|
I haven't really looked in to the case, but what made her decide that it wasn't healthy, and that she needed to sue? Did her four year old child get really fat, or get sick or something? My son eats Nutella daily for a snack, or on toast in the morning, and has no problems with his health, or his weight. Actually he is quite fit, and very active. I just want to know how they determined it "Unhealthy"? When in reality, it isn't any worse than most of the other foods kids are given daily.
|
On April 29 2012 02:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 18:15 thesideshow wrote:On April 28 2012 17:14 Daogin wrote:On April 28 2012 16:55 Man with a Plan wrote:On April 28 2012 16:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 28 2012 08:40 flamewheel wrote:
Coffee is hot. This should be regarded as a gaffe, believe it or not. People like to make fun of the lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled scalding hot coffee on her lap. The fact of the matter is that the coffee was so negligently hot that it actually burned her vagina straight through to the pelvic bone. Too graphic? Well that's what she endured due to McDonald's mistake. She didn't even get any money in the end, so it's pretty crude to deride her experience. Spilling coffee from a restaurant should result in some sharp pain at most. I think it's reasonable to sue the SHIT out of a place that serves a product capable of melting flesh to the bone without explicit warning. If they wanted to serve it that hot they could've at least included a "CAUTION: Don't spill or this shit will melt your flesh! It's that hot and good!" sticker on their cups Yeah, the McDonald's example is becoming a legend that people do not anymore know the real story behind it. The sad thing about it is that the woman didn't even get compensated. the thing that gets me about mcdonalds is the fact that i dont even know how they managed to get such "hot" coffee. I work at Tim Hortons and the hottest thing we serve is tea, which is boiling water but not enough to cause third degree burns. I've even spilt it all over my hands, yea it's hot but not that hot :S I was getting kind of confused with that too. Until I realised the temperatures were being reported in fahrenheit. So Macdonald's coffee was served below boiling. I make drinks and soups hotter than that. The key to the woman's injury was the type of fabric she was wearing. I don't see how that can be termed "negligently hot". But I'm no lawyer so I won't comment. You don't see how? This is how: When you serve your coffee between 40 and 50°F hotter than what's served in other restaurants and homes, you are serving negligently hot coffee. Ave. Temp of restaurant coffee + home served coffee = ~130-140°F. Guess what McDonald's was? 180-190°F. Guess what boiling is? ~212°F. Are you still sorta confused as to where the "negligent" bit fits into the puzzle? Hint: It's completely negligent to serve a customer something that can seriously injure them without ample warning. Like I said before: If they wanted to serve their coffee that hot, they should've explored the risks and made them explicit to the consumer. If the lady saw "CAUTION: SPILLS ON CLOTHING WILL INDUCE 3° BURNS" she probably wouldn't have decided to set it between her legs in a moving vehicle. And if she wanted to take that risk anyway, well, then it's her fault because of the clear warning. Finally, the personal anecdote "Oh but I make boiling drinks/soup all the time" is pretty trivial. So what. The keys to the woman's injury were clearly both the fact that her fabric absorbed the liquid, and the fact that the liquid itself was negligently hot. If you still want to argue, I'll just cut it short by saying McDonald's now serves warm coffee, instead of scalding coffee, thus implicating that they were in fact in the wrong from a health & safety perspective in their previous method of coffee making.
I see your point but still...
It seems that people aren't capable of thinking for themselves anymore. When I order a coffee I don't care if it's 190°F or 140°F. I know it's hot and should better watch out and definitely don't put it between my legs.
Same goes for the mother in this case.
Maybe we should banish people form our society because their stupidity could harm others and themselves?
And whats most tragic about this is she won the case.
when she realized the spread is about as healthy as your average Snickers bar, she decided it was time to get even -- and get cash.
Seriously.. People need to grow up
|
Since congress made pizza a vegetable, can I sue the american congress?
|
God, I'm worried for her children...
|
When I was a child I knew that "part of a balanced breakfast" meant the cereal wasn't healthy for you. In order for me to believe this was deceptive advertising, I also have to believe the mom is too mentally deficient to be allowed to raise her own children since her mental faculties are below that of even a child.
|
On April 29 2012 02:51 Joefish wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 02:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 28 2012 18:15 thesideshow wrote:On April 28 2012 17:14 Daogin wrote:On April 28 2012 16:55 Man with a Plan wrote:On April 28 2012 16:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 28 2012 08:40 flamewheel wrote:
Coffee is hot. This should be regarded as a gaffe, believe it or not. People like to make fun of the lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled scalding hot coffee on her lap. The fact of the matter is that the coffee was so negligently hot that it actually burned her vagina straight through to the pelvic bone. Too graphic? Well that's what she endured due to McDonald's mistake. She didn't even get any money in the end, so it's pretty crude to deride her experience. Spilling coffee from a restaurant should result in some sharp pain at most. I think it's reasonable to sue the SHIT out of a place that serves a product capable of melting flesh to the bone without explicit warning. If they wanted to serve it that hot they could've at least included a "CAUTION: Don't spill or this shit will melt your flesh! It's that hot and good!" sticker on their cups Yeah, the McDonald's example is becoming a legend that people do not anymore know the real story behind it. The sad thing about it is that the woman didn't even get compensated. the thing that gets me about mcdonalds is the fact that i dont even know how they managed to get such "hot" coffee. I work at Tim Hortons and the hottest thing we serve is tea, which is boiling water but not enough to cause third degree burns. I've even spilt it all over my hands, yea it's hot but not that hot :S I was getting kind of confused with that too. Until I realised the temperatures were being reported in fahrenheit. So Macdonald's coffee was served below boiling. I make drinks and soups hotter than that. The key to the woman's injury was the type of fabric she was wearing. I don't see how that can be termed "negligently hot". But I'm no lawyer so I won't comment. You don't see how? This is how: When you serve your coffee between 40 and 50°F hotter than what's served in other restaurants and homes, you are serving negligently hot coffee. Ave. Temp of restaurant coffee + home served coffee = ~130-140°F. Guess what McDonald's was? 180-190°F. Guess what boiling is? ~212°F. Are you still sorta confused as to where the "negligent" bit fits into the puzzle? Hint: It's completely negligent to serve a customer something that can seriously injure them without ample warning. Like I said before: If they wanted to serve their coffee that hot, they should've explored the risks and made them explicit to the consumer. If the lady saw "CAUTION: SPILLS ON CLOTHING WILL INDUCE 3° BURNS" she probably wouldn't have decided to set it between her legs in a moving vehicle. And if she wanted to take that risk anyway, well, then it's her fault because of the clear warning. Finally, the personal anecdote "Oh but I make boiling drinks/soup all the time" is pretty trivial. So what. The keys to the woman's injury were clearly both the fact that her fabric absorbed the liquid, and the fact that the liquid itself was negligently hot. If you still want to argue, I'll just cut it short by saying McDonald's now serves warm coffee, instead of scalding coffee, thus implicating that they were in fact in the wrong from a health & safety perspective in their previous method of coffee making. I see your point but still... It seems that people aren't capable of thinking for themselves anymore. When I order a coffee I don't care if it's 190°F or 140°F. I know it's hot and should better watch out and definitely don't put it between my legs. Same goes for the mother in this case. Maybe we should banish people form our society because their stupidity could harm others and themselves? And whats most tragic about this is she won the case. Show nested quote +when she realized the spread is about as healthy as your average Snickers bar, she decided it was time to get even -- and get cash. Seriously.. People need to grow up
The fact that she put the coffee between her legs is irrelevant. What if it accidentally spilled on her instead? What matters is the temperature of the coffee. And your argument is that coffee is hot so it doesn't matter how hot it is, which is absurd, because it would imply that anyone could served 270°F coffee or higher, but not be negligent for any damages caused.
|
|
|
On April 29 2012 03:03 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 02:51 Joefish wrote:On April 29 2012 02:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 28 2012 18:15 thesideshow wrote:On April 28 2012 17:14 Daogin wrote:On April 28 2012 16:55 Man with a Plan wrote:On April 28 2012 16:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 28 2012 08:40 flamewheel wrote:
Coffee is hot. This should be regarded as a gaffe, believe it or not. People like to make fun of the lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled scalding hot coffee on her lap. The fact of the matter is that the coffee was so negligently hot that it actually burned her vagina straight through to the pelvic bone. Too graphic? Well that's what she endured due to McDonald's mistake. She didn't even get any money in the end, so it's pretty crude to deride her experience. Spilling coffee from a restaurant should result in some sharp pain at most. I think it's reasonable to sue the SHIT out of a place that serves a product capable of melting flesh to the bone without explicit warning. If they wanted to serve it that hot they could've at least included a "CAUTION: Don't spill or this shit will melt your flesh! It's that hot and good!" sticker on their cups Yeah, the McDonald's example is becoming a legend that people do not anymore know the real story behind it. The sad thing about it is that the woman didn't even get compensated. the thing that gets me about mcdonalds is the fact that i dont even know how they managed to get such "hot" coffee. I work at Tim Hortons and the hottest thing we serve is tea, which is boiling water but not enough to cause third degree burns. I've even spilt it all over my hands, yea it's hot but not that hot :S I was getting kind of confused with that too. Until I realised the temperatures were being reported in fahrenheit. So Macdonald's coffee was served below boiling. I make drinks and soups hotter than that. The key to the woman's injury was the type of fabric she was wearing. I don't see how that can be termed "negligently hot". But I'm no lawyer so I won't comment. You don't see how? This is how: When you serve your coffee between 40 and 50°F hotter than what's served in other restaurants and homes, you are serving negligently hot coffee. Ave. Temp of restaurant coffee + home served coffee = ~130-140°F. Guess what McDonald's was? 180-190°F. Guess what boiling is? ~212°F. Are you still sorta confused as to where the "negligent" bit fits into the puzzle? Hint: It's completely negligent to serve a customer something that can seriously injure them without ample warning. Like I said before: If they wanted to serve their coffee that hot, they should've explored the risks and made them explicit to the consumer. If the lady saw "CAUTION: SPILLS ON CLOTHING WILL INDUCE 3° BURNS" she probably wouldn't have decided to set it between her legs in a moving vehicle. And if she wanted to take that risk anyway, well, then it's her fault because of the clear warning. Finally, the personal anecdote "Oh but I make boiling drinks/soup all the time" is pretty trivial. So what. The keys to the woman's injury were clearly both the fact that her fabric absorbed the liquid, and the fact that the liquid itself was negligently hot. If you still want to argue, I'll just cut it short by saying McDonald's now serves warm coffee, instead of scalding coffee, thus implicating that they were in fact in the wrong from a health & safety perspective in their previous method of coffee making. I see your point but still... It seems that people aren't capable of thinking for themselves anymore. When I order a coffee I don't care if it's 190°F or 140°F. I know it's hot and should better watch out and definitely don't put it between my legs. Same goes for the mother in this case. Maybe we should banish people form our society because their stupidity could harm others and themselves? And whats most tragic about this is she won the case. when she realized the spread is about as healthy as your average Snickers bar, she decided it was time to get even -- and get cash. Seriously.. People need to grow up The fact that she put the coffee between her legs is irrelevant. What if it accidentally spilled on her instead? What matters is the temperature of the coffee. And your argument is that coffee is hot so it doesn't matter how hot it is, which is absurd, because it would imply that anyone could served 270°F coffee or higher, but not be negligent for any damages caused.
In most other countries the claim would fall under the category "common sense". The woman was the cause of the accident and since it was not the intent of McDonalds we are looking at negligence.
I do not know the specific standards on coffee and how to make it, but I remember something about the coffee getting more aroma out at a certain temperature-range.
I do not know the specific claims from the case so I cannot judge it on its merits, but to me a logical claim of better coffee at the higher temperature would seem like enough of a valid reason to accept it as an acceptable practice in the field and therefore not negligence.
|
On April 28 2012 08:38 rotinegg wrote:http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/today-food-finance-nutella-not-broccoli-162956191.htmlSo basically, Ferrero, the company that makes Nutella, got sued by some woman named Athena Hohenberg, because she was an idiot and thought Nutella would be HEALTHY for her children. Turns out, it's not (surprise surprise) and she filed a lawsuit claiming false advertising. She won the case, and Ferrero has to shell out $3.5 million, 2.5 of which will be spread out to claimants in a class action lawsuit. I think this is retarded, and sometimes I really hate the people we live with. Thoughts?
Is the woman retarded because she abused the system or is the system retarded because it got abused by the woman?
|
On April 29 2012 03:20 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 03:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 29 2012 02:51 Joefish wrote:On April 29 2012 02:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 28 2012 18:15 thesideshow wrote:On April 28 2012 17:14 Daogin wrote:On April 28 2012 16:55 Man with a Plan wrote:On April 28 2012 16:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 28 2012 08:40 flamewheel wrote:
Coffee is hot. This should be regarded as a gaffe, believe it or not. People like to make fun of the lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled scalding hot coffee on her lap. The fact of the matter is that the coffee was so negligently hot that it actually burned her vagina straight through to the pelvic bone. Too graphic? Well that's what she endured due to McDonald's mistake. She didn't even get any money in the end, so it's pretty crude to deride her experience. Spilling coffee from a restaurant should result in some sharp pain at most. I think it's reasonable to sue the SHIT out of a place that serves a product capable of melting flesh to the bone without explicit warning. If they wanted to serve it that hot they could've at least included a "CAUTION: Don't spill or this shit will melt your flesh! It's that hot and good!" sticker on their cups Yeah, the McDonald's example is becoming a legend that people do not anymore know the real story behind it. The sad thing about it is that the woman didn't even get compensated. the thing that gets me about mcdonalds is the fact that i dont even know how they managed to get such "hot" coffee. I work at Tim Hortons and the hottest thing we serve is tea, which is boiling water but not enough to cause third degree burns. I've even spilt it all over my hands, yea it's hot but not that hot :S I was getting kind of confused with that too. Until I realised the temperatures were being reported in fahrenheit. So Macdonald's coffee was served below boiling. I make drinks and soups hotter than that. The key to the woman's injury was the type of fabric she was wearing. I don't see how that can be termed "negligently hot". But I'm no lawyer so I won't comment. You don't see how? This is how: When you serve your coffee between 40 and 50°F hotter than what's served in other restaurants and homes, you are serving negligently hot coffee. Ave. Temp of restaurant coffee + home served coffee = ~130-140°F. Guess what McDonald's was? 180-190°F. Guess what boiling is? ~212°F. Are you still sorta confused as to where the "negligent" bit fits into the puzzle? Hint: It's completely negligent to serve a customer something that can seriously injure them without ample warning. Like I said before: If they wanted to serve their coffee that hot, they should've explored the risks and made them explicit to the consumer. If the lady saw "CAUTION: SPILLS ON CLOTHING WILL INDUCE 3° BURNS" she probably wouldn't have decided to set it between her legs in a moving vehicle. And if she wanted to take that risk anyway, well, then it's her fault because of the clear warning. Finally, the personal anecdote "Oh but I make boiling drinks/soup all the time" is pretty trivial. So what. The keys to the woman's injury were clearly both the fact that her fabric absorbed the liquid, and the fact that the liquid itself was negligently hot. If you still want to argue, I'll just cut it short by saying McDonald's now serves warm coffee, instead of scalding coffee, thus implicating that they were in fact in the wrong from a health & safety perspective in their previous method of coffee making. I see your point but still... It seems that people aren't capable of thinking for themselves anymore. When I order a coffee I don't care if it's 190°F or 140°F. I know it's hot and should better watch out and definitely don't put it between my legs. Same goes for the mother in this case. Maybe we should banish people form our society because their stupidity could harm others and themselves? And whats most tragic about this is she won the case. when she realized the spread is about as healthy as your average Snickers bar, she decided it was time to get even -- and get cash. Seriously.. People need to grow up The fact that she put the coffee between her legs is irrelevant. What if it accidentally spilled on her instead? What matters is the temperature of the coffee. And your argument is that coffee is hot so it doesn't matter how hot it is, which is absurd, because it would imply that anyone could served 270°F coffee or higher, but not be negligent for any damages caused. In most other countries the claim would fall under the category "common sense". The woman was the cause of the accident and since it was not the intent of McDonalds we are looking at negligence. I do not know the specific standards on coffee and how to make it, but I remember something about the coffee getting more aroma out at a certain temperature-range. I do not know the specific claims from the case so I cannot judge it on its merits, but to me a logical claim of better coffee at the higher temperature would seem like enough of a valid reason to accept it as an acceptable practice in the field and therefore not negligence.
It's common sense to expect that the coffee you are being served is about 140°F, not 270°F.
|
On April 29 2012 03:21 BillClinton wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 08:38 rotinegg wrote:http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/today-food-finance-nutella-not-broccoli-162956191.htmlSo basically, Ferrero, the company that makes Nutella, got sued by some woman named Athena Hohenberg, because she was an idiot and thought Nutella would be HEALTHY for her children. Turns out, it's not (surprise surprise) and she filed a lawsuit claiming false advertising. She won the case, and Ferrero has to shell out $3.5 million, 2.5 of which will be spread out to claimants in a class action lawsuit. I think this is retarded, and sometimes I really hate the people we live with. Thoughts? Is the woman retarded because she abused the system or is the system retarded because it got abused by the woman?
Is the bank corrupt because it steals money from the system or is the system corrupted because it allows the bank to steal money?
|
Good that im one big sea away from america! also dont u learn about nutrition in school in US?
User was warned for this post
|
It's incredibly delicious, so no wonder that it's not exactly healthy.
|
Headline on MSN today: "Kentucky woman swallows a screwdriver, sues her dentist" which makes it sound like some trivial, frivolous lawsuit.
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A central Kentucky woman is suing a dentist, accusing him of dropping a small screwdriver down her throat that migrated to her digestive tract and later required surgery to remove.
In a suit filed in Fayette Circuit Court in Lexington, 71-year-old Lena David of Nicholasville said the screwdriver ended up in her digestive tract, where surgeons at St. Joseph Hospital later removed it.
David is asking for an undisclosed amount of damages from Dr. W.B. Galbreath of Lexington.
The file includes an X-ray, purported to be David's, which shows the silhouette of the screwdriver in her pelvic region.
David's attorney, Edwin H. Clark, declined to comment on the case. Galbraith did not immediately return a message left at his office Friday by The Associated Press.
The Lexington Herald-Leader first reported the lawsuit, which was filed Thursday.
David said she went to Galbreath on May 26, 2011 to have composite removed from six implant entrances on her lower denture and have the implant bar cleaned. Galbreath used an instrument described as a "screwdriver" in his treatment notes and lost control of the instrument during the procedure, David claims.
"Dr. Galbreath did not secure the screwdriver with dental floss or anything else during his treatment," Clark wrote in the lawsuit.
In a suit filed in Fayette Circuit Court in Lexington , 71-year-old Lena David says the screwdriver ended up in her digestive tract, where surgeons at St. Joseph Hospital later removed it.
Clark also noted that Galbreath did not place anything across David's mouth, such as a dental dam or oral barrier, to prevent David from swallowing an instrument. After Galbreath dropped the instrument, David "reflexively swallowed it," Clark wrote.
Galbreath suggested David use the restroom and try to "gag herself until she vomited" the screwdriver, a method that did not work, Clark wrote.
Galbreath then sent David to a nearby chiropractor to have x-rays done. Galbreath reviewed the x-rays and determined that the screwdriver had migrated to David's stomach, Clark wrote.
"Dr. Galbreath discharged Ms. David with an instruction to eat a diet high in fiber," Clark wrote.
David took the advice, but the screwdriver had become lodged in her digestive tract, Clark wrote.
David went to St. Joseph Hospital on June 23, 2011 after experiencing pain in her lower right quadrant and doctors performed surgery that day by manipulating the screwdriver into David's appendix and removing it, Clark wrote.
David spent six days in the hospital and "experienced a long and difficult recovery," Clark wrote.
The lawsuit accuses Galbreath of dental negligence and failing to provide the degree of "care and skill ordinarily expected of a reasonably competent dental practice acting under similar circumstances."
Source
Just say 'NO' to tort reform.
|
On April 28 2012 12:49 D10 wrote:
Lets sue politicians for false propaganda as well
There was no way to tell they werent going to do all the crap they promissed!
We won't. But we should.
|
On April 29 2012 03:34 SKDN wrote:
Good that im one big sea away from america! also dont u learn about nutrition in school in US?
Kinda.
The system is mostly oh look a red apple is red. The apple fruit is a fruit. Here is your food pyramid. Carbohydrate and sugar and fat is spelled like this. Fat is bad grrr...etc
As you can see our education in such field is quite advanced. It is one of the more neglected...classes in the US education system...its really sad.
|
On April 29 2012 03:34 SKDN wrote:
Good that im one big sea away from america! also dont u learn about nutrition in school in US?
I live in Philly, and my mother in law is a 6th grade science teacher. She brought in a few different kinds of vegetables and fruits for different experiments and the kids had no idea what they were. Some of the items were a Pineapple, a Coconut, Eggplant, and a few more.
It's scary what kids are eating these days.
|
I am actually glad this happened. I have seen their commercials and they outright lie in them. Althought I feel bad for her children if she lacks the common sense to figure out nutella is candy
|
This is what happens when you introduce way too many safety measures into society. The dumb ones survive when they probably shouldn't. It's called natural selection and it's not happening anymore
|
On April 29 2012 02:54 Roe wrote:
Since congress made pizza a vegetable, can I sue the american congress?
Only one way to find out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
