# Woman That Found Finger In Chili Arrested



## Kane (Apr 26, 2005)

Reference Article: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/22/wendys.finger.ap/

  This actually happened a few days ago.

 I don't know about you, but this finger in the chili case has really effected my family's and myself's lives. Because her attempt of lieng to get money, she has ruined many people's lives too. My father father owns a Wendys and he has reported that he has lost more sales than ever before, over $50,000 this month. Because of it it is becoming hard for my father to pay my college tuition money and there has been even more tension between my parents now who are already having many problems with each other. Of course it is easy to say "Just apply for a loan" but I am already two years into college and trying to get loan now would be extremely difficult at the moment. No matter, why is that people are waiting for to grab money? Don't these people know when they cost these big franchises like Wendys money for their selfish desires for money that it really hurts the people who are employed in that franchise?

 Honestly I hope this lady gets a long time in prison. She has ruined so many people's lives, including my own. Why do you think people are suing so much more now than they did 30 or 40 years ago? I think it has to do with the fact that there are too many lawyers in this country, and corrupt one for that. What do you think we should do to stop people from trying to get money by ruining other people's lives by trying to sue them? Why can't these people work for money? The woman should have robbed a bank and try to get away with it, at least in that situation your not hurting a company of workers.

 My father came to this country from India with not much money in his pocket, but he worked his way up and finally achieved the American Dream and owns his own business. I'm sure at that time if my father knew how how many corrupt people and lawyers are in this country, he would have never thought about coming here. He did have a good business degree in India and could have saved a lot of money if he did stay there. India may not be the richest country, but like money countries in the world people aren't out to make up lies and sue you for your money.


----------



## TonyM. (Apr 27, 2005)

Good points my friend. Unfortunately the economy is such that the hospitality business is down everywhere right now.


----------



## rmcpeek (Apr 27, 2005)

Unfortunately, some people see this type of fraud as an easy way to make money. I'm glad she got caught and hope she gets what's coming to her.

Hopefully this will send a message to people out there who think about this kind of scam to make money thru lawsuits.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 27, 2005)

I can't believe what I just read.

Sorry to hear that your father's Wendy's establishment isn't doing so hot right now, but there are going to be times when profits aren't that great.  A Consumer Report about fast food cooking practices could easily cause more loss in revenue then some woman pulling a scam.  It's part of owning a major franchise, particularly a fast food one.  Besides, with how addicted Americans are to fast food, I'm sure business will be picking back up pretty quick.  

And too many lawyers?  Because one person pulls a scam through a lawsuit there are now too many lawyers trying to sue?  That's the solution, let's get rid of lawyers so nobody can sue corporate America anymore.  I'm sure businesses like Wendy's will still worry about customer satisfaction then.  Do me a favor: do a little research and show me just how many actual lawsuits in the past, oh let's say 20 years actually consist of scam suits?  Not crap you heard about from friends or joke emails, actual cases you've found.  You might be surprised by how few there are.


----------



## raedyn (Apr 27, 2005)

So... Did the police ever actually see the finger, or was this story based entirely on one woman's word?


----------



## ginshun (Apr 27, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> And too many lawyers?


 Considering that the US has more lawyers than the rest of the world combined, ya I'd say that is probably too many.


----------



## Gemini (Apr 27, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> So... Did the police ever actually see the finger, or was this story based entirely on one woman's word?


Yes, they have the finger, they just don't know who it belongs to...Since nobody has come forward to claim their missing finger, my wife thinks that it's either because it belongs to someone the woman knows or maybe a cadaver. Who knows.

There has been more damage caused than Wendy's will ever recieve back from this woman. On the brighter side, once it was discovered to be a hoax, Wendy's stock has been going through the roof according to CNN. And as RandomPhantom700 mentioned, scams like this happen fairly infrequently. At this level anyway. This woman, with her track record is going to be made an example of in a big way. It's what she deserves, it's what she's going to get.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 27, 2005)

True there are too many people looking for the easy way to make money and too many lawyers willing to help. But it will go on, remember that one lady who sued McDonalds because she spilled hot coffee on herself and WON! Another lady in Britian tried to do the same thing and lost because the judge said she should've known the tea was going to be hot and the whole thing was stupid. 
Judges are also part of the problem for as long as they continue to award to the plaintiff and not the defendant. The American Judge who awarded the coffee suit should've known not to do so. Why he did it is unknown and may never be.
Now we see warning labels on just about everything and years before no-one reportedly got hurt by those items... but just in case... hey, can't say you weren't warned. 
Anyone remember the other suits about fried rats at KFC? Or cockroaches in the salad at some other resturant and so on? Some of these have passed on to urban legends and others to obscurity. 
This woman got caught and that's good. It was a little tooo "out-there" for her to make a simple lawsuit. You can betcha the police are going to wonder where that finger came from and if I'm not mistaken it's illegal to carry around  (real) body parts that aren't yours (or even unattached). 
Sigh, ain't America great?  :uhyeah:


----------



## OUMoose (Apr 27, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Because her attempt of lieng to get money, she has ruined many people's lives too. My father father owns a Wendys and he has reported that he has lost more sales than ever before, over $50,000 this month.


Good gracious, I didn't realize the fast food industry was that lucrative!  Impressive!


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Because of it it is becoming hard for my father to pay my college tuition money


immediately followed by... 





			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Why can't these people work for money?


Good question.  Do you supplement your tuition with a part/full time job?  Maybe that would take some burden off your parents.


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Of course it is easy to say "Just apply for a loan" but I am already two years into college and trying to get loan now would be extremely difficult at the moment.


  Ummm.  No.  Uncle sam is ALWAYS happy to give you money if you're willing to do the paperwork.  Trust me on this.  I worked full-full time AND went to school full-time (many times overloading my semesters), and still supplemented tution with loans.


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> why is that people are waiting for to grab money? Don't these people know when they cost these big franchises like Wendys money for their selfish desires for money that it really hurts the people who are employed in that franchise?


I will agree that I'm sure it hurts the people at some franchises such as your father, but Wendy's international I doubt cares in the least.


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> She has ruined so many people's lives, including my own.


Please tell me how this lady ruined your life?  Did she come into your house, kill both parents, take your inheritance, clothes, car, iPod, laptop, watch, wallet, credit cards, class schedule, left leg, and leave you on the streets?  (if all that did happen, I'm truely sorry).  


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Why do you think people are suing so much more now than they did 30 or 40 years ago? I think it has to do with the fact that there are too many lawyers in this country, and corrupt one for that.


So by your logic, you hate doctors too, since there's more of them now than 30-40 years ago, and all they preach is how bad fast food is, right?


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> What do you think we should do to stop people from trying to get money by ruining other people's lives by trying to sue them?


Were you this up-in-arms when the woman sued McD's for burning herself with coffee and WON?  Were you this up-in-arms when the guy sued BK's for making him fat?  Just curious.


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> The woman should have robbed a bank and try to get away with it, at least in that situation your not hurting a company of workers.


Wow... you didn't actually just say that, did you?  Just incase you haven't ever heard this, bank robbery is ILLEGAL.  Making a stupid lawsuit, albeit lame, is well within the law.


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> My father came to this country from India with not much money in his pocket, but he worked his way up and finally achieved the American Dream and owns his own business.


and he should be QUITE proud of that, since most AMERICANS can't even do that.  Then again, I guess why it's called a "dream" instead of "The American norm".


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> I'm sure at that time if my father knew how how many corrupt people and lawyers are in this country, he would have never thought about coming here. He did have a good business degree in India and could have saved a lot of money if he did stay there. India may not be the richest country, but like money countries in the world people aren't out to make up lies and sue you for your money.


Riiiiiiight, so america is the corrupt devil.  *nods*  There's no corrupt people anywhere else in the world... *nods*  Oh, excuse me, the concentration just isn't as high... *nods*  That's what makes this country great.  You're allowed to think that.  Have fun with it.  Post it on a sign (or a messageboard).  I'm going to do what's within my rights and stop my post here, before I really get angry and offensive.  *bow*


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 27, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> True there are too many people looking for the easy way to make money and too many lawyers willing to help. But it will go on, remember that one lady who sued McDonalds because she spilled hot coffee on herself and WON!  . . .



The big thing about the McDonalds Coffe case, as that she asked for Coffee, and then drank some in her car and said it was too cold. They gave her some new, it was to cold, so the put it in the Micro-wave to satisfy her.

Now the side of the coffee cup and also at Caribou and other coffee places, say "Caution, Contents are hot." or something similiar to it. The cup the lady received did not have such a warning.   


As to the case of the finger and the Chili, I hope that the system executes and if they find her guilty, then I hope she gets the maximum penalty.

Peace
 :asian:


----------



## Deuce (Apr 27, 2005)

There's something very fishy about this court case. I just can't quite put my finger on it.


----------



## ginshun (Apr 27, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> There's something very fishy about this court case. I just can't quite put my finger on it.


 
 :barf:


----------



## arnisador (Apr 27, 2005)

It's true--this costs real people real money, and while Wendy's is filthy rich, not every franchise owner is.


----------



## Shaolinwind (Apr 27, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I'm sure at that time if my father knew how how many corrupt people and lawyers are in this country, he would have never thought about coming here. He did have a good business degree in India and could have saved a lot of money if he did stay there. India may not be the richest country, but like money countries in the world people aren't out to make up lies and sue you for your money.


Hey hey, corruption is everywhere.  Nonetheless, I am sorry that a corrupt person effected you and your hard working family.  Best of luck to you.


----------



## Kane (Apr 27, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> Good gracious, I didn't realize the fast food industry was that lucrative!  Impressive!
> immediately followed by... Good question. Do you supplement your tuition with a part/full time job? Maybe that would take some burden off your parents.
> Ummm. No. Uncle sam is ALWAYS happy to give you money if you're willing to do the paperwork. Trust me on this. I worked full-full time AND went to school full-time (many times overloading my semesters), and still supplemented tution with loans.
> I will agree that I'm sure it hurts the people at some franchises such as your father, but Wendy's international I doubt cares in the least.
> ...


 I never said America is a big evil and this doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. all I am saying is that these type of things happen more in this country. No, I don't hate American. I'm sure rmcrobertson or michealward can tell you that (since they think I am a typical conservative yank).

 I get the feeling that you think that this is okay for selling evil greasy food that makes people overweight. Just for you know that isn't up to the small buisness owners on how bad they make the food, they do what they can to make a living. As far as the ruining life bit goes, there are other family problems that it created that I don't really want to discuss over the publicly. You however get the picture I hope.


----------



## Sarah (Apr 29, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I never said America is a big evil and this doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. all I am saying is that these type of things happen more in this country. No, I don't hate American. I'm sure rmcrobertson or michealward can tell you that (since they think I am a typical conservative yank).
> 
> I get the feeling that you think that this is okay for selling evil greasy food that makes people overweight. Just for you know that isn't up to the small buisness owners on how bad they make the food, they do what they can to make a living. As far as the ruining life bit goes, there are other family problems that it created that I don't really want to discuss over the publicly. You however get the picture I hope.


It is unfortunate that this situation has affected your family, but im sure this is not going to make the fast food ind go under, business will bounce back. it is the hard times in life that make us stronger and gives us an opportunity to learn about our selves, its all in your attitude and the way you deal with the situation. Do you learn, grow and become a better, stronger person....or do you complain, whine and think the world owes you something?

Just think how lucky you are to have the things you have, to be able to even go to college (ya know that isnt the norm in a lot of country's), and most importantly...you have a family that loves you and are paying out a load of money to help towards a good future.

Sure this woman did a terrible thing, but im sure she had her reasons that we can only speculate on? 


And im guessing there is a large amount of corruption in America because its so damn big  

good luck with your future :asian:


----------



## Marginal (Apr 29, 2005)

The lady in question does have a history of trying similar scams in the past. I'd assume her reasons weren't much better than "Oh look a finger. If I put it in something edible and then sue for damages, I'll get some fast cash."


----------



## MA-Caver (May 4, 2005)

Original article 


> Odds of body parts in food? Not good
> Statistics belie recent rash of digit-in-product incidents
> The Associated Press
> Updated: 3:58 p.m. ET May 4, 2005
> ...


----------



## Deuce (May 18, 2005)

I guess the going price on a finger is $50



> *SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - A man who lost part of his finger in a workplace accident was the source of the fingertip used in an alleged scam against Wendy's restaurants, and gave it away to settle a debt, his mother said.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 18, 2006)

From this article:





> San Jose, Calif.  A couple who planted a severed finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili in a scheme to extort money from the fast-food chain were sentenced Wednesday to prison terms of nine years and more than 12 years.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 18, 2006)

I'm pleasantly surprised to see serious sentences. A lot of franchisees lost a lot of money on this attempted scam.


----------



## Ping898 (Jan 18, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I'm pleasantly surprised to see serious sentences. A lot of franchisees lost a lot of money on this attempted scam.


 
Ditto!!!

They really got what they deserved!


----------



## jdinca (Jan 18, 2006)

Wow! Nine years just for giving somebody the finger?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 20, 2006)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I can't believe what I just read.
> 
> Sorry to hear that your father's Wendy's establishment isn't doing so hot right now, but there are going to be times when profits aren't that great. A Consumer Report about fast food cooking practices could easily cause more loss in revenue then some woman pulling a scam. It's part of owning a major franchise, particularly a fast food one. Besides, with how addicted Americans are to fast food, I'm sure business will be picking back up pretty quick.
> 
> And too many lawyers? Because one person pulls a scam through a lawsuit there are now too many lawyers trying to sue? That's the solution, let's get rid of lawyers so nobody can sue corporate America anymore. I'm sure businesses like Wendy's will still worry about customer satisfaction then. Do me a favor: do a little research and show me just how many actual lawsuits in the past, oh let's say 20 years actually consist of scam suits? Not crap you heard about from friends or joke emails, actual cases you've found. You might be surprised by how few there are.


 Somebody must be going to lawschool! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





It's always interesting to watch the blood-pressure of an attorney rise the moment anyone suggests anything that might interfer with their livelihood.  Lawyers are what make America great....just ask them.  Of course, as we all know, attorney's have only our best interest at heart......so long as we can pay the bill.  All clients are innocent....until proven broke.

*PS---Don't sue me!


----------



## Shu2jack (Jan 21, 2006)

> But it will go on, remember that one lady who sued McDonalds because she spilled hot coffee on herself and WON! Another lady in Britian tried to do the same thing and lost because the judge said she should've known the tea was going to be hot and the whole thing was stupid.
> Judges are also part of the problem for as long as they continue to award to the plaintiff and not the defendant. The American Judge who awarded the coffee suit should've known not to do so. Why he did it is unknown and may never be.


 
I agree that some one should not win a court case because they spilt something on themselves, but in that case I think McDonalds had it coming. McDonalds served their coffee at very high temperatures, they had lots of complaints over how hot the coffee was, I believe court action was taken in a couple cases, and McDonalds still didn't lower the temperature of the coffee. I don't think the judge gave the money to the money because she stupidly spilt something on herself, I think the judge gave her the money to tell McDonalds that if they don't start putting their coffee at a reasonable temperature as to not give people 2nd and 3rd degree burns that they will start losing a lot of money through court.


Also, while I am not a lawyer, and don't plan on being one, they are all not horrible, greedy people. They are like cops. If you get pulled over by a police officers, they are frigging jerks. If the officer saves your life or captures a dangerous person, then they are heros. Lawyers are simply doing their job.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 21, 2006)

For what it's worth, every time I've been pulled over by a cop it's because I did something that deserved it and I try to just treat it like he's just doing his job and doesn't need crap from me so I'm pretty good natured about it, because if I'd be doing what I was supposed to, he wouldn't be bugging me, so why take it out on him.

But I don't think McDs coffee was any hotter than many others I've seen.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 21, 2006)

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> I agree that some one should not win a court case because they spilt something on themselves, but in that case I think McDonalds had it coming. McDonalds served their coffee at very high temperatures, they had lots of complaints over how hot the coffee was, I believe court action was taken in a couple cases, and McDonalds still didn't lower the temperature of the coffee. I don't think the judge gave the money to the money because she stupidly spilt something on herself, I think the judge gave her the money to tell McDonalds that if they don't start putting their coffee at a reasonable temperature as to not give people 2nd and 3rd degree burns that they will start losing a lot of money through court.
> 
> 
> Also, while I am not a lawyer, and don't plan on being one, they are all not horrible, greedy people. They are like cops. If you get pulled over by a police officers, they are frigging jerks. If the officer saves your life or captures a dangerous person, then they are heros. Lawyers are simply doing their job.




I thought the case that won lots of money from McD's was a woman who complained it was not hot enough. They gave her a different cup and she still complained. So they put it into the microwave, this is why she got the money. The temperature was not a standard process set by the local management or by the process of the main corporation. It is when you deviate that you get into the most amount of trouble. 

So if you can convince someone to do something out of the normal process, and then get hurt by it you can make lots of money.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 21, 2006)

_A lot of franchisees lost a lot of money on this attempted scam._

I was contemplating the other day.  Wondering just how much money has been spent, or wasted, over the last decade or so on making just about *every single thing* you can buy off the shelf and ingest 'tamper proof' because of that one incident with the Extra Strength Tylenol awhile back


----------



## Shu2jack (Jan 21, 2006)

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0122-11.htm




> Here's what the talk show pundits and columnists neglected to mention about the McDonalds coffee burn case:
> 79 year old Stella Liebeck suffered third degree burns on her groin and inner thighs while trying to add sugar to her coffee at a McDonalds drive through. Third degree burns are the most serious kind of burn. *McDonalds knew it had a problem. There were at least 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents at McDonalds before Liebeck's case.* *McDonalds had settled many claim before but refused Liebeck's request for $20,000 compensation, forcing the case into court. Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees.* Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. *McDonalds knew its coffee was exceptionally hot but testified that they had never consulted with burn specialist.* *The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees. *
> 
> *And so the jury came back with a decision- $160,000 for compensatory damages.*
> ...



The jury decided that the woman should receive money for damage done, not the judge. The judge tacked on additional money to get the point across to McDonalds. 700 filed complaints is too many.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 21, 2006)

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0122-11.htm
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Were the complaints before of after the initial case? Was this an issue of someone, lawyer, looking for more ammunition in court and wiht a jury or were the complaint cases actually filed all independantly and then, a court case was brought forward. 

Curious.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2006)

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> I agree that some one should not win a court case because they spilt something on themselves, but in that case I think McDonalds had it coming. McDonalds served their coffee at very high temperatures, they had lots of complaints over how hot the coffee was, I believe court action was taken in a couple cases, and McDonalds still didn't lower the temperature of the coffee. I don't think the judge gave the money to the money because she stupidly spilt something on herself, I think the judge gave her the money to tell McDonalds that if they don't start putting their coffee at a reasonable temperature as to not give people 2nd and 3rd degree burns that they will start losing a lot of money through court.
> 
> 
> Also, while I am not a lawyer, and don't plan on being one, they are all not horrible, greedy people. They are like cops. If you get pulled over by a police officers, they are frigging jerks. If the officer saves your life or captures a dangerous person, then they are heros. Lawyers are simply doing their job.


 Unlike 'Cops', however, most lawyers are simply doing a job for money.  Cops as a rule don't require payment in advance before helping you.  

As for hot coffee....what is it about the word's 'Hot Coffee' don't they understand.  What is a 'reasonable temperature' for 'hot coffee'.  The whole argument reeks of creative attorney speak.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 21, 2006)

Stupid question maybe but with as many orders McDonald's servces in *a day*, wouldn't they end up having over 700 complaints about just about *anything*?  I mean, that many people going through and that many orders and that many 'things' going on, they probably have 700 complaints about the color of ketchup, just sitting there waiting to be used as evidence if someone makes a case of it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Stupid question maybe but with as many orders McDonald's servces in *a day*, wouldn't they end up having over 700 complaints about just about *anything*? I mean, that many people going through and that many orders and that many 'things' going on, they probably have 700 complaints about the color of ketchup, just sitting there waiting to be used as evidence if someone makes a case of it.


 Of course.  They probably have all kinds of complaints, both real and imagined.  Many of those complaints involve poor quality food preparation.  I'm sure they get complaints about the coffee being too hot, too big, too small, too strong, too weak.  

What's more, it's not hard for an attorney, to paraphrase Bill Clinton supporters, 'To drag a $10.00 bill through a trailer park, and find someone who's complained about hot coffee'.  

In the case of hot coffee, however, it's hard to argue, when you order 'hot coffee' that what you got was, in fact 'HOT COFFEE'.


----------



## Shu2jack (Jan 21, 2006)

> Were the complaints before of after the initial case? Was this an issue of someone, lawyer, looking for more ammunition in court and wiht a jury or were the complaint cases actually filed all independantly and then, a court case was brought forward.
> 
> Curious.


 
From the article,



> There were at least 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents at McDonalds before Liebeck's case. McDonalds had settled many claim before but refused Liebeck's request for $20,000 compensation, forcing the case into court.


 
I believe most, if not all, of the 700 cases were settled before the case in question. Or did I misunderstand your question?



> Stupid question maybe but with as many orders McDonald's servces in *a day*, wouldn't they end up having over 700 complaints about just about *anything*? I mean, that many people going through and that many orders and that many 'things' going on, they probably have 700 complaints about the color of ketchup, just sitting there waiting to be used as evidence if someone makes a case of it.


 
Last time I checked, the color of the ketchup is not a danger to your health, it will not give you 2nd or 3rd degree burns in seconds upon skin contact, you were probably not warned by another organization that you should change the color of your ketchup, and 700 of those complaints were "court worthy" or needed to be settled.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2006)

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> I believe most, if not all, of the 700 cases were settled before the case in question. Or did I misunderstand your question?


 So we know that at least 700 Americans found this to be a very useful way to generate a little revenue.  



			
				Shu2jack said:
			
		

> Last time I checked, the color of the ketchup is not a danger to your health, it will not give you 2nd or 3rd degree burns in seconds upon skin contact, you were probably not warned by another organization that you should change the color of your ketchup, and 700 of those complaints were "court worthy" or needed to be settled.


 Nor is hot coffee, so long as you don't spill it on yourself.  If you can't handle hot coffee, drink something else.  If you order hot coffee, exactly how do you expect it to arrive?  My guess would be 'hot'.  

The idea that we've become a society where we have to put warning labels for adults on 'hot coffee' proclaiming it to, in fact, be 'hot' really reduces my opinion of our society.

Perhaps we need to put warning signs near highways, warning crossing pedestrians that cars may be travelling 'fast'.

What's more, the only people ultimately profiting are attorney's, who get their share off the top.  Of a $1Million judgement, the alleged victim probably gets $20,000.00 after attorney's fees.  This is a quite profitable parasitical industry.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 21, 2006)

_
 Last time I checked, the color of the ketchup is not a danger to your health,_

I was being facetious to illustrate the point that if you found what you thought to be a rationale for suing a company that does as much business as McDs, you could probably find at least 700 complaints about it from others, so the numberof complaints doesn't really mean much.

But you know what?  When I make tea, I use boiling water.  When I make instant coffee, I use boiling water.  When I make hot chocolate, I use boiling water.  Hard to get much hotter than that, but who do I sue when I get burnt?  Well, in the first place no one because I take responsibility for my own actions but in the second place no one because I've been drinking hot beverages long enough not to burn myself...


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 21, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So we know that at least 700 Americans found this to be a very useful way to generate a little revenue.
> 
> Nor is hot coffee, so long as you don't spill it on yourself. If you can't handle hot coffee, drink something else. If you order hot coffee, exactly how do you expect it to arrive? My guess would be 'hot'.
> 
> ...


 
Generally I agree with your point. However, after doing some research on the case in question - the coffee truly was too hot and was in fact dangerous when spilled. Most coffee, such as Starbucks, hurts when you spill it on you. However, the fast food restaurant in question kept their coffee so hot at the time that spilling it (perhaps the lid wasn't put on well at the counter, or the cup itself leaks) was dangerous. I worked fast food and at the University's Student Union preparing and serving coffe and the coffee then was WAY too hot. Dangerously so. Now restaurants, cafes and coffee shops store their coffee at a reasonable temperature.

There are so many frivolous lawsuits out there that are so ridiculous and extortionious that it is tempting to use this case as a signature example, as I used to do myself. However, after some research, I found that in this case I was mistaken. Restaurants have no business serving coffee that is so hot, undrinkably so, that if you spill it on you you are guaranteed a severe burn.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Generally I agree with your point. However, after doing some research on the case in question - the coffee truly was too hot and was in fact dangerous when spilled. Most coffee, such as Starbucks, hurts when you spill it on you. However, the fast food restaurant in question kept their coffee so hot at the time that spilling it (perhaps the lid wasn't put on well at the counter, or the cup itself leaks) was dangerous. I worked fast food and at the University's Student Union preparing and serving coffe and the coffee then was WAY too hot. Dangerously so. Now restaurants, cafes and coffee shops store their coffee at a reasonable temperature.


 That's merely an indication at how successful attorney's have been at selling their frivolous law suits as 'reasonable'.  What is a 'dangerous' coffee temperature?  Is it hotter than your brew it at home?  If I spill coffee on you, I might be liable, but if you spill on yourself i'm liable too?



			
				Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> There are so many frivolous lawsuits out there that are so ridiculous and extortionious that it is tempting to use this case as a signature example, as I used to do myself. However, after some research, I found that in this case I was mistaken. Restaurants have no business serving coffee that is so hot, undrinkably so, that if you spill it on you you are guaranteed a severe burn.


 Either don't get the coffee there, or don't spill it.  

Again, what is the temperature of 'dangerous coffee'?  Is that hotter than I brew it at home?  Is it boiling?  How many degrees between 'dangerous coffee' and 'safe coffee'?  What if I want really hot coffee?  Am I to be denied the coffee temperature I prefer because some idiot can't keep from spilling stuff on himself?


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 21, 2006)

I believe, IIRC, that it was put into the cup at over 170 degrees fahranheit (an undrinkable temperature). After the lawsuit the chains dropped the stored temperature to 130 fahranheit - still very hot but drinkable and not an outright hazard to any but the most careless. No lawyer sold me on this, I did some research and came to my own conculsion based upon my experience as a worker in fast food places and college cafeterias that dispensed coffee at a ridiculous and hazardous temperature.


----------



## Shu2jack (Jan 21, 2006)

We can agure about the case back and forth all we want, but it was a JURY that decided to award the woman the money. Not a lawyer and not the judge. The judge tacked on additional money because McDonalds knew of the health risk and did nothing about it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> I believe, IIRC, that it was put into the cup at over 170 degrees fahranheit (an undrinkable temperature). After the lawsuit the chains dropped the stored temperature to 130 fahranheit - still very hot but drinkable and not an outright hazard to any but the most careless. No lawyer sold me on this, I did some research and came to my own conculsion based upon my experience as a worker in fast food places and college cafeterias that dispensed coffee at a ridiculous and hazardous temperature.


 The assertion that we have to build a society around the lowest common denominator is absurd.  Basically, the argument goes, if you spill coffee on your self, the store is responsible for having hot coffee so 'hot'.  In other words, they are responsible for not assuming that the individual is a moron, and preparing accordingly.

Some, apparently, want a society proof against fools.  However, there is no such thing as proof against fools.  Meanwhile, the coffers of litigating law firms grow fat.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 21, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The assertion that we have to build a society around the lowest common denominator is absurd. Basically, the argument goes, if you spill coffee on your self, the store is responsible for having hot coffee so 'hot'. In other words, they are responsible for not assuming that the individual is a moron, and preparing accordingly.
> 
> Some, apparently, want a society proof against fools. However, there is no such thing as proof against fools. Meanwhile, the coffers of litigating law firms grow fat.


 
That is not what I said. Nowhere near it, in fact.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 21, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> I believe, IIRC, that it was put into the cup at over 170 degrees fahranheit (an undrinkable temperature). After the lawsuit the chains dropped the stored temperature to 130 fahranheit - still very hot but drinkable and not an outright hazard to any but the most careless. No lawyer sold me on this, I did some research and came to my own conculsion based upon my experience as a worker in fast food places and college cafeterias that dispensed coffee at a ridiculous and hazardous temperature.



This is correct.  While, in my opinion, Liebeck was an idiot to put a cup of coffee between her thighs, the coffee was at a temperature that was well above that specified in company manuals, a change that had recently been made to ensure the freshness of the coffee and to prevent scalding injuries such as Liebeck suffered.  The burns were so severe that she required several sessions of surgery to repair the damage caused by the scalding coffee.  Therefore, the McDonald's in question was in the wrong, by the published policies of own organization.

Also, one must remember that juries are often given information that is not reported in the media, which is used in the process of determining culpability and, for those found guilty, appropriate reparation and/or punishment.  I believe that the amount of the award was excessive; however, I also think that, given the information provided to the jury about what was determined to be a deliberate disregard for company policy, McDonald's was liable for the damages Liebeck suffered.  Does that, in my opinion, free her from some responsibility for choosing to put that cup of coffee between her thighs?  No, I don't think it does - but neither would most people expect to get 2nd and 3rd degree burns from a cup of coffee, no matter how badly the choice of storage location.


----------



## Don Roley (Jan 21, 2006)

I think I should step in and ask people to look at the famous hot coffee case. It was not a normal situation.

The woman said that the coffee she had been handed in the drive thru window was too cold and aksed for it to be heated. The staff try to get people out of the drive thru lane ASAP. The guy on duty put the cup in a microwave oven. The oven did not have a timer, it was pre-set for various functions like defrosting certain items. The coffee was heated so hot that it melted through the bottom of the cup, leaving melted plastic on the woman which gave her third degree burns. Boiling water can't give you that alone.

So it was not a case of someone taking regular coffee and spilling it on themselves.

I thought that it was as well, until a friend posted a link to a site about the case. The facts seem to be a bit more complicated than a casual reading of the bare facts makes out.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 22, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> That is not what I said. Nowhere near it, in fact.


 I didn't categorize YOUR argument as such, I categorized the argument, in general, that we should play to the lowest common denominator as damaging to western civilization.  I stand behind that assertion.

I do assert that the coffee case is a symptom of that very thing.  If it isn't playing to the lowest common denominator to assert that we need to 'fool proof' coffee at an appropriate temperature so that grown adults don't harm themselves by ordering 'hot coffee' and getting 'hot coffee', then we are deciding that every function within our society needs to be designed around the 'idiot'.

Moreover, I propose that the drive to 'idiot proof' society is, as much, a result of the huge potential profits on the part of litigators, as well as a societal view of entitlement that says 'I'm not responsible for anything I do, someone else because they didn't realize I was an idiot, and seek to protect me from myself'.  

Again, I assert, there is no proof against fools, and to make the standard of safety in our society as anything that a fool can use without the possibility of injuring himself, then I say that standard is too high.


----------

