http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/ChristineFroehlich/1019 Thought for the day… I picked up a cup of coffee at a drive through this morning, and noted the warning on the side that said:   “WARNING: COFFEE IS HOT.”   Is there no limit to the stupidity of that statement and it’s reflection of the horribly litigious society that we have become?     Maybe we should just put labels on everything thing that says: “WARNING: FAILING TO USE YOUR COMMON SENSE MAY BE DANGEROUS”, that should just about cover most lawsuits these days…   C~ Thought for the day… I picked up a cup of coffee at a drive through this morning, and noted the warning on the side that said:   “WARNING: COFFEE IS HOT.”   Is there no limit to the stupidity of that statement and it’s reflection of the horribly litigious society that we have become?     Maybe we should just put labels on everything thing that says: “WARNING: FAILING TO USE YOUR COMMON SENSE MAY BE DANGEROUS”, that should just about cover most lawsuits these days…   C~ en-us I totally agree with you. And it's not just the warnings. It's even affected us as consumers. If the government has it's way, places like McDonald's will have to list the fat content of their food. Restaurants will have to limit the amount of food they serve on one entree. Come on! Why do I need McDonald's to tell me their food is fattening. Everybody knows that. It just gives the lawyers a reason for a lawsuit against deep pocket corporations. http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/ChristineFroehlich/1019/#c_9277 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/ChristineFroehlich/1019/#c_9277 I totally agree with you. And it's not just the warnings. It's even affected us as consumers. If the government has it's way, places like McDonald's will have to list the fat content of their food. Restaurants will have to limit the amount of food they serve on one entree. Come on! Why do I need McDonald's to tell me their food is fattening. Everybody knows that. It just gives the lawyers a reason for a lawsuit against deep pocket corporations. Sparks..this is a little off topic but...I'm a geek too and often get calls from friends about computer problems. I have a funny story that I like to tell. One day a friend called me because he had no sound on his PC. Of coarse, the way my mind works I started with the most difficult thing it could be and worked my way from there. After nothing I tried worked I asked him if his speakers were turned on...and he said yes. So I asked if there was a light showing they were turned on and he said no. I asked if they were plugged in....and of coarse they weren't! That is where I learned to start troubleshooting from the other side of the box...the easiest thing first! Sorry to everybody else for an of topic post but I had to share this with Sparks. http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/ChristineFroehlich/1019/#c_9282 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/ChristineFroehlich/1019/#c_9282 Sparks..this is a little off topic but...I'm a geek too and often get calls from friends about computer problems. I have a funny story that I like to tell. One day a friend called me because he had no sound on his PC. Of coarse, the way my mind works I started with the most difficult thing it could be and worked my way from there. After nothing I tried worked I asked him if his speakers were turned on...and he said yes. So I asked if there was a light showing they were turned on and he said no. I asked if they were plugged in....and of coarse they weren't! That is where I learned to start troubleshooting from the other side of the box...the easiest thing first! Sorry to everybody else for an of topic post but I had to share this with Sparks. lol I actually used to work at McDonalds back in the day and I believe I was told the reason for the warning label on the coffee was because a woman set her HOT coffee in between her legs and ended up spilling it and burning herself. She of course sued McDonalds and made tons of money because there was no warning that the coffee was that hot. Yes, it's amazing how common sense goes right out the door when people can make a quick buck. http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/ChristineFroehlich/1019/#c_9287 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/ChristineFroehlich/1019/#c_9287 lol I actually used to work at McDonalds back in the day and I believe I was told the reason for the warning label on the coffee was because a woman set her HOT coffee in between her legs and ended up spilling it and burning herself. She of course sued McDonalds and made tons of money because there was no warning that the coffee was that hot. Yes, it's amazing how common sense goes right out the door when people can make a quick buck. That is a true story. I snoped it to find out for sure. Thanks to that lawsuit I can only get lukewarm coffee from a drive through now. http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/ChristineFroehlich/1019/#c_9293 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/ChristineFroehlich/1019/#c_9293 That is a true story. I snoped it to find out for sure. Thanks to that lawsuit I can only get lukewarm coffee from a drive through now. I'm in total agreement with you that common sense long ago left the building, but in the case of the McDonald's coffee incident there are some facts people may wish to know before making judgement. Courtesy of Legal News and Views, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation. The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you: McFact No. 1:  For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants. McFact No. 2:  McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue. McFact No. 3:  The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay. McFact No. 4:  The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills. McFact No. 5:  A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible. McFact No. 6:  After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.) McFact No. 7:  On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media. McFact No. 8:  A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.   http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/ChristineFroehlich/1019/#c_9301 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/ChristineFroehlich/1019/#c_9301 I'm in total agreement with you that common sense long ago left the building, but in the case of the McDonald's coffee incident there are some facts people may wish to know before making judgement. Courtesy of Legal News and Views, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation. The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you: McFact No. 1:  For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants. McFact No. 2:  McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue. McFact No. 3:  The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay. McFact No. 4:  The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills. McFact No. 5:  A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible. McFact No. 6:  After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.) McFact No. 7:  On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media. McFact No. 8:  A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.   Sorry I have been absent Sparks. I was on a business trip and didn't have much time to blog while I was away. Thanks for pointing that out justcurious. That changes my opinion about that case although I still believe that this county has way too many frivolous lawsuits. I'm a pilot and read about real cases where the pilot crashes because he runs out of fuel and some how convinces a jury that the aircraft manufacturer is at fault, at least partially. I even read about a case where the deceased pilots family sued because the aircraft manufacturer didn't install seat belts in the plane and that contributed to the pilots death. The plane was built in the 40's or 50's (can't remember) at a time when seat belts were not required. How can any sane person find fault with these companies? http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/ChristineFroehlich/1019/#c_9307 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/ChristineFroehlich/1019/#c_9307 Sorry I have been absent Sparks. I was on a business trip and didn't have much time to blog while I was away. Thanks for pointing that out justcurious. That changes my opinion about that case although I still believe that this county has way too many frivolous lawsuits. I'm a pilot and read about real cases where the pilot crashes because he runs out of fuel and some how convinces a jury that the aircraft manufacturer is at fault, at least partially. I even read about a case where the deceased pilots family sued because the aircraft manufacturer didn't install seat belts in the plane and that contributed to the pilots death. The plane was built in the 40's or 50's (can't remember) at a time when seat belts were not required. How can any sane person find fault with these companies?