- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 2018 Stella Awards
Posted on 4/24/18 at 7:57 am to DemonKA3268
Posted on 4/24/18 at 7:57 am to DemonKA3268
The idea of the runaway jury is complete b.s. So you know, if a jury hands down an asinine award, the trial judge can (and certainly will) reduce it. If the trial judge is as looney as the jury, then the appellate court will reduce it. (Appellate courts can and often do reduce quantum awards that are outside the range of reasonable awards.) Then...if the appellate court botched it, the Supreme Court can and will reduce it. This is how it works. There are no outlandish jury awards...and you cannot cite one. The cases on that "real list" are not about outlandish awards...they are about frivolous lawsuits. The 2007 winner was dismissed. So what is the issue?
This post was edited on 4/24/18 at 7:58 am
1
Posted on 4/24/18 at 8:01 am to rumproast
quote:
The idea of the runaway jury is complete b.s. So you know, if a jury hands down an asinine award, the trial judge can (and certainly will) reduce it. If the trial judge is as looney as the jury, then the appellate court will reduce it. (Appellate courts can and often do reduce quantum awards that are outside the range of reasonable awards.) Then...if the appellate court botched it, the Supreme Court can and will reduce it. This is how it works. There are no outlandish jury awards...and you cannot cite one. The cases on that "real list" are not about outlandish awards...they are about frivolous lawsuits. The 2007 winner was dismissed. So what is the issue?
The issue is what some people will sue for. I don't care, I'm not a victim nor do I have the victim mentality when it comes to stupidity by others.
Posted on 4/24/18 at 8:40 am to DemonKA3268
quote:
They still serve their coffee at the same temperature.
Just because McDonald's is stubborn doesn't mean they were negligent.
quote:
Obviously, it isn't the gross negligence you allude to.
Well, the judge awarded punitive damages, so he must have thought they were negligent.
Posted on 4/24/18 at 9:18 am to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:
I agree that it was stupid but did you see pictures of her leg? If not, look them up. That coffee was damn near boiling.
Agreed... this lady (stella) got effed up. I've spilled coffee on myself several times by accident. At no point did I think it was going to leave permanent damage that disfigures me.
frivolous lawsuits can get ridiculous... but this was not one of them.
Posted on 4/24/18 at 9:42 am to rented mule
quote:
Well, the judge awarded punitive damages, so he must have thought they were negligent.
Really? Because we've never had judges award or punish wrongly, right? She didn't secure the coffee before driving off. Cause and effect. I hate it for her but damn, she did it to herself. Yeah, hot coffee does burn, not just from McDonald's either.
Posted on 4/24/18 at 9:46 am to DemonKA3268
quote:
Really? Because we've never had judges award or punish wrongly, right? She didn't secure the coffee before driving off. Cause and effect. I hate it for her but damn, she did it to herself. Yeah, hot coffee does burn, not just from McDonald's either.
This didnt just burn her... it melted her skin.
Also McDonalds did start regulating the coffee temp afterwards. It was way to hot.
Posted on 4/24/18 at 9:50 am to TheEnglishman
quote:
Also McDonalds did start regulating the coffee temp afterwards. It was way to hot.
McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee at 80–90 °C (176–194 °F)
Like I said, it absolutely sucked for Stella, no doubt. She spilled the coffee...
This post was edited on 4/24/18 at 9:53 am
Posted on 4/24/18 at 10:14 am to DemonKA3268
quote:
I agree that McDonalds should have taken care of the medical bills. She got burned because she spilled hot coffee on herself. McDonalds didn't spill it. She did, how hard is that to understand?
which is why they found her 20% at fault. If the coffee wasn't boiling she has wet pants instead of needing skin grafts.
Posted on 4/24/18 at 10:18 am to DemonKA3268
quote:
She didn't secure the coffee before driving off.
This far into the discussion and you still can't get the basic facts straight.
Posted on 4/24/18 at 10:19 am to MLCLyons
quote:
which is why they found her 20% at fault. If the coffee wasn't boiling she has wet pants instead of needing skin grafts.
I'm sure that was painful as hell. Did the coffee spill itself? That's all I'm asking.
quote:
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe which did not have cup holders. Her grandson parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[10] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin
Posted on 4/24/18 at 10:20 am to DemonKA3268
What insurance defense firm are you a file clerk for?
Posted on 4/24/18 at 10:21 am to DemonKA3268
quote:
she did it to herself.
quote:
She spilled the coffee...
You are making it like she was just going around pouring coffee on herself. It was an accident, people sometimes spill things, shouldn't there be a reasonable expectation that accidentally spilling something should not lead to permanent injury?
Posted on 4/24/18 at 10:22 am to NIH
quote:
What insurance defense firm are you a file clerk for?
Posted on 4/24/18 at 10:36 pm to DemonKA3268
Look...McFonalds sells MILLIONS of cups of coffee every single day. Is it not forseeable that somebody, some day, might spill some on their self? They were told repeatedly that their coffee was too hot. They ignored the warnings. Then, the obvious happens. Punitive damages are for the purpose of punishing a defendant. McDonalds is a multi-billion dollar company. How do you "punish" a multi-billion dollar company??? By ringing them up. You think if the court would have awarded $500 plus medicals McDonalds would have changed their ways??? Think people.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 12:54 am to DemonKA3268
You are one prick-headed, fricking a-hole. You post falsehoods and think it's laughs. Go frick yourself, I'm sure you know how.
I hope you are never injured by someone's being negligent
I hope you are never injured by someone's being negligent
Posted on 4/25/18 at 4:57 am to lammo
Geez. Take a breath and calm down. Yo sho is angry.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:11 am to lammo
quote:
lammo
My favorite poster.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News