PDA

View Full Version : Mom sues Coors over son's death in accident


Krizoitz
Apr 18, 2004, 07:10 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/18/coors.suit.ap/index.html

While I certainly agree that beer companies advertising is questionable, I just can't fathom blaming them in this case. Blame the people at the party for providing drink to minors maybe, but her son was the one who drank.

Sparky's
Apr 18, 2004, 07:23 PM
Keeping on track though, this sounds like the woman who tried to sue McDonalds for burning herself with hot coffee, only this time they want to sue Juan Valdez for growing the coffee beans. I think the judge should toss this one and the mom ought to go after the party throwers.
I agree "alcohol" companies in general should take a more responsible approach to marketing. I am also surprised to see a reprisal of "Hard Liquor" ads on National TV. Does "Madison Avenue" (I use the term to describe the marketing agencies where ever they are) think its time to push booze now instead of drugs or are they just succumbing to an overwhelming influx of abusers.

MacNut
Apr 18, 2004, 07:56 PM
1st off the legal drinking age is still 21 so don't blame the beer companies for what they are doing as they are doing nothing wrong. While I think the 21 age really isn't doing anything but telling more kids to break the law and drink. Everyone went to school and knows that you can tell kids all you want not to drink but they still will so I don't understand why people are so upset. The parents know their kids drink or really aren't looking out for their kids to see what they are really doing. The fact is that while you can fight for your country at 18 and smoke and vote why can't you drink. Until everything is either 21 or 18, or until a reasonable explanation is given as to why its bad kids will continue to drink and it will only get worse.

wdlove
Apr 18, 2004, 08:01 PM
The death of her son is a very sad and tragic accident. This is just another example of our litigious society. No one wants to take resposibility for their own actions. He was not forced to drink, it could have been any type of alcoholic product that he drank. His mistake was to then drink and drive, no one in the 21st century is unaware of the results of that cause and effect. Hopefully the judge will through out the case. This cases are only brought to make lawyers richer. They are the ones that really profit. :( :o

MongoTheGeek
Apr 18, 2004, 08:11 PM
I am seriously getting tired of things like this. Reading this story makes me want to go drink more Coors. Its pretty wretched beer and probably has detectable amounts of plutonium in it but they don't deserve this.

I say we get a class action lawsuit against all lawyers.

idkew
Apr 18, 2004, 08:33 PM
after all, the state built the road and placed the utility pole.

and sue the residents of the state, as they paid for these improvements.



it is not the lawyer's fault there is a suit. it is the worthless mother who thinks that money will bring her child back. maybe we should sue her for raising a kid who drinks and drives, especially whilst underage.

flyfish29
Apr 18, 2004, 08:34 PM
The death of her son is a very sad and tragic accident. This is just another example of our litigious society. No one wants to take resposibility for their own actions. He was not forced to drink, it could have been any type of alcoholic product that he drank. His mistake was to then drink and drive, no one in the 21st century is unaware of the results of that cause and effect. Hopefully the judge will through out the case. This cases are only brought to make lawyers richer. They are the ones that really profit. :( :o

I agree...how tragic...but her son made the mistake and she along with others unfortuantely need to deal with it. Coors didn't make him drive drunk, didn't provide the beverages, didn't give him the keys, didn't make him drive 90! Even if Coors had sponsored the event and let under age children in there might be a case, but in fact it is still her son who did wrong here.

I see this same type of responsibility "shift" going on with the third graders in my classroom. The parents want to do everything but blame the ones really responsible.

For example- I have an assignment notebook that goes home with every 3rd grader with their homework. Their parents are supposed to sign it if they complete the assignments (most of the assignments are not things they turn in, but reading for 20 minutes, etc.) Hundreds of times the following morning I would be walking past student's desks checking their assignment notebook and say something like" Great job of doing your homework!" well, some (most I think) of them were actually honest and said they didn't do all their homework. I asked them how they got it signed then...they replied. "my mom didn't want me to get into trouble." Uggg. Luckily most were honest and could tell what the right thing to do was, but I imagine as they got older they started following in their parents footsteps!

Macmaniac
Apr 18, 2004, 08:41 PM
There are a few problems I have with this case, one parents think their kids are too good to be drinking under age. First of all as a 17 year old I know way too many people my age who drink behind their parents back, what's even worse is that they have been caught before, but the parents don't make a big about it, and their off drinking at the next party. They seem to believe their son or daughter is too good be drinking and this was only a slip up..... If parents paid more attention to what their kids were doing there would be fewer kids drinking ad driving. Also if a parent catches their kid drinking take away their car for a month! Take the keys and there is not a bloody thing they can do about it, they can't drive by themselves to parties and parents will be able to know who they are with if the kid has to get a ride with a friend.
I believe parents need to be less cutsie with their kids about drinking and open a can of whoop a$$.

strider42
Apr 18, 2004, 09:06 PM
Keeping on track though, this sounds like the woman who tried to sue McDonalds for burning herself with hot coffee, only this time they want to sue Juan Valdez for growing the coffee beans. I think the judge should toss this one and the mom ought to go after the party throwers.
I agree "alcohol" companies in general should take a more responsible approach to marketing. I am also surprised to see a reprisal of "Hard Liquor" ads on National TV. Does "Madison Avenue" (I use the term to describe the marketing agencies where ever they are) think its time to push booze now instead of drugs or are they just succumbing to an overwhelming influx of abusers.

For what its worth, the woman who sued mcdonalds probably had a legitimate case. McDonalds was sued several times and decided that it was cheaper to keep the coffee super hot and pay the damages, then to have to replace the coffee. McDonalds had multiple oppurtunities to lower the coffee temperature and never did. that woman had like 3rd degree burns on her inner thighs. I think McDonalds deserved that lawsuit. Their actions had a direct impact on what happened to that woman. Coffee is supposed to be hot, its not supposed to burn the skin off of someone through their clothes.

In this case though, it sounds more like passing the responsibility, or lawyers trying to go after the deepest pockets.

baby duck monge
Apr 18, 2004, 09:08 PM
this sort of lawsuit is really getting quite out of hand. sickening what some people will do to make a buck... and the fact that people like this ruin so much stuff for the rest of us -- don't even get me started.

people make their own mistakes. stop trying to shift the blame. makes me just want to go live all alone on an island somewhere so i wouldn't have to hear about BS like this. well, i would want to bring my girlie. and maybe some of out relatives. but that would be it.

MacNut
Apr 18, 2004, 09:51 PM
makes me just want to go live all alone on an island somewhere so i wouldn't have to hear about BS like this. well, i would want to bring my girlie. and maybe some of out relatives. but that would be it.

Don't forget something to drink, you might want to bring beer with you, you might get thirsty :rolleyes:

musicpyrite
Apr 18, 2004, 10:22 PM
I believe parents need to be less cutsie with their kids about drinking and open a can of whoop a$$.

Thats what my father says to me, although not about drinking, drugs, or sex.

baby duck monge
Apr 18, 2004, 11:36 PM
Don't forget something to drink, you might want to bring beer with you, you might get thirsty :rolleyes:

meh. who needs to bring it with you. i would just distill my own, of course. :D :D :D :cool:

flyfish29
Apr 19, 2004, 01:32 AM
There are a few problems I have with this case, one parents think their kids are too good to be drinking under age. First of all as a 17 year old I know way too many people my age who drink behind their parents back, what's even worse is that they have been caught before, but the parents don't make a big about it, and their off drinking at the next party. They seem to believe their son or daughter is too good be drinking and this was only a slip up..... If parents paid more attention to what their kids were doing there would be fewer kids drinking ad driving. Also if a parent catches their kid drinking take away their car for a month! Take the keys and there is not a bloody thing they can do about it, they can't drive by themselves to parties and parents will be able to know who they are with if the kid has to get a ride with a friend.
I believe parents need to be less cutsie with their kids about drinking and open a can of whoop a$$.

Nice statement...just goes to show it is parents who screw up kids...not kids.

Chip NoVaMac
Apr 19, 2004, 06:19 AM
after all, the state built the road and placed the utility pole.

and sue the residents of the state, as they paid for these improvements.



it is not the lawyer's fault there is a suit. it is the worthless mother who thinks that money will bring her child back. maybe we should sue her for raising a kid who drinks and drives, especially whilst underage.

First off an attorney does not have to take the case. As long as attorneys get 30 to 40% of an award, then we will see crap like this.

What some may have missed is that her son did not hold a "valid" drivers license. Wonder if a prior DWI was involved?

idkew
Apr 19, 2004, 08:31 AM
First off an attorney does not have to take the case. As long as attorneys get 30 to 40% of an award, then we will see crap like this.

if anything, the attorney's take will make LESS people bring suit, since they do not keep all their winnings.

also, if you know anything about law, which it seems you don't, the attorney could be working on an hourly rate, and receive NONE of the winnings (besides his hourly fee). what your are thinking of is called Contingency. Not all lawyers work for a contingency fee.

not to mention, who was it who brought suit again? it is very illegal for a lawyer to contact that mother and offer his services, even if he watched her son die. The plaintiff comes to the lawyer, not vice-versa.

Chip NoVaMac
Apr 19, 2004, 09:22 AM
if anything, the attorney's take will make LESS people bring suit, since they do not keep all their winnings.

also, if you know anything about law, which it seems you don't, the attorney could be working on an hourly rate, and receive NONE of the winnings (besides his hourly fee). what your are thinking of is called Contingency. Not all lawyers work for a contingency fee.

not to mention, who was it who brought suit again? it is very illegal for a lawyer to contact that mother and offer his services, even if he watched her son die. The plaintiff comes to the lawyer, not vice-versa.

I think i do know a thing or two about the law. I know about assumptions, but the standard here in the DC area in damage award suits (you know what those are) is that such suits are generally on contingency.

Also remember the law firm stands to win if they can make the Coors portion a class action suit. Doubtful as the suit is already filed, but starnger things have happened.

Yes, I understand that the lawyer could be working on an hourly basis. More than likely it is probably something in-between. A retainer to cover their basic expenses, and a part of any award made. Two key facts here are that the mother is suing both Coors and the former girlfriend. The clue is that there are unspecified damages. This was brought as a civil suit, not as a criminal suit.

While it may be illegal for an attorney to contact a plaintiff, it does happen. Ask anyone that suffered a loss in an airline crash. Too many loopholes to allow this sort of thing. Also most Bar Associations are unwilling in many cases of acting on their own, unless there was a much more serious breach of ethics.

Sorry if your feathers are ruffled. The motives on all sides are called into question when suits like these are made. I will say that there some good lawyers out there. But just a few bad apples will spoil the whole bunch.

Like I said it is telling that the guy did not have a valid drivers license.

Moving Off Topic a bit:

In our area Toyota lost a large suit to a gentleman that successfully argued that Toyota failed to inform passengers in a car that seat-belts and airbags are not effective if you have the seat-back reclined. Well, duh!

The other thing is these non-disclosure settlements. If a suit has been filed, then any settlement after that time should be a matter of public record.

We need sincere tort reform. Any maybe an independent body to decide complaints about the practices of attorneys.

eyelikeart
Apr 19, 2004, 09:24 AM
I'm going with my opinion that here's another case of someone looking to point the finger, rather than assume responsibility. How pathetic. :rolleyes:

Dippo
Apr 19, 2004, 09:48 AM
I'm going with my opinion that here's another case of someone looking to point the finger, rather than assume responsibility. How pathetic. :rolleyes:


Yea, well at least they are not suing the doctors this time...


It's just lawyers trying to make money by suing each other!
OUTLAW LAWYERS! :D

Chip NoVaMac
Apr 19, 2004, 09:51 AM
I'm going with my opinion that here's another case of someone looking to point the finger, rather than assume responsibility. How pathetic. :rolleyes:

You have a point. We are no longer a nation that is willing to take responsibility for their own actions. Taking hot coffee through a drive-thru, riding with a seat-back reclined, drinking and driving without a valid drivers license, or having children without the means to support them.

In my previous post I mentioned "sincere tort reform". I do believe that companies should be held responsible actions that they knew could cause harm or loss of life, as long as common sense is used with use of the product. A case in point is Ford's Pinto gas tank fiasco.

I will also point a finger that this case may have been better made if it were a criminal suit, rather than a civil suit. Civil suits are generally about money. Otherwise they would be filed for attorneys costs and a punitive damage of $1 and NOT sealed so that we can see that they admitted wrong doing.

eyelikeart
Apr 19, 2004, 09:54 AM
Yea, well at least they are not suing the doctors this time...


It's just lawyers trying to make money by suing each other!
OUTLAW LAWYERS! :D

Pretty much yeah. It's sad that the laws & liberties that protect us are also the same ones that get taken advantage of like this. What if this kid was hopped up on narcotics, rather than booze? Would mom be going after his supplier? :rolleyes:

eyelikeart
Apr 19, 2004, 09:59 AM
You have a point. We are no longer a nation that is willing to take responsibility for their own actions. Taking hot coffee through a drive-thru, riding with a seat-back reclined, drinking and driving without a valid drivers license, or having children without the means to support them.

In my previous post I mentioned "sincere tort reform". I do believe that companies should be held responsible actions that they knew could cause harm or loss of life, as long as common sense is used with use of the product. A case in point is Ford's Pinto gas tank fiasco.

I will also point a finger that this case may have been better made if it were a criminal suit, rather than a civil suit. Civil suits are generally about money. Otherwise they would be filed for attorneys costs and a punitive damage of $1 and NOT sealed so that we can see that they admitted wrong doing.

It's so true. I've said it plenty of times in the past, but society has conditioned people to take the "victim" stance in a situation, rather than wholly accept that they are the ones who did the wrong. As I stated in my above post, what would mom have done if this kid was stoned out of his head & crashed the car? Something tells me she wouldn't have sought out who the drug dealers were in that case, and filed a suit against them for contributing to her son's demise.

I also agree with the idea of Civil suits being about money. I don't believe, for a second, that this case is about how Coors "failed" to prevent underage drinking, but more a personal issue (and I can understand with the loss of a child, but damn!) with this kid's mom.

Again, pathetic she cannot admit HER SON SCREWED UP. :rolleyes:

idkew
Apr 19, 2004, 10:08 AM
... a punitive damage of $1 and NOT sealed so that we can see that they admitted wrong doing.

i don't think that losing in court forces someone to admit fault.

also- punitive damages are to punish. punitive damages should be high, and compensatory damages low, if the plaintiff is attempting to right a wrong, and not just make money. if punitive damages were $1, it would never make sense to stop the litigious practice, hence high punitive damages, which make a repeat situation monetarily a bad idea. since this is civil suit, you are not in jeopardy of your liberty, just your property, as no imprisonment is possible.


but- i agree with tort reform. litigation should be aimed to stop a dangerous situation from occurring again. it should not be used to fill your retirement fund. if a doctor is practicing medicine he/she is not licensed to practice, sue. if the doctor makes a small mistake, and you are little worse for wear, don't sue. do you get millions when the McD's person messes up your order?

and, should coors be sued b/c some kid drank their beer, drove drunk, drove recklessly, sped, and killed himself? no.

should a gun company be sued b/c someone used a gun manufactured by them to kill someone? no.

idkew
Apr 19, 2004, 10:11 AM
Again, pathetic she cannot admit HER SON SCREWED UP. :rolleyes:

what says her son did not do this on purpose? young males are the most likely to commit suicide.

eyelikeart
Apr 19, 2004, 10:19 AM
what says her son did not do this on purpose? young males are the most likely to commit suicide.

That's my point, it's just ridiculous to hold the beer company liable for the actions her son made. He made the choice to drink, and he was underage at that. He knew it was "illegal," just like all of us did when we drank while underage. I'm also quite certain he wasn't falsely enchanted by a lifestyle of youth, sex, & beauty by what Coors portrays in it's advertising.

Chip NoVaMac
Apr 19, 2004, 11:17 AM
i don't think that losing in court forces someone to admit fault.

also- punitive damages are to punish. punitive damages should be high, and compensatory damages low, if the plaintiff is attempting to right a wrong, and not just make money. if punitive damages were $1, it would never make sense to stop the litigious practice, hence high punitive damages, which make a repeat situation monetarily a bad idea. since this is civil suit, you are not in jeopardy of your liberty, just your property, as no imprisonment is possible.


but- i agree with tort reform. litigation should be aimed to stop a dangerous situation from occurring again. it should not be used to fill your retirement fund. if a doctor is practicing medicine he/she is not licensed to practice, sue. if the doctor makes a small mistake, and you are little worse for wear, don't sue. do you get millions when the McD's person messes up your order?

and, should coors be sued b/c some kid drank their beer, drove drunk, drove recklessly, sped, and killed himself? no.

should a gun company be sued b/c someone used a gun manufactured by them to kill someone? no.

the purpose of a civil suit is to mitigate damages for the failure of the defense to act in a reasonable and responsible manner. If a company chooses to settle a suit, or even looses a suit - it is easy to assume that they were wrong. maybe it a fault of the system, but if your are innocent then there should be no damages.

You have a point, but till the laws catch up with the courts; then punitive damages should indicate to the court and the public that the company was wrong. Not simply by the amount, but that they were so ordered. Compensatory damages could be awarded to the plaintive, with the stipulation that they be used to educate the public beyond their current and future loses.

Glad to see that you are behind sensible tort suits. But in this case the mother was able to find a lawyer that took the case at all. Until lawyers stop taking and representing those with frivolous lawsuits (and by your account this seems to be one), the profession as a whole will have to live with the results. Much as car dealers who treat their customers with respect and offer a fair deal to all, will have to live by the bottom feeders and their antics.

Chip NoVaMac
Apr 19, 2004, 11:25 AM
what says her son did not do this on purpose? young males are the most likely to commit suicide.

The key there would be for Coors to demonstrate that the mother, or no other party benefited from a life insurance policy. (for those that questioned my understanding of the law).

Suicide by car accident is one of the problems of the insurance industry. Again it is the problem of not holding people responsible for their actions. the fact that this boy plowed into a telephone pole at 90MPH, seems to indicate irresponsibility on his part.

Given the specifics of the lawsuit, the only people the mother should have been able to sue are the people that gave her son excess alcohol (which may have been the girlfriend), or the car manufacturer - if it can be proved that the accelerator was defective.

Otherwise he lived fast, and died young....

MongoTheGeek
Apr 19, 2004, 12:53 PM
Pretty much yeah. It's sad that the laws & liberties that protect us are also the same ones that get taken advantage of like this. What if this kid was hopped up on narcotics, rather than booze? Would mom be going after his supplier? :rolleyes:

Anyone ever see "Other People's Money" with Danny Devito (I think he may have directed as well.) There is one great line. "Lawyers are like nuclear weapons, you have them so I have to have them, and the moment that someone uses one everything gets #*%ed up."

MongoTheGeek
Apr 19, 2004, 12:59 PM
Suicide by car accident is one of the problems of the insurance industry. Again it is the problem of not holding people responsible for their actions. the fact that this boy plowed into a telephone pole at 90MPH, seems to indicate irresponsibility on his part.

And the hand brake and the transmission. If he popped it into first the car wouldn't have been able to do over 40. Once the engine is done slowing down the car put it into neutral and apply the hand brake. Hand brakes are simple wires to shut the brakes.

agreenster
Apr 19, 2004, 01:41 PM
Suing Coors? Silly.

Maybe she should sue herself for raising a son who drinks irresponsibly. It makes just as much sense.

I mean, lets not make this more than what it is. The underage kid drove drunk. He made bad choices. He died. In this educated society, there is no excuse for that, and certainly no room for a lawsuit against Coors.

Chip NoVaMac
Apr 19, 2004, 02:13 PM
Suing Coors? Silly.

Maybe she should sue herself for raising a son who drinks irresponsibly. It makes just as much sense.

I mean, lets not make this more than what it is. The underage kid drove drunk. He made bad choices. He died. In this educated society, there is no excuse for that, and certainly no room for a lawsuit against Coors.

Maybe the State should sue for past child neglect....

Chip NoVaMac
Apr 19, 2004, 02:13 PM
i don't think that losing in court forces someone to admit fault.

also- punitive damages are to punish. punitive damages should be high, and compensatory damages low, if the plaintiff is attempting to right a wrong, and not just make money. if punitive damages were $1, it would never make sense to stop the litigious practice, hence high punitive damages, which make a repeat situation monetarily a bad idea. since this is civil suit, you are not in jeopardy of your liberty, just your property, as no imprisonment is possible.


but- i agree with tort reform. litigation should be aimed to stop a dangerous situation from occurring again. it should not be used to fill your retirement fund. if a doctor is practicing medicine he/she is not licensed to practice, sue. if the doctor makes a small mistake, and you are little worse for wear, don't sue. do you get millions when the McD's person messes up your order?

and, should coors be sued b/c some kid drank their beer, drove drunk, drove recklessly, sped, and killed himself? no.

should a gun company be sued b/c someone used a gun manufactured by them to kill someone? no.

the purpose of a civil suit is to mitigate damages for the failure of the defense to act in a reasonable and responsible manner. If a company chooses to settle a suit, or even looses a suit - it is easy to assume that they were wrong. maybe it a fault of the system, but if your are innocent then there should be no damages.

You have a point, but till the laws catch up with the courts; then punitive damages should indicate to the court and the public that the company was wrong. Not simply by the amount, but that they were so ordered. Compensatory damages could be awarded to the plaintive, with the stipulation that they be used to educate the public beyond their current and future loses.

Glad to see that you are behind sensible tort suits. But in this case the mother was able to find a lawyer that took the case at all. Until lawyers stop taking and representing those with frivolous lawsuits (and by your account this seems to be one), the profession as a whole will have to live with the results. Much as car dealers who treat their customers with respect and offer a fair deal to all, will have to live by the bottom feeders and their antics.

TimDaddy
Apr 19, 2004, 02:24 PM
For what its worth, the woman who sued mcdonalds probably had a legitimate case. McDonalds was sued several times and decided that it was cheaper to keep the coffee super hot and pay the damages, then to have to replace the coffee. McDonalds had multiple oppurtunities to lower the coffee temperature and never did. that woman had like 3rd degree burns on her inner thighs. I think McDonalds deserved that lawsuit. Their actions had a direct impact on what happened to that woman. Coffee is supposed to be hot, its not supposed to burn the skin off of someone through their clothes.

In this case though, it sounds more like passing the responsibility, or lawyers trying to go after the deepest pockets.

From what I have read, the cup was melting. As it warped, the lid no longer fit. I'm not sure if the spill was through a melted hole, or it splashed out because the lid wouldn't fit. But, it is a product intended to be placed on your tongue, and then down your throat. It probably shouldn't be hot enough to burn your skin, regardless of what type of container it was in. A lot of lawsuits make me sick, but not that one. edit: I am for the McD's Lawsuit, not the Coor's lawsuit. Coor's lawsuit is ridiculous.

Chip NoVaMac
Apr 19, 2004, 02:29 PM
From what I have read, the cup was melting. As it warped, the lid no longer fit. I'm not sure if the spill was through a melted hole, or it splashed out because the lid wouldn't fit. But, it is a product intended to be placed on your tongue, and then down your throat. It probably shouldn't be hot enough to burn your skin, regardless of what type of container it was in. A lot of lawsuits make me sick, but not this one.

This gets to the heart of responsibility. I think most people would have requested another cup. Or is it a situation that AFTER the fact that these conditions existed?

Gee, i couldn't steer the car after going 12 miles down the road. GM MUST have known of the defect...

GIVE ME A BREAK! I am a liberal and I EVEN HAVE A PROBLEM with some of these lawsuits!

TimDaddy
Apr 19, 2004, 02:30 PM
Suing Coors? Silly.

Maybe she should sue herself for raising a son who drinks irresponsibly. It makes just as much sense.

I mean, lets not make this more than what it is. The underage kid drove drunk. He made bad choices. He died. In this educated society, there is no excuse for that, and certainly no room for a lawsuit against Coors.

Exactly. Not to say that kids raised by good parents won't do any wrong, but when she says that Coor's is responisible it appears to me that she didn't raise her son to be responsible for his own actions. I'm not stupid, I know my kids will do plenty of things I'd rather they not do, but I intend to hold my children, my wife, and myself responsible.

Also, maybe she was a great mother. Maybe some ambulance chaser got ahold of her while she was in great trauma, fed her a bunch of garbage and got her riled up wanting to sue.

TimDaddy
Apr 19, 2004, 02:33 PM
This gets to the heart of responsibility. I think most people would have requested another cup. Or is it a situation that AFTER the fact that these conditions existed?

Gee, i couldn't steer the car after going 12 miles down the road. GM MUST have known of the defect...

GIVE ME A BREAK! I am a liberal and I EVEN HAVE A PROBLEM with some of these lawsuits!

It's not entirely about the cup. Why should a food product be so hot that it burns your skin? Maybe instead of saying "Caution: Hot Product" it should say "Caution: Product so hot it is unsafe to drink. It will melt styrofoam and burn human flesh. Don't drink for several hours! Do not look into the arc! Keep core cool at all times." I'll stop now. :)

Chip NoVaMac
Apr 19, 2004, 02:45 PM
It's not entirely about the cup. Why should a food product be so hot that it burns your skin? Maybe instead of saying "Caution: Hot Product" it should say "Caution: Product so hot it is unsafe to drink. It will melt styrofoam and burn human flesh. Don't drink for several hours! Do not look into the arc! Keep core cool at all times." I'll stop now. :)

Responsibility, that is why. You are telling me that she did not see the cup warped? that the lid was not firmly fitted? Maybe she should have sued the county or State for health codes that required a certain temperature. Or maybe the cup company for not making cups that could meet a variety of codes.

Maybe better yet since we are so stupid to make our own choices, the fast food restaurants need to close every drive through. Or better yet since we can get food poisoning from any restaurant, maybe we should only eat food that we grow and cook for ourselves.

For the questionable actions of this woman, we all pay the price. For greedy accountants at Ford we are paying the price of the Pinto gas tank. For the guy that lost his legs because Toyota NEVER told him it was dangerous that he travel with the seat-backs totally reclined, we all pay.

Darwin had a point about the survival of the fittest. Nature is supposed to take care of the weakest.

Will some one sue Mobil for me while I go and check out what I have left in my gas tank. Got a match in hand....

baby duck monge
Apr 19, 2004, 03:15 PM
Maybe the State should sue for past child neglect....

that is a lawsuit i would welcome wholeheartedly. maybe it would cause people to think twice about trying to shirk responsibility. but i doubt it. oh well... :(

eyelikeart
Apr 19, 2004, 07:17 PM
Anyone ever see "Other People's Money" with Danny Devito (I think he may have directed as well.) There is one great line. "Lawyers are like nuclear weapons, you have them so I have to have them, and the moment that someone uses one everything gets #*%ed up."

Yeah, good movie actually. And it's completely true. All it takes is one instance to screw it up for everyone else. :rolleyes:

idkew
Apr 19, 2004, 07:30 PM
Yeah, good movie actually. And it's completely true. All it takes is one instance to screw it up for everyone else. :rolleyes:

case in point: janet and the superbowl.

gwuMACaddict
Apr 19, 2004, 09:26 PM
this is ridiculous. plain and simple.

MongoTheGeek
Apr 19, 2004, 10:03 PM
From what I have read, the cup was melting. As it warped, the lid no longer fit. I'm not sure if the spill was through a melted hole, or it splashed out because the lid wouldn't fit. But, it is a product intended to be placed on your tongue, and then down your throat. It probably shouldn't be hot enough to burn your skin, regardless of what type of container it was in. A lot of lawsuits make me sick, but not that one. edit: I am for the McD's Lawsuit, not the Coor's lawsuit. Coor's lawsuit is ridiculous.

Polystyrene is good to about 250 before it becomes unsuitable to hold liquids. McDonalds used to serve coffee at 180 degrees. If you are too take a look at the joy of cooking it recommends serving coffee at 212. If McDonalds was serving coffee hotter than that then yes perhaps they are at fault.

cogent
Apr 19, 2004, 11:13 PM
I think it would be more useful to ask the question why is the mother suing Coors. If it is to push them to be more responsible with advertising etc, it might be warranted, as it may save lives. If if is a misguided attempt to strike out at someone - anyone - for her son's death, then it is sad. The loss of a loved one does leave a void, but it must be accepted that nothing will fill that void or provide solace for the loss, except maybe the passage of time. The mother would do better to look at preventing future repetitions by other unfortunates.

On the subject of contingency, it does give an opportunity for the little guy to take on the big companies. If justice is the aim (not a free ride) then it is laudable. However, petty vendettas or misunderstandings can allow the abuse of this system. Greedy lawyers likewise have taken the polish off a previously highly-respected and professional career. The sad thing is that the many professionals that work in the legal profession have as much disregard for the leeches as those on the outside, but ironically they are tarred with the same brush.

iJon
Apr 20, 2004, 01:33 AM
this kid was simply dumb. i feel for his death, but the facts cant be overlooked. if i drink i very well know that im spending the night somewhere so its not a problem. if i know i have to drive home i limit my intake and make sure i drink plenty of water and sober up before i head out. simple as that.

iJon

TimDaddy
Apr 20, 2004, 02:48 AM
Responsibility, that is why. You are telling me that she did not see the cup warped? that the lid was not firmly fitted? Maybe she should have sued the county or State for health codes that required a certain temperature. Or maybe the cup company for not making cups that could meet a variety of codes.

Maybe better yet since we are so stupid to make our own choices, the fast food restaurants need to close every drive through. Or better yet since we can get food poisoning from any restaurant, maybe we should only eat food that we grow and cook for ourselves.

For the questionable actions of this woman, we all pay the price. For greedy accountants at Ford we are paying the price of the Pinto gas tank. For the guy that lost his legs because Toyota NEVER told him it was dangerous that he travel with the seat-backs totally reclined, we all pay.

Darwin had a point about the survival of the fittest. Nature is supposed to take care of the weakest.

Will some one sue Mobil for me while I go and check out what I have left in my gas tank. Got a match in hand....

All is said was that IF what I have read is correct, then McDonald's was at fault. You don't purchase a drink knowing that it may be too hot to come in to contact with flesh. If it is unsafe for contact with human flesh, it can not be drank. Or drunk... it's late. I hate stupid lawsuits as much as the next guy. But, a normal, reasonable adult, when ordering a product to pour down his throat, assumes that it will not burn his or her flesh! Maybe it wasn't really that hot. All I am saying is that if it were hot enough to burn flesh, it shouldn't have been served. You can't serve poison. You can't serve food with metal fragments in it. Why should you be able to serve something that is so hot that it can cause serious burns. (I'm not talking about "Oh ***** that was hot! Get me some water. I'm talking about burns requiring medical treatment.) If she hit her brakes too hard with the cup between her legs and got a boo-boo, it's her own fault. But if the cup melted and she received burns that required medical treatment, she's lucky her lap was burned and not her mouth and throat!

virividox
Apr 20, 2004, 03:44 AM
stupid law suit

idkew
Apr 20, 2004, 08:29 AM
You can't serve poison.


ahem... cigatettes? alcohol?


you can most definitely serve poison, as long as the gov. get a take in the profits.


but- if the mom is attempting to change the advertising practices, i think she has no case. i have never seen an underage person in their ads. what i see is exactly what the 21-35+ year old crowd does on a friday/saturday night. they glorify it, but each ad is based in reality.

TimDaddy
Apr 20, 2004, 12:14 PM
ahem... cigatettes? alcohol?


you can most definitely serve poison, as long as the gov. get a take in the profits.

ok. got me. :)

strider42
Apr 20, 2004, 01:04 PM
Responsibility, that is why. You are telling me that she did not see the cup warped? that the lid was not firmly fitted? Maybe she should have sued the county or State for health codes that required a certain temperature. Or maybe the cup company for not making cups that could meet a variety of codes.

Maybe better yet since we are so stupid to make our own choices, the fast food restaurants need to close every drive through. Or better yet since we can get food poisoning from any restaurant, maybe we should only eat food that we grow and cook for ourselves.

For the questionable actions of this woman, we all pay the price. For greedy accountants at Ford we are paying the price of the Pinto gas tank. For the guy that lost his legs because Toyota NEVER told him it was dangerous that he travel with the seat-backs totally reclined, we all pay.

Darwin had a point about the survival of the fittest. Nature is supposed to take care of the weakest.

Will some one sue Mobil for me while I go and check out what I have left in my gas tank. Got a match in hand....

McDonalds knew full well they served their coffee at a temp that was too hot to be safe. these weren't just burns, the womans skin was taken off. She was hospitalized for some time because of it. McDonalds knew about the problem, no one else served their coffee that hot, and they didn't do anything about it. Look up the facts fo the case and you see mcDonalds clearly, in my opinion at least, deserved some of the blame, of perhaps not all. the mcdonalds lawsuit sounded frivilous, but there was some merit to it as the company knowingly offered a product it knew could hurt people in some circumstances, particularly in a car (which they obviously expect you to have the product in since they have a drive through, and lids meant to prevent spilling). If their container wasn't up to the temperature of the cofefee they knew was too hot, how is mcdonalds not in some way liable.

People need to take responsibility, but so do companies when they knowingly offer products that can hurt people when used according to how the manufacturer intended. The coors lawsuit is on the other hand frivilous because the son shouldn';t have been drinking in the first place, and also broke the law in driving under the influence. Plus, society si pretty well educated about those dangers. The mcdonalds lawsuit is very very different in terms of circumstnace and substance and people shou;dn't write it off just because it seems silly that someone sued because they got burned by hot coffee. You might sue too if you had third degree burns on your genatils like that woman did. Law suits aren't always about 100% blame, they are about degrees of responsbility.

GorillaPaws
Apr 20, 2004, 04:12 PM
It's people like this that are the reason behind all of the stupid warning lables. Ever wonder why there's a warning not to toutch the lawnmower blades while the lawnmower is in operation? I've got a HIDEOUS 4"x"8 warning sticker on the sun visor of my wrangler that warns me that my jeep will roll over if I take a turn ridiculously fast (no ******!), I have to look at it every day I drive and it ticks me off like no other. And as far as the lawyer-bashing goes, IMHO, most lawyers are good people who serve a need in society just like any other respectible profession. I'm sure 90%+ are good people, and the other ten percent only exist because of the people like this woman. And with respect to tort law, I think people should only be able to recover the value of their loss, any punitive damages should be heavy but should go directly to a charity of the plaintiff's choice. (e.g. with the whole Mc Donald's thing, the lady would get her medical expenses paid for + pain and suffering (that her lawyer could take a comission on), any heavy punitive damages would go to her chairty of choice).

MacFan25
Apr 20, 2004, 06:50 PM
This is quite pathetic, and I certainly hope that in this instance the beer company won't be held resposible.

I just don't understand why some people refuse to take responsibility for their actions. :rolleyes:

sonyrules
Apr 20, 2004, 10:57 PM
It wont fly, she claimns in the lawsuit that the advertising is pushing on to a younger audience.

I dont know about you, But every comercial i see with beer is either on talking about born on dating, Mountain fresh water, one of the best tasting beers... Etc...

Now, why do kids drink beer??? Its not cause it tastes good, or how it looks, or whats it made out of. Its cause they want to get messed up. How many ads promote getting drunk?? NONE!

Second... Whewre was she when her kid was dinking? why wasnt she doing her parenting job. Did Coors call her son and tell him to get drunk drinking their beer?

Since the Kid is still under 18, The parents are responcible for the kids, So if anything, The mother should be sued for not taking responcibility.

I hope the judge just throws it away, and goes off on her...

iJon
Apr 20, 2004, 11:01 PM
actually he was 19 so he was responsible for himself. obviously he wasnt ready to be on his own.

iJon

Dippo
Apr 21, 2004, 06:54 AM
Now, why do kids drink beer??? Its not cause it tastes good, or how it looks, or whats it made out of. Its cause they want to get messed up. How many ads promote getting drunk?? NONE!

That's a very good point.

Drinking at a young age is all about getting wasted, and beer is the cheapest way to do it. (well maybe malt liquor would be cheaper but who would want to drink that)

MongoTheGeek
Apr 21, 2004, 07:11 AM
That's a very good point.

Drinking at a young age is all about getting wasted, and beer is the cheapest way to do it. (well maybe malt liquor would be cheaper but who would want to drink that)

What about Mad Dog (Mogen David) or Thunderbird, or Boone's Farm

idkew
Apr 21, 2004, 08:33 AM
That's a very good point.

Drinking at a young age is all about getting wasted, and beer is the cheapest way to do it. (well maybe malt liquor would be cheaper but who would want to drink that)

every once in a while i like to slum it and have a OE 40 or some other malt beverage for $1.50. Three and you are set.

takao
Apr 21, 2004, 11:03 AM
haha funny law suit....

if somebody drives drunken and has an accident it's the persons fault not somebody else.... 'don't drink and drive' anybody ?

when i'm drinking i don't drive because i know it's dangerous...
beer,wine,etc (up to 15% i guess) is allowed with 16 (but it is no problem to buy it with 14/15 because you don't have to show a id card most of the time...only if you look really young of course)
with 18 you can buy everything with no restrictions (but wodka etc is no problem most of the time even when your 16/17)
and there is no law against "drunken in public" directly.... a friend got arrested because of this in america (he was 21) :rolleyes:

you can get the driving license with 17 but it is not only more expensive it takes more time too ...so most make it with 18
in the first 2 years if you get caught with more than 0,1 promille well say goodbye to your driving license for a few months and expensive tests.....

BTW: how expensive is the driving license in the USA ? i paided about 1850 dollar for mine 2 years ago...so i would never risk my driving licence and livives of others for a few beers....

Chip NoVaMac
Apr 21, 2004, 11:31 AM
haha funny law suit....

if somebody drives drunken and has an accident it's the persons fault not somebody else.... 'don't drink and drive' anybody ?

when i'm drinking i don't drive because i know it's dangerous...
beer,wine,etc (up to 15% i guess) is allowed with 16 (but it is no problem to buy it with 14/15 because you don't have to show a id card most of the time...only if you look really young of course)
with 18 you can buy everything with no restrictions (but wodka etc is no problem most of the time even when your 16/17)
and there is no law against "drunken in public" directly.... a friend got arrested because of this in america (he was 21) :rolleyes:

you can get the driving license with 17 but it is not only more expensive it takes more time too ...so most make it with 18
in the first 2 years if you get caught with more than 0,1 promille well say goodbye to your driving license for a few months and expensive tests.....

BTW: how expensive is the driving license in the USA ? i paided about 1850 dollar for mine 2 years ago...so i would never risk my driving licence and livives of others for a few beers....

Here in the states, some states do have laws that punish those that "over serve" an intoxicated person. It is also against the law to sell or serve someone under the legal drinking age.

Your point of drinking laws for your country, shows that if you "de-mystify" the myth - then there may be less problems.

Not sure what the current situation is, but back in 1974 my drivers license was dirt cheap. The state paid for my drivers ed. The learners permit and final drivers license were probably less than $10 each. My parents did pay a drivers ed company to provide more time behind the wheel, and that cost was about $100. Using an inflation calculator that works out to about $500 dollars today.

The problem in the US as i see it the drivers license is looked upon as a right, not a privilege that most state laws describe it.

takao
Apr 21, 2004, 12:30 PM
Your point of drinking laws for your country, shows that if you "de-mystify" the myth - then there may be less problems.


sure there are problems with alkohol etc.
but if somebody with 14/15 gets caught by the police drinking alkohol they get more problems with the parents after they had to pick them up at the police station or similar things ...and if the caught one is near the house or some friends are bringing him home they are genrous ("so guys pick up your friend and bring hime home fast, and i don't like to see you guys later in the night") and girls are taken home by police car.. far from being like in the US media/tv (the laughter of us when we saw 'reports' about GW Bushs daughters drinking alkohol was unbelievable :rolleyes:)

Chip NoVaMac
Apr 21, 2004, 12:43 PM
sure there are problems with alkohol etc.
but if somebody with 14/15 gets caught by the police drinking alkohol they get more problems with the parents after they had to pick them up at the police station or similar things ...and if the caught one is near the house or some friends are bringing him home they are genrous ("so guys pick up your friend and bring hime home fast, and i don't like to see you guys later in the night") and girls are taken home by police car.. far from being like in the US media/tv (the laughter of us when we saw 'reports' about GW Bushs daughters drinking alkohol was unbelievable :rolleyes:)

You have a point about the difference in family values. Even as permissive at Europe in general seems to be, the sense of family goes a lot further. Given that I am second generation American from Slovak stock, I can attest to the power that my parents had.

Sparky's
Apr 21, 2004, 08:52 PM
Here in the states, some states do have laws that punish those that "over serve" an intoxicated person. It is also against the law to sell or serve someone under the legal drinking age.

Your point of drinking laws for your country, shows that if you "de-mystify" the myth - then there may be less problems.

Not sure what the current situation is, but back in 1974 my drivers license was dirt cheap. The state paid for my drivers ed. The learners permit and final drivers license were probably less than $10 each. My parents did pay a drivers ed company to provide more time behind the wheel, and that cost was about $100. Using an inflation calculator that works out to about $500 dollars today.

The problem in the US as i see it the drivers license is looked upon as a right, not a privilege that most state laws describe it.

And back in '74 a 502 (as it was known then) would only set you back about $300 and an overnight stay in the local lock-up. Today a DUI will cost you about $1,000 in fines 48 in jail (minimum), hours of community service (depending on the judges attitude that morning) and if you bring in a lawyer, you better have deep pockets. Not to mention a 6 month suspension of your drivers license, insurance that you won't be able to get and if you do can't afford. Yes times have changed.
Yes I am speaking from experience. I got poped in '73 doing 80 on my bike after chugging what was left of a liter of wine (Kawasaki 750 triple 2-stroke) on a deserted road driving right by the Hiway Patrol (CA). My blood alcohol level was only 1.0. One of my friends got nailed after leaving the dart bar at closing in 1995 he's never driven since. His blood alcohol was 1.6