EPTUser was temp banned for this post.
Nutella loses $3.5million lawsuit - Page 24
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
LayZRR
Germany449 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Shampsky
United States21 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:20 radiatoren wrote: 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. She was not the first person to be seriously burned. The much larger factor in that case was the fact that McDonalds had a long history of out of court settlements with victims who had been burnt by their coffee. They knew they served it at a dangerous temperature and had not changed their policy, citing that the higher temperature was necessary for quality. This creates liability on their part for knowingly maintaining a danger to customers without thoroughly warning them. They also were not conforming to food industry standards about beverage temperatures. Hidden things like that are what lead people to scream about frivolous lawsuits, despite not necessarily knowing how many others have had similar incidents and were silenced through quiet settlements. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/Portals/0/Documents/Settlement Agreement w exhibits.pdf Transcripts of Nutella Television Advertisements “Mom” [MOM]: As a mom, I’m a great believer in Nutella, a delicious hazelnut spread that I use to get my kids to eat healthy foods. I spread a little on all kinds of healthy things, like multigrain toast. Every jar has wholesome, quality ingredients, like hazelnuts, skim milk, and a hint of delicious cocoa. And Nutella has no artificial colors or preservatives. It’s quick, it’s easy, and at breakfast I can use all the help I can get. They do nothing but imply that it's healthy. That plus other evidence put into that pdf shows why the settled out of court. I find it funny that people think it's alright to mislead and lie as long as you're bad at it. When your intentions are to deceive and manipulate people into getting their money. Oh wait i know why because people are egoists, they just want to post here how stupid people are and how smart and big penis-ed they are. | ||
|
Terranist
United States2496 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:53 semantics wrote: Seems like people always just look at the wrong commercials https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/Portals/0/Documents/Settlement Agreement w exhibits.pdf They do nothing but imply that it's healthy. That plus other evidence put into that pdf shows why the settled out of court. agreed. raisin bran is widely considered a healthy and "part of a balanced breakfast" but it has the most sugar of any of the cereals on the grocery store shelf. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:51 LayZRR wrote: this is such a joke. only in america things like that can happen. (no offence!) I'm making a harsh and offensive generalization about your country. But it's okay because I'm saying no offense at the end! | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:56 Terranist wrote: agreed. raisin bran is widely considered a healthy and "part of a balanced breakfast" but it has the most sugar of any of the cereals on the grocery store shelf. Cereals companies are much better at this then nutella's marketing they never imply healthy the way nutella did, they just point out that it's high in vitamin x which is known to be good for y. Cheerios is a good example of when they cross the line, when the FDA shut down their advertisements saying that they are clinically proven to lower your cholesterol, when the FDA threatened that if they want to use wording like cheerios is a drug they would have to submit to FDA as a drug meaning the 10 year proof of testing, effects and side effects and nearly 1 billion dollars of research needed etc. Milk is another example, in the US "got milk" they focus on it being good for your bones though it's high calcium content. Never say it's healthy or get near it, as even low fat milk still has saturated fat which is bad for your heart and if you super dose in calcium that helps lead to things like prostate cancer, but calcium intake like vitamin K are both recognized to help prevent and mitigate osteoporosis even though there are more healthy ways to get that calcium then milk. If you have the balls to tell the lie and mislead people, have the balls to play it out in court, nutella clearly didn't so they settled out of court. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On April 29 2012 01:10 MadProbe wrote: Yeah, they don't outright say that Nutella is healthy. But they STRONGLY imply it. That's the whole "angle" of this ad. They DID say that feeding nutella for breakfast helps your kids eat healthy foods. Someone else has said this better before me: And yeah, it takes a moron to actually believe it-- but that's who they're marketing to. Am I the only one who thinks convincing mothers to feed their children Nutella for breakfast because it is healthy is criminal? Wouldn't you be outraged if Mcdonalds was marketed as healthy? FOR CHILDREN? That's disgusting. All I got from that commercial was that Nutella was tasty and gets kids to eat breakfast. Imagine that. Stop acting like we're all victims of advertising, shit like this will just continue until you expect people to make informed decisions. God forbid people live with their decisions, even the shitty ones. | ||
|
OpTicalRH
147 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:50 Aunvilgod wrote: Gotta love America for all these law-stories. Americans really are the most fun people on the planet. User was warned for this post True, people in America sue each other for most ridiculous stuff. Anyways, I'm going to enjoy my day with Nutella firecrackers  | ||
|
divito
Canada1213 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:53 semantics wrote: Transcripts of Nutella Television Advertisements “Mom” [MOM]: As a mom, I’m a great believer in Nutella, a delicious hazelnut spread that I use to get my kids to eat healthy foods. I spread a little on all kinds of healthy things, like multigrain toast. Every jar has wholesome, quality ingredients, like hazelnuts, skim milk, and a hint of delicious cocoa. And Nutella has no artificial colors or preservatives. It’s quick, it’s easy, and at breakfast I can use all the help I can get. What about that transcript is false? - She's a great believer in Nutella, okay... - She uses it to get her kids to eat healthy foods, just like those commercials that showcase putting cheese on vegetables. - Nutella uses wholesome and quality ingredients, uh huh. - And it doesn't have artificial colors or preservatives. To me, it doesn't imply anything about being healthy, the mom uses it as a tool to get her kids to eat something that's actually healthy, which lots of companies do actually. | ||
|
BlasiuS
United States2405 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:53 semantics wrote: Seems like people always just look at the wrong commercials https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/Portals/0/Documents/Settlement Agreement w exhibits.pdf They do nothing but imply that it's healthy. That plus other evidence put into that pdf shows why the settled out of court. I find it funny that people think it's alright to mislead and lie as long as you're bad at it. When your intentions are to deceive and manipulate people into getting their money. Oh wait i know why because people are egoists, they just want to post here how stupid people are and how smart and big penis-ed they are. this x 1000 anyone who thinks the commercials aren't misleading, try reading the bold part again, then come back and apologize for how wrong you are. | ||
|
Logrus
United States228 Posts
I'd say I've bought at least 5 jars of Nutella since 2008 It's delicious Just submitted a claim for my free $20 Shame on u nutella for making me think a puree of cream, hazelnuts, and cocoa was healthy like broccoli Shame | ||
|
TheDna
Germany577 Posts
On April 29 2012 04:00 Chargelot wrote: I'm making a harsh and offensive generalization about your country. But it's okay because I'm saying no offense at the end! Dude its the truth lol... How can you deny it? Its absolutely ridiculous and such a lawsuit would never even happen in any other country. I have to say it wont matter to ferrero one bit, 3.5m is like peanuts to them.. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
IGotPlayguuu
Italy660 Posts
| ||
|
divito
Canada1213 Posts
On April 29 2012 04:14 Logrus wrote: Shame on u nutella for making me think a puree of cream, hazelnuts, and cocoa was healthy like broccoli Therein lies the hilariousness of people and their argument against Nutella. My sides hurt from laughing! | ||
|
flowSthead
1065 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:39 screamingpalm wrote: Headline on MSN today: "Kentucky woman swallows a screwdriver, sues her dentist" which makes it sound like some trivial, frivolous lawsuit. + Show Spoiler + 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. While I agree with the sentiment that there are very few frivolous lawsuits, tort reform does not just have to do with frivolous lawsuits. There are good reasons for tort reform, such as the fact that the law is so incredibly complicated that lay people have an impossible task to understanding the law. This, in itself, isn't necessarily a problem because lawyers exist to provide us the service of understanding the law, but I have heard even lawyers speak about the necessity of simplifying the law. There are many laws that exist today that are unnecessary or outdated that still exist on the books that should be removed (so called "blue book" laws), and there are ways to improve the efficiency of the system by simplifying the law code. It's the same thing with the tax system in the US. A flat consumption tax is not something people argue for because they want less taxes, but because it will simplify the Tax system. There is no reason for the IRS to be as large as it is, and for paying taxes to be as complicated as it is. A flat consumption tax will streamline and simplify the process of paying taxes for consumers. There will still be complications when it comes to business, but even just simplifying it for consumers will change things immensely for the benefit of the greater society. There are benefits to tort reform as there are benefits to a simpler tax system. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On April 29 2012 03:53 semantics wrote: Seems like people always just look at the wrong commercials https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/Portals/0/Documents/Settlement Agreement w exhibits.pdf They do nothing but imply that it's healthy. That plus other evidence put into that pdf shows why the settled out of court. I find it funny that people think it's alright to mislead and lie as long as you're bad at it. When your intentions are to deceive and manipulate people into getting their money. Oh wait i know why because people are egoists, they just want to post here how stupid people are and how smart and big penis-ed they are. Dude please. I think people should be held responsible for their own actions. Commercials are misleading, regulations won't change that. People need to learn how to think critically, we don't need regulations to decieve people into thinking they're actually aimed at being informative. You can disagree with me, but please do it without claiming people who think the law suit is silly are only looking to show off their e-penis. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
ixi.genocide
United States981 Posts
On April 28 2012 08:43 Mattacate wrote: Perfect example of why the whole system is so stupid. The parents are idiotic enough to think liquid chocolate is good for you, or are so selfish they feed it to their children to get $$$ from doing so. I don't even know what to think, apart from that the idea that this woman won a court case is the beginning of the end. edit: in other news why the hell did she feed her daughter this obviously unhealthy spread without looking at the damn jar, and again WHY IS ANYONE GIVING THIS WOMAN MONEY What system? there is no system... The parents are stupid and that is it. People were gullible etc well before modern advertisement. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On April 29 2012 04:31 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: Dude please. I think people should be held responsible for their own actions. Commercials are misleading, regulations won't change that. People need to learn how to think critically, we don't need regulations to decieve people into thinking they're actually aimed at being informative. You can disagree with me, but please do it without claiming people who think the law suit is silly are only looking to show off their e-penis. k So everyone who was scammed in burney madoff's pawnze scheme disease to lose all that money, they obviously should have known better, who the fuck cares about intent or who's in the wrong the weak shall perish the strong will survive =p Odd sense of morality that we shouldn't punish exploitation of people. There will always be people who are smarter more charismatic those who can trick us, just becuase it's under a certain threshold it makes that trickery alright? 3 mil is more symbolic then punitive to ferrerio considering the size of the company which is why the lady is unlikely to get more then 2k from this, the lawyers will make off with the largest bulk of the money. the rest 2.5 mil assured for the class but up to 3 mil for the class. | ||
| ||
