouldn't think it was possible.
    >McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's
    >was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company.
    >When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's
    >had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and
    >rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The
    >equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation
    >generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the
    >sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
    >McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a
    >fact not widely publicized in the media.

Also not widely publicised in the media was the fact that both
parties subsequently agreed a settlement reported to be much less than
the judge's reduced award.

And that McDonald's serve their coffee at exactly the temperature
recommended by the National Coffee Association

Brian

Earl Evleth

On 9/09/05 10:52, in article [email protected],
"bigbrian" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > And that McDonald's serve their coffee at exactly the temperature
    > recommended by the National Coffee Association


I grabbed this item from the web

http://www.newsaic.com/ftvseinfeldindex.html

"McDonald's policy at that time was to serve its coffee at 180 to 190
degrees Fahrenheit, which is hot enough to cause severe, third-degree burns
in less than a second. The National Coffee Association still says that this
is the proper range for serving coffee, but the Shriner's Burn Institute in
Cincinnati and the federal Consumers Product Safety Commission have
reportedly urged the restaurant industry in the past to use lower
temperatures, and the American Burn Association reported in 2000 that
restaurants generally do sell their coffee at slightly lower temperatures
(160 to 180 degrees) and that people at home generally serve coffee at far
lower temperatures (130 to 140 degrees). Moreover, an informal survey
conducted by McDonald's lawyers in the coffee case reportedly found that
local restaurants served their coffee at 160 degrees or less"


Various web sites indicate that the burn risk occurs at or above 140°F.

If so, home served coffee seems to be served by people with common sense.

Timothy Kroesen

It would seem the real message here is that with sufficient and
sustained Corporate legal bullying jury awards mean little...

Tim K

Earl Evleth

On 9/09/05 17:52, in article
[email protected] et, "Timothy Kroesen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > It would seem the real message here is that with sufficient and
    > sustained Corporate legal bullying jury awards mean little...

Meaning what? Some do get the awards lowered but the tobacco industry
did have to pay heavily.

I have not reviewed all the awards to come up with a personal
decision on what is ridiculous or absurd, and what is justified.
I suspect that one sees the media coverage of big awards only but most
awards are like to our daughter's, are no big deal, justified and probably
not enough.

Carole Allen

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 21:44:45 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
    >I have not reviewed all the awards to come up with a personal
    >decision on what is ridiculous or absurd, and what is justified.
    >I suspect that one sees the media coverage of big awards only but most
    >awards are like to our daughter's, are no big deal, justified and probably
    >not enough.
You can always find a ridiculous or absurd award, and certainly the
big ones make the news. What does not make the news is the vast
number of smaller suits that obtain very modest awards, if any. Or
the fact that the majority of cases filed settle prior to trial
through arbitration or mediation. Trial is expensive, and many
jurisdictions require the parties to engage in a meaningful form of
alternate dispute resolution (ADR) before a neutral third party before
a case is assigned out to actual trial. Investing an hour or two in
ADR can save everyone (including taxpayers) significant money if it
saves days of trial time. This applies to civil cases, but it is
comparable to plea negotiations that occur in criminal cases. Again,
there the majority of criminal cases filed end in a negotiated plea.
Even so, there are still enough cases going to trial to keep the
courts busy every day.

Timothy Kroesen

Meaning, a Billion Dollar Corp has the means to legally bully a jury's
decision in the long-haul; the schlep who suffered serious injury likely
does not. I'd be willing to bet McDonalds has now spent more in legal
fees than the victim's award was coerced down to... Surely they intended
to sent a message to the public with this too...'Don't **** with
mega-corp; the juries decision will not prevail in the end all'.

Was the original award excessive; no IMO, as award amounts are *meant*
(especially the punitive aspect) to cause the corporate offender to take
significant notice of their wrong doing financially; as to NOT do it
again. McDonalds clearly bullied both the victim and the legal system
here with their wealthy resources; the coffee is still dangerously
hot...and vile enough for their own legal dept.

Tim K

"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BF47B2CD.79A97%[email protected]...
    > On 9/09/05 17:52, in article
    > [email protected] et, "Timothy
Kroesen"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > It would seem the real message here is that with sufficient and
    > > sustained Corporate legal bullying jury awards mean little...
    > Meaning what? Some do get the awards lowered but the tobacco industry
    > did have to pay heavily.
    > I have not reviewed all the awards to come up with a personal
    > decision on what is ridiculous or absurd, and what is justified.
    > I suspect that one sees the media coverage of big awards only but most
    > awards are like to our daughter's, are no big deal, justified and
probably
    > not enough.

michaelnewport

Earl Evleth wrote:
    > On 7/09/05 17:08, in article [email protected], "Jose"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > If he's truly "not guilty", I wonder why he doesn't file a lawsuit again
    > > L'Equipe and the Tour. It's not like he doesn't have the resources to pursue
    > > this option.
    > The Tour de France has made no statements, only l'Equipe and the other press
    > like Le Monde.
    > Suing is being considered.

still if you can win the TDF even once, whether drugged or not, you
still deserve a medal. And if you grow a pair of breasts later in life
then so be it :)

Erick T . Barkhuis

[on 10 Sep 2005 11:22:10 -0700] wrote:

    > still if you can win the TDF even once, whether drugged or not, you
    > still deserve a medal. And if you grow a pair of breasts later in life
    > then so be it :)

Right. A medal certainly compensates for that.
%-[


--
Low Countries By Bike - http://lowcountriesbybike.ardane.com
Riding on two wheels in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany