As soon as you can define "frivolous" to stand up to the requirements of law, then you can do this. Usually, the judge will determine this in pre-trial, so you don't really need such a law. It's what judges are for.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
83-Year Old Suing Apple After Walking into Glass Doors at Retail Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As soon as you can define "frivolous" to stand up to the requirements of law, then you can do this. Usually, the judge will determine this in pre-trial, so you don't really need such a law. It's what judges are for.
A person who knows she has bad eyesight needs to apply more care when approaching a store with an all-glass front. She must know it can't be all open doors.
Another frivolous law suit by a person who'd never get a million dollars otherwise.
It would also be interest what kind of treatment for a broken nose costs 75 000 $.
Maybe the gold dust inhaling therapy?
Another frivolous law suit by a person who'd never get a million dollars otherwise.
It would also be interest what kind of treatment for a broken nose costs 75 000 $.
Maybe the gold dust inhaling therapy?
How did you not realize you were walking into glass by the time you managed break your nose ... ? That almost takes effort ...
The real question is does it cause third degree burns in the mouth? The possibility of spilling it is not a valid excuse for lowering the temperature, and now people are complaining that establishments now serve coffee too cold for their taste.
Your ERs (EDs) might have a different story. Regardless, usually the temp of the tea is cooled considerably by the time you add your condiments and sip the tea (air cooling).
BTW, "instant coffee"? Yikes. Used here only if there's absolutely no other choice.
It was shown that there were multiple complaints (over 700) for people suffering burns, some of which McDonalds paid about a half million towards. But the fact that it was spilled wasn't the crux of the case - it was a negligence cased based on the temperature. That's why McDonalds was found to be 80% liable - the fault of the spilling was determined to be the plaintiff's fault. Undoubtedly though the judge figured that McDonalds was aware that spills were possible though.
No it's not. In the McDonald's case, it wasn't hot coffee...it was BOILING coffee that caused third degree burns and if I remember the case properly, in spite of the postings above, it wasn't a spill, it was that the coffee was so hot, it melted the styrofoam cup it was in and the bottom fell out (unless that was a different case). That's a perfectly legit lawsuit, unlike this one. The press turned that one into something it was not.
What I don't understand about this case is how she broke her nose. Don't your feet preceed your nose? Didn't her cane precede her body?
If the broken nose required a "nose job", the $75K might actually not be that far out of line if she spent a week in the hospital. Hospital fees are completely outrageous today. But the $1 million for suffering? That's coming from the lawyer who wants his big contingency fee. But I bet Apple settles this one. It's too costly to go to court and if it's a jury trial, the jury will reward the woman just because it's an old lady vs. a big corporate entity with lots of money.
Never said that. I use a cupholder. I said that we've all had coffee spilled on us at some point.
Nope. Not what I said. I said that a change as little as ten degrees makes a lot of difference to the effectiveness of our reaction time.
----------
Judging by the photo of her burns that someone posted above, I believe that it would have caused third degree burns in her mouth. And that is why the spill is irrelevant. Coffee needs to be hot, but not that hot.
Agreed. Mac people used to be smarter and more open-minded ones in the crowd. Times have changed, I guess. Embarrassing.
+1. Times have changed. Whether you agree with someone/thing or not, online common courtesy has gone the way of the dodo.
WTH??? Do you think before replying to posts???
Coffee is meant to be brewed hot, and you are meant to wait until it's at the right temperature for you to drink it. Wise up!
If you always go for the max, you will have to live with the assessment of being greedy. Otherwise you would find a number that is reasonable to you and pursued that. If your claim rises as your case becomes better, you are per definition greedy.
The ruling found the 83 deg coffee excessively hot and thus defective. That is stupid no matter how bad McDonalds handling of the situation / the case was. The ruling further found that McDonalds is 80% at fault for a dumb broad scalding her thighs with said coffee. Again stupid no matter how you phrase it.
T.
what about the fact that this happened in december and that apple store probably had a constant flow of people coming in and out. How did she not notice people opening the door and walking in or out as she approached it.
When I read these sort of hateful comments on these boards, it makes me embarrassed to be a member of the MR community.
Anyway, everyone here should remember that unless they die prematurely, they will also be old one day. So let's lay off the "thinning the herd" and "natural selection" comments, shall we? Keep in mind that this person is likely just following a lawyer's advice.
Wow, that provided a good laugh.
So you think drinking a freshly poured coffee should melt your skin off. Wow, bravo.
Yes, it should be hot. It shouldn't melt your skin off. Wise up!
Last edited:
Apple clear glass
Lmao she was probably texting on her blackberry and as a result was trying to enter an apple store with that atrocity. No RIM allowed !!!
Lmao she was probably texting on her blackberry and as a result was trying to enter an apple store with that atrocity. No RIM allowed !!!
So she's an idiot, and Apple has to pay?
They should sue her for smudging their windows.
----------
The lawyer she sought out after slamming her face into a glass door? Did she assume the door's handles we're just floating in mid-air? "I've heard of Apple's magical devices, but this is crazy!"
Screw her.
They should sue her for smudging their windows.
----------
The lawyer she sought out after slamming her face into a glass door? Did she assume the door's handles we're just floating in mid-air? "I've heard of Apple's magical devices, but this is crazy!"
Screw her.
Then maybe she should have used a cup holder. It was a frivolous lawsuit thats why she didn't get the 2.7 million she was awarded after appeals and was forced to settle with McDonalds. Coffee is hot, Iced Coffee is cold, Tea is hot, Iced Tea is cold. Whats next I am suing Macrumors because I got carpel tunnel from typing!!!!
BTW: On Topic lots of people walked into the doors when I worked at Apple. Most just walked it off or left very fast to avoid being embarrassed.
Everyone knows that most of apples stores are all glass, even if you have never been to one. Either way this is her fault and apple should win, no one should be able to sue another person for waling into a building, dumb, now if you excuse me I am going to walk off the empire state building and if I am still alive I am going to sue them for making the building to big!
I'm not defending Apple on this one. Just common sense. This case should be thrown out. Apple isn't the only one with glass entrances. Many stores have them. Doesn't mean Apple should be excluded out for having them. Looks like everybody knows they got money, so of course they should be open to all kinds of suing cases to get some money from them. If Apple gets successfully sued, then I have a whole list of stores who would have target symbols on them. (Not including Target, though. Haven't seen glass entrances on those stores)
Oh you're so late to the game man.
To the rest; I don't understand why you're still arguing about the McD case. It's long over, the court determined that the woman was only 20% to blame for the incident while McD deserved 80% of the blame. Case closed.