Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mom sues Coors over son's death in accident

idkew said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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....
 
eyelikeart said:
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:
Click to expand...

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."
 
Chip NoVaMac said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
agreenster said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe the State should sue for past child neglect....
 
idkew said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
strider42 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TimDaddy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
agreenster said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Chip NoVaMac said:
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!
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
TimDaddy said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

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....
 
Chip NoVaMac said:
Maybe the State should sue for past child neglect....
Click to expand...

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... :(
 
MongoTheGeek said:
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."
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
It's all a question of motives...

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.
 
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
 
Chip NoVaMac said:
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....
Click to expand...

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 sh*t 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!
 
TimDaddy said:
You can't serve poison.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Chip NoVaMac said:
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....
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 s**t!), 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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back