Hasn't Microsoft been crashing Window's for years? I guess she is learning from the best!
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
Hasn't Microsoft been crashing Window's for years? I guess she is learning from the best!
It's pretty simple. Spills don't caust burns. Applied heat does.
Go back to science class. Seriously, how are you not already too embarassed to keep posting?
(And with that I'm done talking to you Mattie Num Nums.)
Last edited:
It was not frivolous. If it was frivolous the case would have been dismissed. There was in fact merit and the judge assigned 80% blame to McDonalds. Yes, the awards were reduced, but that doesn't mean anything accept that the judge didn't agree with the penalties that the jury dished out. That happens - Judges have the right to reduce damages based on what they feel is appropriate.
It was both parties that appealed the decision. Mrs Liebeck was not "forced to settle". Settlements are mutual agreements.
It's not supposed to be poured on your skin while hot; doing so would be called stupid or an unfortunate accident; you decide. So be careful and wise up!.
Most of the time, a coffee burn becomes more critical when poured on synthetic clothing that melts and sticks to the skin, causing severe skin damage.
So it's not just the hot coffee, but the combination of hot coffee with synthetic clothing such as nylon, polyester, etc. In case of an old lady, a melting panty hose would cause more damage than just hot coffee over cotton clothing.
But isn't that really missing the point? It IS supposed to go down your throat while hot, which in this case would have been far worse. I'm just saying that if she didn't spill it and instead drank it (which is expected of her) I feel the injury would have actually been far worse.
Interesting theory about the clothing, but the courts did look into that and it seems they decided that the coffee posed an unreasonable risk regardless of her clothing. The clothing may have aggrevated the damage, making a "clean" wound more difficult to bandage and heal, but it wouldn't turn a second degree burn into a third degree burn. Only more heat can do that. I'm sure the clothing did make it worse, but coffee that hot could do terrible, irreversible damage to someone's mouth. Coffee shouldn't be able to melt clothing.
Last edited:
The problem with citing that case is you don't seem to know anything about it. She wasn't initially even seeking a large amount. It was initially just about medical bills after suffering burns. The thing being that the settlement bought her silence on the matter, while McDonalds could still talk about it. The annoying thing is that these lawsuits are turned into quick headlines. Some of them are remarkably stupid, but you really can't tell from reading a brief headline.
That's not what happened at all. McDonalds refused to settle with her, it went to court, she asked for medical, she got 80% medical + 2.7 million in damages, McDonalds appealed, and the two parties settled for less than 600K.
Spills do cause burns. A cup of hot water doesn't burn you sitting in a cup, it burns you when its spilled.
Exactly the kind of post that gives Apple lovers a bad reputation.
You can hate what she did, but don't hate the person. And if you look at my other posts on this topic, you will see that I do not agree that the claims are in any way reasonable.
I believe the plaintiff (the victim) also appealed - likely she appealed the reduction that the judge imposed.
Water is required to be hot to brew coffee, what are they supposed to chill it before serving it? Its COFFEE, its HOT. Regardless if its a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree burn...its still going to burn you. 140F water will burn you in 5 seconds, its still a BURN.
I dont know anyone that takes COFFEE and tries to chug it as soon as it is poured, this is what milk, creamer, ice, etc... are for.
Your argument is bs, she was not 10 years old. She knew coffee was hot.
The problem with the world today is PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Defending every stupid person that thinks they are entitled to $600,000k because THEY(THEM SELF) spilled COFFEE on their own body out of a cup which was LABELED(HOT).
Im still not sure how $11,000 in injuries somehow transformed into them deserving $600,000.
Oh and calling everyone idiots and morons is hopefully going to get you a nice timeout.
Water is required to be hot to brew coffee, what are they supposed to chill it before serving it? Its COFFEE, its HOT. Regardless if its a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree burn...its still going to burn you. 140F water will burn you in 5 seconds, its still a BURN.
I dont know anyone that takes COFFEE and tries to chug it as soon as it is poured, this is what milk, creamer, ice, etc... are for.
Your argument is bs, she was not 10 years old. She knew coffee was hot.
The problem with the world today is PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Defending every stupid person that thinks they are entitled to $600,000k because THEY(THEM SELF) spilled COFFEE on their own body out of a cup which was LABELED(HOT).
Im still not sure how $11,000 in injuries somehow transformed into them deserving $600,000.
Oh and calling everyone idiots and morons is hopefully going to get you a nice timeout.
The figures I've read suggest it was higher than $11,000, and that McDonalds did not wish to cover that at all initially. Third degree burns are pretty brutal. That's not just blistering. That indicates several layers of skin melted. A first degree burn will not require a trip to the hospital. It gets red, you cool it down. Pain should at least be gone by the following day. That's really not the same as requiring skin grafts, and people are unlikely to anticipate such a risk from a cup of coffee. If you look over some of the threads on here, people are pretty damn clumsy, and it happens to everyone at some point. How many times have you noted threads on spilled x liquid on my laptop? Anyway note my response below. They could have paid her medical bills (before it turned into a lawsuit), adjusted their temperatures to something lower, and moved on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
I don't always cite wiki, but it has a nice collection of source and reference links on the page
. I can't find any info how the 2.7 million in punitive damages became a number. Considering the references to other cases available and that they had been sued on such matters before, it should have been adjusted already. No one would expect a cup of coffee to cause third degree burns. In this one, McDonalds should have just covered medical right away, adjusted their policies accordingly and left it at that.
Last edited:
Water is required to be hot to brew coffee, what are they supposed to chill it before serving it? Its COFFEE, its HOT. Regardless if its a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree burn...its still going to burn you. 140F water will burn you in 5 seconds, its still a BURN.
I dont know anyone that takes COFFEE and tries to chug it as soon as it is poured, this is what milk, creamer, ice, etc... are for.
Your argument is bs, she was not 10 years old. She knew coffee was hot.
The problem with the world today is PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Defending every stupid person that thinks they are entitled to $600,000k because THEY(THEM SELF) spilled COFFEE on their own body out of a cup which was LABELED(HOT).
Im still not sure how $11,000 in injuries somehow transformed into them deserving $600,000.
Oh and calling everyone idiots and morons is hopefully going to get you a nice timeout.
Are you for real?
I'm the problem with the world.
A first and third degree burn are the same thing.
No one in the world drinks black coffee.
This is amazing.
Last edited:
It's true. You're better off to kill them (before they cross your threshold, then you have no legal recourse... and put a knife in their hand food good measure) than to let them leave injured.
There was a burglar who sued for being bitten by a dog in the home he was robbing... wait, I think that burglar might be this old bitty's son!
It's all so disheartening. I hate seeing people abuse our legal system. I really hope this elderly woman doesn't get any money from Apple. I'd be willing to review the facts, but from what we already know this case stinks to high heaven.
McDonalds has payed already millions to a lady with a hot coffee burn. $75000 is nothing in comparison. Even if awarded lawyers will gat a big chunk.
This is America. Apple itself has been abusing legal system with all these ridicules law suites.
So the 83-Year Old is just playing by the rules established by these corporations.
If you want to get technical, you're BOTH wrong and you're BOTH right..
This is a case of cause and effect. More so root cause analysis.
The effect: Stupid %#)%# at McDonalds had burns on her legs,lap.
How? Scalding hot coffee had contact on her legs.
How? The coffee was spilled.
How? The woman put the cup between her legs instead of inside the cup holder, and went all thight master and squeezed her legs shut, forcing the lid off and the liquid to overflow.
How? She ordred hot coffee and it was served to her out of the drive through window.
Thanks for an amusing argument though. If oil were spilled in the road, it's the oil that causes the accident, not the spill... as I understand your logic.
The other guy says it's the spill that causes an accident, not the oil as I undrstand his logic.
Well, you can't have the oil in the road without the spill...
Funny post. This is what this thread needed.
I'm really just saying that heat causes burns, spilled or not. If it wasn't spilled in her lap it would have been poured down her throat when she drank it. The real problem therefore was the temperature of the beverage, not the fact that she spilled it. Spilling it only decided where the burn would be.
I feel I agree with the court, that she is 20% responsible and McDonald's is 80% responsible.
I'm loving this thread too. Sure made my day go by quicker.
For those who are intreseted a cope of her lawsuit is avaliable here:
http://pdf.ifoman.com.s3.amazonaws.com/passwall_lawsuit.pdf
The basis of her claim is that there was a previously documented similar incident at the Lincoln Park store and hence Apple should have been aware of the potential for her injury and did not act to prevent it.
http://pdf.ifoman.com.s3.amazonaws.com/passwall_lawsuit.pdf
The basis of her claim is that there was a previously documented similar incident at the Lincoln Park store and hence Apple should have been aware of the potential for her injury and did not act to prevent it.