McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit

[kgun]

There is a Norwegian saying:

When you talk about the sun, it shines.

Earlier today I posted this

In case my comment drowns, here it is:

Why not eliminate suspect sites and pages from Tim Berner Lees Giant Global Graph? In addtion, there may be flaws in the adaptive inverted link matrix model of the web used by Google and other search engines. Nobody can require inclusion in a search engines index or archive so the best solution to suspect link profiles, SERP data mining sites, article spinning etc. is to zero them out.

By zeroing out suspect sites you avoid cases similar to the

McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit

Google:

McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit

in the case it is unknown to you.

As far as I have understood you can be sued for nearly anything in the USA.

I have written in red what I mean is most important in my comment.

Source: http://www.webproworld.com/webmaster...l=1#post626273

post.

So some minutes ago I note that there will be a Tv program about the case on Wednesday on NrK2:

Doku Summer: Boiling coffee and American law

Am. documentary. Is the U.S. criminal justice system gone red? When a woman who spilled hot coffee on herself, may sue coffee producer, is probably the principle of tort dragged into the parodic? Through four different cases program-makers are trying to shed light on the controversial tort reform. Does it have damaged civil law in the United States, or is it a bit more complicated than that? (Hot Coffee)

[kgun]

Very interesting movie about

1. tort reform
2. and more seriously court reform
3. mandatory arbitration
4. cap on compensation
5. how business tries to buy the court
6. how business tries to turn the Mac Donalds case into an advantage turning it into a coemdy and diguising the severe damages the women got sitting in the back seat of the car.
7. What is the alternative to a civil jury?
8. Who shall decide who shall be held accountable when a consumer is injured?
9. Even if Mc Donalds had more than 700 cases they ignored the feedback of too hot coffee.
10. Mc Donalds denied to be intervieved in the movie. Silence sometimes speaks more than words.
11. Most important the opposite position of George Bush Jr. and Harvard educated Obama.

Great Movie USA.

[rickanderson]

Very interesting movie about

1. tort reform
2. and more seriously court reform
3. mandatory arbitration
4. cap on compensation
5. how business tries to buy the court
6. how business tries to turn the Mac Donalds case into an advantage turning it into a coemdy and diguising the severe damages the women got sitting in the back seat of the car.
7. What is the alternative to a civil jury?
8. Who shall decide who shall be held accountable when a consumer is injured?
9. Even if Mc Donalds had more than 700 cases they ignored the feedback of too hot coffee.
10. Mc Donalds denied to be intervieved in the movie. Silence sometimes speaks more than words.
11. Most important the opposite position of George Bush Jr. and Harvard educated Obama.

Great Movie USA.

mandatory arbitration is perfect, for tort law....studied adr....alternative dispute resolution in law school....very worthwhile...ra

[kgun]

mandatory arbitration is perfect, for tort law....studied adr....alternative dispute resolution in law school....very worthwhile...ra

Have you seen the program? How mandatory arbitration is used to pay persons for silence. You have to seek up the program and watch for yourself. A women was gang raped and paid to silence by a company. You have to see that before you understand how serious mandatory arbitration can be.

Some million USDs in compensation, you need to be strong to not accept that even if your life is partly destroyed. A million USD may be small amounts for a company with deep pockets. The McDonalds shop was punished by three days sales for ignoring that and 700 other similar cases by US? McDonalds.

As you understand the program was not solely about McDonalds that was much much more serious than I could ever imagine when I saw the woman's wounds. The seriousness is that McDonalds had ignored more than 700 similar cases. In other words, they was punished for a bad business practice that they had ignored and customers complained about for years.

My son will finish his law education in August this year. When I first heard about the McDonalds law case, I think they and the tort reformists had succeeded in presenting an extremely wrong image. My son told me about his view. When I have seen the documentary on Norwegian Tv, I was shocked and understad that he is correct.

Worst of all, court reform was also mentioned in the program and that is far more serious. A specific cap on compensation is redicoulous in some cases.

When I first got the law suit presented. The story I was presented for is that you can be sued for anything in the USA. A woman bought coffee on McDonalds, placed the coffee on her lap or between her thighs and drove away and sued McDonalds because she was burned by too hot coffee spilled on her lap. That is wrong. She did not drive. She sat in the back seat.

[rickanderson]

i haven't seen the program kgun...sounds very interesting.. in tort law the question always asked is whether something is "reasonably foreseeable"... the macdonalds case always captivated my attention....since they do make the worlds hottest coffee and never really gave a 'heads up' to that fact prior to this case going to court..

ra

[kgun]

And a cap on compensation can unconstitutional in some cases. The judges provides a reasonable compensation and are not aware that there is also a cap on the amount of damages. The effective compensation can in some cases be reduced to what is rediculous in that case.

This raises a much more important question on court reform. A term that was mentioned in the documentary, but did not get a thorough treatment.