Apple Sued Over Online Apple Store Receipts

[megfilmworks]

If not for class action lawsuits who would protect consumer rights? Big Business? Inept Government? People, any real solutions out there?
Until then, thank your lucky stars for class action lawsuits and the threat of them. Otherwise you would be the victim of reckless commerce and outright fraud. That being said, I think we could do with a whole lot less of the "get rich" law degrees.

 

[itcheroni]

If not for class action lawsuits who would protect consumer rights? Big Business? Inept Government? People, any real solutions out there?
Until then, thank your lucky stars for class action lawsuits and the threat of them. Otherwise you would be the victim of reckless commerce and outright fraud. That being said, I think we could do with a whole lot less of the "get rich" law degrees.

If you know of a way to get rich with a law degree, please do tell.

 

[tikitavi7]

Up a ways the post that started the run of quotes from old plays and then the contemporary death threats completely lacking a sense of irony, in that post the argument that frivolous lawsuits are good and should be allowed to continue because they are the American Way is like arguing that we should tolerate child molesters and not speak out against them because having your children molested is part of the risk of having children. We are not compelled to accept the bad with the good without attempting to fix the bad. The right in this country to sue anyone for anything is important policy; the right to chastise some plaintiffs' attorneys for abusing that right is just as important.

But it should be understood this is *not* about protecting consumers from Apple's "reckless" online receipt displays. It's about money, and not for consumers "damaged" by this practice. This isn't a bunch of Apple customers who noticed this practice potentially in violation of federal consumer protection laws who then found a trial firm willing to take the case on contingency and thus moved forward with aiding in protecting us all. These are plaintiffs' attorneys who go out and *troll* for these sort of violations on potential technicalities and then *recruit* clients to act as named parties for the class. That's indefensible on ethical grounds. It's one thing to say it's important we should be able to sue anyone for anything no matter how trivial, it's another thing to say it's okay to subvert reasonable ethic to actually do it just for money. Do I think greater restrictions should be placed on the right to sue in the States? No. Do I think the plaintiffs and attorneys in some ridiculous suits should called upon to apply higher ethical standards in exercising this right? Yes.

As for the McDonald's case the punitive reward was far out of scale with what happened. As I recall, and I'm not bothering to look up that case so grab a grain of salt, the actual damages award was rather small and reasonable, chiefly covering the woman's medical expenses. And a punitive award was called for; the woman was after all somewhat permanently disfigured. But tens or hundreds of millions in punitive damages should be reserved for cases of gross misconduct -- discovering from human trials that will be redacted or buried that a new drug developed to treat a trivial or non-critical condition will kill or injure lots of people, but marketing it anyway; not incorrectly following the procedure for making fast food coffee -- and the same in actual damages is reasonably reserved for the chronic lifelong care of some who has been severely, permanently disabled by negligence. Also, as I recall, the punitive award in that ridiculously infamous coffee case was significantly reduced upon appeal. That's how it goes with awards of that size: the popular press makes sure *everyone* hear about it, but 18 months later when the award is reduced on appeal, there's little but a brief mention.

The Monkey sounds like he might be a trial lawyer, related to one or aspiring to the profession. May he and any other trial lawyers feeling put upon please see my postscript to a previous post a few pages back: to wit, I don't hate you, I think most of you serve us all well and play an irreplaceable role in defending the public and our limited resources against professional malpractice big business and with their often massive war-chests. But you can't justify fishing for stupid cases like this merely to make a buck.

This receipt case is just stupid, even if "printed" can be interpreted to mean an online display. If the plaintiffs' attorneys are so altruistic, why not merely write a few letters to Apple's corporate counsel explaining why they think Apple may be in violation of a federal consumer protection law?
.

... I hope "the Monkey" doesn't mean me. After all, my screen name is a reference to a mongoose, not a monkey. And I am not a trial lawyer, am unrelated to any trial lawyers, and have zero aspirations to be any sort of attorney.

Anyway, if it's me Sanford is referring to, I never said frivolous lawsuits suits should be allowed to continue because they are the American way; I only said that lawsuits are part of living in this country, and that they are a function of the fed. govt's attitude concerning business and the relationship between business and consumers. That's closer to arguing that better federal regulation of business practices would reduce the number of these kinds of lawsuits than it is to asserting that frivolous lawsuits are the American way.

So if it is to me that Sanford is replying, he/she has to a certain degree mischaracterized what I said ... but he/she is also guilty of an apples-to-oranges comparison. Quoth my probable interlocutor: "In that post the argument that frivolous lawsuits are good and should be allowed to continue because they are the American Way is like arguing that we should tolerate child molesters and not speak out against them because having your children molested is part of the risk of having children." Really? Because I'm pretty sure that these kinds of lawsuits, which result at most in monetary compensation, are quite different from child molestation, which (and you can ask any kid who's been molested) results in something radically different. Not to mention that filing a lawsuit is perfectly legal, while molesting a child is most certainly not ....

 

[megfilmworks]

If you know of a way to get rich with a law degree, please do tell.

Yeah, I guess there are just too many lawyers, kinda a dime a dozen. Used to be the sure fire career. And the lawyers who do the best work for society will make the least.

.I only said that lawsuits are part of living in this country, and that they are a function of the fed. govt's attitude concerning business and the relationship between business and consumers.

I agree. You don't take everyone's freedom away from them because of terrorism, and you don't stop class action lawsuits because some people abuse the form.
That is the price we pay to attempt to live in a free society.
That is the American way.

 

[bousozoku]

.

Thanks for the moderating....I intended no offence with my quote of the Bard.
Just a bit of levity is all.

I'm sure there are many fine lawyers out there who do what they do for the cause not the effect.

Meanwhile, I'm very pleased to see the conversation turn to more erudite matters......
Yes, Will was quite the contractionist.

As for the boiling coffee...I had one from MacD the other day and it was so scalding hot that it would have melted flesh! So what does that say about the system?

It tells me that people should be smart enough not to put hot coffee in between their legs. The system did its work and the jury dealt justice to the big evil company. Perhaps, she should have also sued Bunn for making a coffee maker that made hot coffee.

The woman suffered burns due to the coffee. The damages she received included medical expenses and pain and suffering which we should all agree is reasonable. But her big windfall was in punitive damages. The purpose of punitive damages is to change the defendant's conduct. A company as large as McDonald's will not change their behavior for just $10,000. The way they calculated the punitive was by adding up two days worth of nationwide coffee sales. The point is to make it large enough so McDonald's won't do it again.

For those who don't understand this logic-remember the Ford Pinto. Ford did the math; they could have added a part to the Pinto for less than $100 per car or pay out an average of $200,000 per death. The total for fixing the Pintos were higher than if they just paid out per death, so they didn't fix it.

There is a difference. People were caught in an accident in a Pinto and they died. McDonald's weren't able to regulate the placement of the coffee once the woman took hold of it. If they had, it's likely that she would not have been burned.

 

[itcheroni]

There is a difference. People were caught in an accident in a Pinto and they died. McDonald's weren't able to regulate the placement of the coffee once the woman took hold of it. If they had, it's likely that she would not have been burned.

My point is that the Pinto illustrates why we need punitive awards and the McDonald's coffee lady is an example of a punitive award.

As for not putting hot coffee between your legs, it may seem like common sense. But the coffee though was hot enough to give the woman 3rd degree burns. A person might go ahead and do something stupid like risk spilling hot coffee on themselves, but would they do the same thing if they knew it would severely burn them? If a warning, such as "hot coffee: may cause severe burns" would cause people to act differently, then they may be required to make such a warning. I'm not read up on the case, so I'm not sure, but this seems to be the reasoning.

 

[Docrjm]

All things aside, you need to remember that McDonalds did a lot of things wrong in that case. Firstly, they knew that the coffee makers were malfunctioning ahead of time, and that there was potential for someone to get hurt. Secondly, they didn't do anything to fix the problem, and thirdly, how do you get 3rd degree burns from coffee? This lady was an old grandma who didn't like to go around suing people, but she had no other choice after McDonalds gave her the brush-off. What she did allowed others to know that they don't have to take abuse from corporations.

Back to Apple though, if they are quilty of doing what the plantiffs aledge, then Apple deserves to pay up. It will only make the company we all love stronger if they have to be mindful of consumers' wishes.

You let the hot liquid to stay on your skin for a prolonged period of time, you can get 3rd degree burns with 60C temps.

 

[The Monkey]

The Monkey sounds like he might be a trial lawyer, related to one or aspiring to the profession. May he and any other trial lawyers feeling put upon please see my postscript to a previous post a few pages back: to wit, I don't hate you, I think most of you serve us all well and play an irreplaceable role in defending the public and our limited resources against professional malpractice big business and with their often massive war-chests. But you can't justify fishing for stupid cases like this merely to make a buck.

A lawyer with experience, yes. A member of the Plaintiff's bar, no. Many of my clients get hit with frivolous lawsuits. It sucks. But it's a balancing act, and one that works in this country. The alternative is to shut the doors to the courtrooms for all but the richest, biggest corporations. I am always amazed by how pro-corporation so many of you are at heart--this from a defender of coporate America.

 

[aristotle]

A lawyer with experience, yes. A member of the Plaintiff's bar, no. Many of my clients get hit with frivolous lawsuits. It sucks. But it's a balancing act, and one that works in this country. The alternative is to shut the doors to the courtrooms for all but the richest, biggest corporations. I am always amazed by how pro-corporation so many of you are at heart--this from a defender of coporate America.

This is not just some blind defending of Corporate America but rather a fight against establishment of ridiculous precedents which would not only hinder Apple and existing corporations but any corporation any one of us might found in the future.

This lawsuit also has the potential of making my life as a consumer even more onerous and it could ironically open up consumers to fraud caused by man in the middle attacks. I want to have my address appear in the order confirmation page so I can use it for future reference should a dispute arise or my shipment disappear in transit.

I see nothing wrong with what appears there.

We have the following:
Billing Address (often same as shipping address)
Last four numbers of the credit card and expiry date.

Showing the billing address and the shipping address (if different) can help establish whether the purchase was made fraudulently by a third-party. Showing the last four digits and expiry can help determine which card was used.

 

[oldwatery]

A lawyer with experience, yes. A member of the Plaintiff's bar, no. Many of my clients get hit with frivolous lawsuits. It sucks. But it's a balancing act, and one that works in this country. The alternative is to shut the doors to the courtrooms for all but the richest, biggest corporations. I am always amazed by how pro-corporation so many of you are at heart--this from a defender of coporate America.

Yeh it really sucks....cha ching

But seriously
it's not about pro corporation or being on whatever "side".
It's about people taking responsibility. It's about reason. It's about civility.

For you or anyone else to suggest that we need to explore the extremes of reason to get justice is absurd. You use the end to justify the means. And the means is what sucks!

This law suit defines the meaning of frivolous and the people involved are doing nothing to further the general good of "The People". Just themselves.

 

[CalBoy]

You let the hot liquid to stay on your skin for a prolonged period of time, you can get 3rd degree burns with 60C temps.

I seriously doubt she let the liquid stay on her lap for a long time. When something like that happens, your reflex is to move in a manner to get the coffee/liquid off of you.

Anyways, the point is that sometimes lawsuits like this and the one Apple is about to face, bring important issues to the fore. In this case, even if Apple was doing everything right, the judge may decide that it is relevant to protect consumers, and force all online retailers to follow the same rules as other retailers (after all, we all know the principle of stare decisis ).

After all, the Kansas board of education was following the letter of the law, but that didn't make it anymore right. I suspect that Apple is following the letter of the law, but that it still may not be enough to help fight identity theft. Who cares if it's a sleeze ball that starts the case? As long as the right thing is done in the end, the general public will benefit.

All that said, and I'm still not sure whether or not this lawsuit has any reasonable foundation. Thankfully, that decision is not up to me, or any of the posters on this forum, since we don't know all the facts yet. The people who do (namely the judge for the case, and the potential jury), should be trusted to make the right decision, as they will/should have all the relevant facts before them; a luxury none of us has at this point.

 

[gnasher729]

IWow. I have to pretty much disagree with you 100% there. I thought the McDonalds case was absolutely pathetic. Thats the difference between American/British culture with regards to these things I guess.

Actually, I didn't. The plaintiff had originally asked for her hospital bills to be paid. The jury then went a bit overboard with their damages, but the judge fixed that.

It is common sense that spilling coffee over you will hurt, and it will also make it necessary to clean your clothes, so people avoid it. It is not at all common sense to expect coffee to cause third degree burns. The injuries that this woman suffered were not something I would wish anyone to suffer, and not something that I would expect as the natural risk of drinking coffee. If you showed your wife/girlfriend/mother/daughter a description of the injuries, and asked her if she would want to suffer these injuries for $200,000, they would most likely refuse.

And MacDonald's had a history of several _hundred_ cases where people were injured, ending in settlements. So they clearly knew about the danger. And their coffee isn't as hot anymore...

 

[sanford]

... I hope "the Monkey" doesn't mean me. After all, my screen name is a reference to a mongoose, not a monkey. And I am not a trial lawyer, am unrelated to any trial lawyers, and have zero aspirations to be any sort of attorney.

Nope, tikitavi, I know my Kipling. "The Monkey" meant, well, some guy named The Monkey -- who did turn out to be a lawyer, which would explain why he was so defensive. He posted above you

...That's closer to arguing that better federal regulation of business practices would reduce the number of these kinds of lawsuits than it is to asserting that frivolous lawsuits are the American way.

If you want to promote increasing federal regulation of free market business practices, then we'd likely agree.

So if it is to me that Sanford is replying, he/she...

Thanks for the gender neutrality, but if someone ever named their girl Sanford, well poor, poor child.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure that these kinds of lawsuits, which result at most in monetary compensation, are quite different from child molestation, which (and you can ask any kid who's been molested) results in something radically different. Not to mention that filing a lawsuit is perfectly legal, while molesting a child is most certainly not ....

As to the latter argument, it my statement was hyperbole, an accentuation of taking the bad with good, to emphasize my point. But, still, as to the former argument, that's naive. Monetary compensation is one results, but it's not the most, which can include sanctions against the business's future conduct, etc. And we're just talking about the outcome of the suit. It hardly stops at monetary compensation. *Frivolous* suits to "protect" consumers result in higher prices for these consumers and lower wages for employees, who when they punch off the clock become these same consumers the suits ostensibly seek to protect. With friends like those...

Anyway, I'm not against class actions. I'm not even willing to say I would be willing to restrict by law a class action such as this. But I do think it's entirely appropriate to call *this* class action, or any such action in which the plaintiffs' attorneys go fishing for a violation and then drum up private parties to then *become* injured by the violation which is already known to them, ridiculous and unethical.

 

[sanford]

A lawyer with experience, yes. A member of the Plaintiff's bar, no. Many of my clients get hit with frivolous lawsuits. It sucks. But it's a balancing act, and one that works in this country. The alternative is to shut the doors to the courtrooms for all but the richest, biggest corporations. I am always amazed by how pro-corporation so many of you are at heart--this from a defender of coporate America.

Yeah, that's explains why you were so defensive. And I'm hardly pro-corporation. But I can't tolerate plaintiff's attorneys who, as I mentioned above, obviously fish for violations and then enlist parties to become injured by that violation so they can then file suit. Speaking of violations, that's a violation of both legal and common ethics.

As to your defensiveness, I don't blame you. I know quite a few attorneys and all of you catch hell for the actions of a few. There are many situations in life in which you may find yourself, civil and criminal, in which you are a victim or at no great fault in actions, when a good attorney is your best friend on earth. Anyway, you can go and read my postscript to trial lawyers a couple pages back: Don't want to repeat the whole thing here, but in summary, some members of the Plaintiff's Bar are true heroes of our society who protect people of limited means and even restore some of them as best as possible to their circumstances before their injury -- not just physical injury. So I not only don't hate or blame all attorneys, I don't have ill will even to all trial lawyers. But, yeah, goofballs like this suing Apple over a drummed-up case on an obvious gray area over an online order confirmation: they should be disbarred whether they've strictly earned it by the applicable code of ethics or not. They're making a fortune on settlements, they may cost me more money every time I buy an Apple product, and their suit does not reasonably protect me as the matter of harm or risk here is entirely trivial.

 

[alec]

yesssssss....

i can't wait to get my 58 cents in the mail!!

 

[oldwatery]

Yeah, that's explains why you were so defensive. And I'm hardly pro-corporation. But I can't tolerate plaintiff's attorneys who, as I mentioned above, obviously fish for violations and then enlist parties to become injured by that violation so they can then file suit. Speaking of violations, that's a violation of both legal and common ethics.

As to your defensiveness, I don't blame you. I know quite a few attorneys and all of you catch hell for the actions of a few. There are many situations in life in which you may find yourself, civil and criminal, in which you are a victim or at no great fault in actions, when a good attorney is your best friend on earth. Anyway, you can go and read my postscript to trial lawyers a couple pages back: Don't want to repeat the whole thing here, but in summary, some members of the Plaintiff's Bar are true heroes of our society who protect people of limited means and even restore some of them as best as possible to their circumstances before their injury -- not just physical injury. So I not only don't hate or blame all attorneys, I don't have ill will even to all trial lawyers. But, yeah, goofballs like this suing Apple over a drummed-up case on an obvious gray area over an online order confirmation: they should be disbarred whether they've strictly earned it by the applicable code of ethics or not. They're making a fortune on settlements, they may cost me more money every time I buy an Apple product, and their suit does not reasonably protect me as the matter of harm or risk here is entirely trivial.

Yes Sanford, like you I'm not into the blame the lawyer game but it strikes me that many of these Professionals use the law to further their own goals and not for the general good.
This is clearly one of those instances.

 

[guzhogi]

I'll admit, I haven't read the whole thing. But I feel people have a right & responsibilty to file lawsuits should someone hurt them. But people shouldn't file lawsuits just to get a quick buck or because of something stupid they did. Like people shouldn't sue McDonalds for spilling coffee between their legs. It's not like McDonalds makes those people sit w/ the coffee in between their legs. (Hint: that's why cars have cupholders!) As for punitive damages, I agree a big $$$ thing would help corporations change, but the $ shouldn't be paid to the victim. The victim already probably gets damages. Instead, the punitive money should go to charities that help prevent this from happening or those that help victims. There's a line in the John Cusack version of Runaway Jury that goes something like "I won't pay the widow a bunch of money just so she can break a heal on her new Gucci shoes on the way to the funeral." Greed is, unfortunately, the driving force in many of these lawsuits which is sad.

 

[edoates]

I'm going to point to it again: http://www.stellaawards.com/

To quote part of it:

"Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.) Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?"

Yes, hot coffee can burn you (in 2 to 7 seconds); people aren't aware of that fact; but people aren't aware, apparently, that falling off of a ladder can hurt you, too (about 40% of the price of a US ladder is for product liability claims). Next time you buy hair dryer or toaster, read the cautions: don't use in a bath tub! Maybe, people are stupid, but that shouldn't give them the right to assume someone else (that is, all of the rest of us) should pay for that stupidity.

The Pinto is an oft referenced, but flawed analogy. The Pinto was built like most cars in those days (1971ish) with the gas tank exposed at the rear of the car. Some of those collisions were rear enders at up to 70 miles per hour. Discovery found a memo, but there was never any proof that Ford acted due to that memo exclusively. There was also no proof that the $11 part would actually have fixed the problem. But juries feel sorry for folks who get burned, and since someone must pay, and Ford had (notice the past tense) lots of money, they did. (Edit: here is a nice reference to Pinto lawsuit urban legends, including the false $11 part and $200,000 per life claims: http://newmarksdoor.typepad.com/mainblog/2005/07/the_pinto_myth.html).

There is way to much of this in the US, and the list of nonsense suits or excessive awards for good suits is endless and a complete crap shoot. It is NOT the juries' fault, nor the plaintiffs, nor even their lawyers. It is the fault of judges who will let anything go to trial, accept pseudoscience as testimony, ignore actual science (see the thermisol and autism travesty which is proceeding as we speak), and the fault of congress and state legislators being in the pockets of the Trial Lawyers Association (since renamed something more appealing). If legislators were in the pockets of big business as many claim, you wouldn't be able to sue McDonald's if they came out and poured the hot coffee on you.

My point is that the Pinto illustrates why we need punitive awards and the McDonald's coffee lady is an example of a punitive award.

As for not putting hot coffee between your legs, it may seem like common sense. But the coffee though was hot enough to give the woman 3rd degree burns. A person might go ahead and do something stupid like risk spilling hot coffee on themselves, but would they do the same thing if they knew it would severely burn them? If a warning, such as "hot coffee: may cause severe burns" would cause people to act differently, then they may be required to make such a warning. I'm not read up on the case, so I'm not sure, but this seems to be the reasoning.

 

[tikitavi7]

... thanks for the response, Sanford. Gender neutrality always seems appropriate when dealing in screen names. Would you guess my gender by my screen name?

You're right about the "monetary compensation"; what I should've said is "monetary damages," which are the most significant damages that you can inflict against a company or corporation. Most if not all of the sanctions etc. that you mentioned boil down to money. If a judge tells a company that it can no longer do business in a certain way, then making that change will affect that company monetarily. Even shutting a company down completely is a matter of monetary damages, since the effect of that action is to discontinue the ability of the company to do business and hence make money. You can send executives to jail all day, for sure (although that certainly doesn't happen often enough), but against a corporation, the sad fact is in the end the most significant thing that you can do is affect it monetarily. The law simply cannot punish a company the same way that it can punish a real person. So no, that statement, while a bit imprecise, was most certainly not naive.

And believe it or not, there may be much more significant factors determining price increases than lawsuits which, in the end, often cost corporations what are to them fairly negligible amounts. Millions appear far larger to people than they do to corporations. That's precisely why punitive damages are often so large—they usually have to be affect change in a corporation's behavior (whereas, say, $50 in damages would be enough to affect my behavior). But as has already been argued here, punitive damages are often whittled down in appeal. Honestly, if it's the effect of these lawsuits on your wallet that's bugging you, you're probably better off looking at other factors (I mean besides the obviousness of supply and demand). Take, for instance, the $200 million in compensation the recently ousted CEO of Home Depot just received despite having led that company unprofitably. I'd argue that stuff like that (and the attitude behind it) is more the problem ...

 

[gnasher729]

I'm going to point to it again: http://www.stellaawards.com/

To quote part of it:

"Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.) Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?"

Yes, hot coffee can burn you (in 2 to 7 seconds); people aren't aware of that fact; but people aren't aware, apparently, that falling off of a ladder can hurt you, too (about 40% of the price of a US ladder is for product liability claims). Next time you buy hair dryer or toaster, read the cautions: don't use in a bath tub! Maybe, people are stupid, but that shouldn't give them the right to assume someone else (that is, all of the rest of us) should pay for that stupidity.

I'll give you another link: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

To quote part of it:

"McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. "

"During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard. "

"McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. "

"Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn. "

"McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving. "

So the first assertion from stellaawards, that the "National Coffee Association" recommends coffee to be kept at 185 degrees, may be true. However, following that recommendation and serving coffee at this temperature creates a substantial and unnecessary health hazard. That temperature is about 50 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than coffee you make at home. There were 700 cases of injuries caused by that temperature that McDonalds knew about. Serving coffee at the temperature that you do at home would have prevented the injury. And McDonalds knew that people bought coffee to drink it immediately.

So the first part of your stellaawards quote is deliberately misleading. You brew coffee at 200 degrees to drink it immediately - but not at that temperature! I can assure you that none of McDonalds lawyers would have drunk coffee at 200 degrees Fahrenheit, even if that had meant winning the case. And the ultrahot temperature does keep the coffee taste better, but it is dangerous! What follows can only be called a rant.

 

[sanford]

The Pinto is an oft referenced, but flawed analogy.

The Pinto case has been mythologized first by the novel "Fight Club" and then its popular film adaptation -- although neither work makes specific reference to the Pinto case. It's not uncommon today to hear people say that's how the *entire* auto industry determines whether or not to issue recalls. Before "Fight Club" it was an interesting footnote to a sensational case; now it's an admonition of the entire auto safety philosophy.

... thanks for the response, Sanford. Gender neutrality always seems appropriate when dealing in screen names. Would you guess my gender by my screen name?

You're male. Women aren't into Kipling.

So no, that statement, while a bit imprecise, was most certainly not naive.

I didn't mean you were naive to say that financially hitting a corporation is the best and often only good recourse for punishing it; I meant it was naive to say that it all stops at a monetary award paid by the corporation. The sheer number of profiteering, nuisance lawsuits of this type have significant financial repercussions in our economy.

Take, for instance, the $200 million in compensation the recently ousted CEO of Home Depot just received despite having led that company unprofitably. I'd argue that stuff like that (and the attitude behind it) is more the problem ...

Certainly there are other factors that affect retail price. I'd say right now, against most traditional b-school instruction, it's what the market will bear, even it if the market bearing it eventually breaks the back of the market. But liability is if not the most significant factor -- and I'd say it's not -- in what we pay for and services, it is a significant factor. Medical liability awards alone have driven malpractice insurance rates through the roof -- of course farther through the roof than is warranted by the awards paid out -- and substantially effects what we pay out of pocket for medical services, or in healthcare premiums, co-payments and, ahem, "co-insurance".

Still and all, I'm much, much more Nader than Enron or Tyco, so I doubt we disagree in general on the topic of consumer protection as much as it seems from this discussion.

 

[edoates]

So is the water which comes out of my HOT dispenser of my water dispenser. Coffee is supposed to be hot; knives are supposed to be sharp; ladders are supped to be high. It is up the use to take reasonable precautions when using these objects. Just because 1000 people fall off of ladders and The Little Ladder Company knows about it doesn't make it negligent. 700 people spilled not coffee on themselves. Probably a billion others managed to ingest coffee without such damage. If it was so da**ed dangerous, I would think the injury rate would be higher.

Face it, the suit was frivolous, the jury stupid, and the system flawed for not allowing individuals to take some responsibility for their actions. No one with even a single neuron left would put hot (even 150 degree coffee) between their legs and squeeze. I feel sorry for the woman who so erred, but it is her fault, or at least the fault of the person who was with her driving the car: "Grandma, don't do that, you'll burn yourself. Let me help you."

But it is so much easier to foist responsibility onto someone else for money.

But apparently we disagree. I do hope you never own a business and get sued because one of your customers drops one of your products on their foot and breaks a toe. You should know that those things are heavy and should have provided steel toed shoes (and put them on the customer yourself), and a warning, "Gravity still works."

The system is deeply flawed. Those who should get compensated frequently don't; those who deserve nothing sometimes win the legal lottery; and the lawyers always win. I don't advocate discarding the right to redress, monetary and otherwise, I just advocate reforming the system to make it just and proportionate.

Ed

I'll give you another link: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

To quote part of it:

So the first part of your stellaawards quote is deliberately misleading. You brew coffee at 200 degrees to drink it immediately - but not at that temperature! I can assure you that none of McDonalds lawyers would have drunk coffee at 200 degrees Fahrenheit, even if that had meant winning the case. And the ultrahot temperature does keep the coffee taste better, but it is dangerous! What follows can only be called a rant.

 

[bousozoku]

...
Face it, the suit was frivolous, the jury stupid, and the system flawed for not allowing individuals to take some responsibility for their actions. No one with even a single neuron left would put hot (even 150 degree coffee) between their legs and squeeze. I feel sorry for the woman who so erred, but it is her fault, or at least the fault of the person who was with her driving the car: "Grandma, don't do that, you'll burn yourself. Let me help you."
...

You would think that would be the case but plenty of people do things that could kill them every day. In Central Floriduh, people sit on the train tracks to get a jump on the green light on the other side. Somehow, for them, there is no danger from a train that weighs several times the weight of their car. Of course, it's the train's fault, if they're hit.

 

[gnasher729]

Face it, the suit was frivolous, the jury stupid, and the system flawed for not allowing individuals to take some responsibility for their actions. No one with even a single neuron left would put hot (even 150 degree coffee) between their legs and squeeze. I feel sorry for the woman who so erred, but it is her fault, or at least the fault of the person who was with her driving the car: "Grandma, don't do that, you'll burn yourself. Let me help you."

That's why her compensation was cut down by 20%: Twenty percent her fault for being stupid and putting a cup of coffee between her legs, 80 percent MacDonalds fault for serving coffee at 185 degrees instead of 150 (all Fahrenheit).

 

[Gasu E.]

Interesting: the lawsuit states that your eligibility to be part of the plaintiff class depends on when you installed the printer you printed the receipt with.

According to the lawsuit, if you installed your printer was "first put into use on or after January 1, 2005, any purchases after that are eligible. However if you put your printer into use prior to that date, only purchases after December 4, 2006 are eligible.

The lawsuit states this is explicit in the law. This restriction sounds absurd, unless you acknowledge that the law is clearly written with retail point of sales in mind. It seems Apple can easily claim that the law was not intended to cover online sales and receipts printed under the control of the customer on his own property.