OT Humor: Great legal cases

In article <[email protected]>,
letseatpaste@RATATAT_TAThotmail.com says...
>
> "jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The annual "Stella Awards" ......... Only in America
> > The Stellas are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled
> > coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds. That case inspired
> > the Stella awards for the most frivolously successful lawsuits in the
> > United States.
>
> Aside from the other ones being false, if you actually look at Stella's case
> against McDonald's you'll see it's not frivolous.
> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm ... There's a ton of info about this
> if you search on Google, it's actually pretty interesting. I'd say
> McDonald's got off relatively easy.
>

Why? Because other people got burned by hot coffee? I've looked at
those items in the past and still don't understand how the fact that
someone in a car driven by her son-in-law, putting *hot* coffee between
her legs while he was driving could hold McDonalds responsible for the
fact she got burned when the car took off. Was McD's coffee hotter than
others'? Yes, but does that mean if it was a not as hot she still would
not have been burned? The injuries may not have been as serious,but I
still don't see how one can hold the company accountable for the fact
that, knowing she had a hot drink, she still used a very unsafe means of
holding that hot coffee while in a moving vehicle. If I was McD's I'd
just start serving the stuff cold -- screw the public.

> Jonathan
>
>
>
>

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:00:11 -0600, "Jonathan"
<letseatpaste@RATATAT_TAThotmail.com> wrote:

>> Why? Because other people got burned by hot coffee? I've looked at
>> those items in the past and still don't understand how the fact that
>> someone in a car driven by her son-in-law, putting *hot* coffee between
>> her legs while he was driving could hold McDonalds responsible for the
>> fact she got burned when the car took off. Was McD's coffee hotter than
>> others'? Yes, but does that mean if it was a not as hot she still would
>> not have been burned? The injuries may not have been as serious,but I
>> still don't see how one can hold the company accountable for the fact
>> that, knowing she had a hot drink, she still used a very unsafe means of
>> holding that hot coffee while in a moving vehicle. If I was McD's I'd
>> just start serving the stuff cold -- screw the public.
>>
>
>Because when a company knows that there is a risk of injury (as they were
>well aware from the many burn cases before), and knows that the customer
>doesn't understand that risk, it's their obligation to make it as safe as
>they can. They knew the risk of third degree burns with liquid at that
>temperature, and they knew that they were serving coffee at a temperature
>well above what other restaurants serve it at. She only had 2-7 seconds to
>get the scalding coffee away from her skin, which had soaked into her
>sweatpants, to avoid serious injury. If it'd been served at a more normal
>temperature for coffee, the liquid would have cooled quickly enough for her
>to avoid serious injury. McDonald's had reasonable and economically
>feasible means to make their product safer, and they made a calculated
>decision not to do that.
>
>Are third degree burns an appropriate (or commonly expected) consequence for
>spilling coffee? Eight days in the hospital, skin grafts, tens of thousands
>in medical bills... Is that a potential consequence you think about when you
>hold coffee in your hand? You'd normally expect some mild burns or skin
>irritation.
>
>McDonald's knew of the danger, and figured it was such a small percentage of
>the amount of coffee they sell, they testified to that in court. They
>figured out it was better economically in the long run to pay off the
>relatively few claims for injury. That's the whole reason for huge punitive
>damages, so companies don't get to make the choice between your safety and
>their bottom line. Businesses shouldn't be able to calculate the economic
>value of your safety against severe injury.
>
>Granted, there are abuses of the system, but you can't just throw out the
>legit cases on a knee jerk reaction... Especially given the fact that she
>only sued after McDonald's offered to pay her a measly $800 instead of just
>covering her medical bills, which is all she wanted in the first place.
>
>Jonathan
>

Bullsh*t. If the "victim" had gotten her coffee at Ma & Pa's Coffee
and Donut Shop, she wouldn't have ever seen a dime. Why? Because no
attorney would have taken the case because they knew there was no
money in it. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

"George Myers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I live in Houston and saw some of the people that were on the jury in the
> local press. They give a new meaning to dumber than dumb. How some of
> these people even found the court house to show up for jury duty is
> amazing.


I am not so sure that the jury was the dumb group here. Keep in mind that
out court system in Houston insults the jurors with $6.00 a day compensation
and expects valuable decisions from this under paid group. IIRC they were
only to decide whether they believed beyond a reasonable doubt if this was
murder. Not being there I would have called it a 50/50 chance.
Unfortunately they were not to consider manslaughter or cutting up the body
or improperly disposing of the body.
The prosecution seemed the to be the dumb group as they indicated that if
they had it to do all over again they would not change anything. Now that
was a dumb statement. They should have gone after all counts and not just
murder.

IMHO for our court system to work out fairly for every one, equal money
should be spent on the defense team and the prosecution team.

jo4hn posts:

>
>The annual "Stella Awards" ......... Only in America
>The Stellas are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled
>coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds. That case inspired
>the Stella awards for the most frivolously successful lawsuits in the
>United States.
>Here are the 2002 winners:
>5th Place (tie): Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded
>$780,000 by a jury! of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over
>a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the
>store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the
>misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>5th Place (tie):
>19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses
>when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman
>apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when
>he was trying to steal the hubcaps.
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>5th Place (tie): Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving
>a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not
>able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was
>malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door
>connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The
>family was on vacation, and Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the
>garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a
>large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance, claiming
>the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the
>tune of $500,000. -------------------! --------
>--------------------------------------
>4th Place: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500
>and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door
>neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard.
>The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have
>been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams, who had climbed
>over the fence into the yard and was shooting it repeatedly with a
>pellet gun.
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>3rd Place: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of
>Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and
>broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms.
>Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an
>argument.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>2nd Place: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the
>owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the
>bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This
>occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the
>ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She! was awa rded
>$12,000 and dental expenses.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>1st Place: This year's run away winner was Mr. Merv Grazinski of
>Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot
>Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, (from an OU football
>game), having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70
>mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make
>himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the RV left the freeway,
>crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising
>him in the owner's manual that he couldn't actually do this. The jury
>awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually
>changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were
>any other complete morons buying their RVs!

Is this stuff true? If it is, this country is in far more trouble than I
thought, because the possibility of coming up with 6 or 12 people to agree that
any of these clowns deserved recompense of any kind is frightening.

Charlie Self

"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken

In article <[email protected]>, Trent©
<[email protected]> wrote:

> http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785
>
> No one knows for sure how much she actually finally got.

That is the thing that p*sses me off the most. There should never be
civil suit decisions without *full* disclosure of the terms of
settlement. What ever happened to "...justice must also be *seen* to be
done"?

Too much secrecy in legal/political circles for my liking.
I have always been in favour of transparency/sunshine laws.

Gerry <off rant-mode>

"Norman D. Crow" wrote:
>
> "Ehvee8or" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> <snip>
>
> > At what temperature do you have to start issuing warnings? Maybe it's
> > just me, but I learned a long time ago that coffee is hot, and if I
> > spill it on myself, it is going to hurt. If I were stupid enough to
> > put a cup of hot liquid between my legs in a moving vehicle, I would
> > accept the consequences of that decision.
>
> How long can we keep this no win debate going?
>
> Early 60's, worked as tech in large computer room w/floating floor, so all
> entrances had been ramped up from original floor. Rear corner of comp. rm.
> was a hot/cold fountain with instant coffee, hot choc., etc.. One of the
> programmers was a polio victim in a wheelchair. When he would come in for a
> cup of coffee, the ONLY way he had to carry it was between his legs. Every
> so often the door(self-closing) would bump the back of his wheelchair on the
> way out, and the resulting "GREAT BALLS OF FIRE" would resound throughout
> the department.
> Nahmie

Your premise is wrong. There was no ONLY way. Did someone
say he had had to transport it in the original full open
container? I doubt that. Did someone say that only he
could transport it and not someone else transport it for
him? I doubt that. Now a lawyer might be able to convince
a jury that the ONLY way was.... but it wouldn't be true.
Do you assume that he was too stupid to realize that he
spilled it once, that he should do things differently? If
he was that stupid he shouldn't have been programing. The
truth was, he made a decision to continue carrying his hot
beverage in a way that it would spill. He could have put it
in a larger container so it wouldn't spill on him or a dozen
different things. Get the drift? It was his decision
process that resulted in the spills.

"Norman D. Crow" wrote:
>
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > "Norman D. Crow" wrote:
> > > Early 60's, worked as tech in large computer room w/floating floor, so
> all
> > > entrances had been ramped up from original floor. Rear corner of comp.
> rm.
> > > was a hot/cold fountain with instant coffee, hot choc., etc.. One of the
> > > programmers was a polio victim in a wheelchair. When he would come in
> for a
> > > cup of coffee, the ONLY way he had to carry it was between his legs.
> Every
> > > so often the door(self-closing) would bump the back of his wheelchair on
> the
> > > way out, and the resulting "GREAT BALLS OF FIRE" would resound
> throughout
> > > the department.
> > > Nahmie
> >
> > Your premise is wrong. There was no ONLY way. Did someone
> > say he had had to transport it in the original full open
> > container? I doubt that. Did someone say that only he
> > could transport it and not someone else transport it for
> > him? I doubt that. Now a lawyer might be able to convince
> > a jury that the ONLY way was.... but it wouldn't be true.
> > Do you assume that he was too stupid to realize that he
> > spilled it once, that he should do things differently? If
> > he was that stupid he shouldn't have been programing. The
> > truth was, he made a decision to continue carrying his hot
> > beverage in a way that it would spill. He could have put it
> > in a larger container so it wouldn't spill on him or a dozen
> > different things. Get the drift? It was his decision
> > process that resulted in the spills.
>
> I was not working on a "premise"!
> It was intended as a little humor.
> If there was someone nearby, they frquently carried it for him, but if
> there was no one around, he put the PAPER cup from the dispenser rack
> between his legs, and generally was in good enough control of everything
> that he made it out the door and down the ramp without getting bumped.
> However, once in a while he would get jarred and spill a little(not the
> whole cup). The scream was not one of intense pain, just his way of letting
> the whole department he *screwed up* again.
> Get a life.
> Nahmie

Sorry my humor level is a little low. Hey you wrote it and
you said "the only way way he had to carry it...." That is
a premise, you need to look in a dictionary.

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Is this stuff true? If it is, this country is in far more trouble than I
> thought, because the possibility of coming up with 6 or 12 people to agree
that
> any of these clowns deserved recompense of any kind is frightening.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
> promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken

Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.htm) says that these are
fabricated.

todd

10 to 1 they're all "transplanted Texans".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03

"George Myers" wrote in message
> I live in Houston and saw some of the people that were on the jury in the
> local press. They give a new meaning to dumber than dumb. How some of
> these people even found the court house to show up for jury duty is
> amazing.
>
>
> "Leon" wrote in message

> > Seems others have pointed out that these may be bogus, but to top all of
> > them was "the" Houston trial. A Mr. Durst killed a man, cut the body up
> and
> > disposed of it in Galveston bay IIRC. He was found not guilty of
murder
> by
> > the jury..
> > Seems the fact that Mr. Durst also admitted to killing the man was not
> > strong enough evidence. Stupid were the prosecutors for only going for
> > murder charges. Had the prosecutors alternatively gone for
manslaughter,
> > cutting up a dead body, or hiding a dead body, Mr. Durst probably would
be
> > in jail for a long time. But since the prosecution could not prove
beyond
> a
> > reasonable doubt that this was a murder, Mr. Durst walks. Mr. Durst
> > claimed it was an accident and the jury bought that story.

I have the answer. When a cup of coffee is sold, it should come with a store
employee to drink it for you. Since the employee must be returned to the
store, most may wish their coffee to be consumed there instead of having to
come back for the return. End result: drive up to McDonalds drive thru and
pay a McDonalds employee to drink a cup of coffee for you.


"Ehvee8or" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> At what temperature do you have to start issuing warnings? Maybe it's
> just me, but I learned a long time ago that coffee is hot, and if I
> spill it on myself, it is going to hurt. If I were stupid enough to
> put a cup of hot liquid between my legs in a moving vehicle, I would
> accept the consequences of that decision.
>
>

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:23:43 -0500, "G.E.R.R.Y."
<DON'[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:

>In article <[email protected]>, Trent©
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785
>>
>> No one knows for sure how much she actually finally got.
>
>That is the thing that p*sses me off the most. There should never be
>civil suit decisions without *full* disclosure of the terms of
>settlement. What ever happened to "...justice must also be *seen* to be
>done"?
>
>Too much secrecy in legal/political circles for my liking.
>I have always been in favour of transparency/sunshine laws.
>
>Gerry <off rant-mode>

I believe the judge remittitturred most of it and she got
legal fees and medical fees out of it at the end. Nothing
else, the stupid, scheming wench.


==========================================================
CAUTION: Do not use remaining fingers as pushsticks!
==========================================================
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:50:44 GMT, Larry Jaques <jake@di\/ersify.com>
wrote:


>I believe the judge remittitturred most of it and she got
>legal fees and medical fees out of it at the end.

I believe she got much more.

> Nothing
>else, the stupid, scheming wench.

Not so stupid! lol

And...scheming?

All she wanted...at the very beginning...was for her medical bills to
be paid. Wouldn't YOU think that was fair?

They basically told her to fuck off.

She basically told them....well, the rest is history! lol



Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...

Trent

Larry Jaques wrote:

>
>>
>>>http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785
>>>

>
>
> I believe the judge remittitturred most of it and she got
> legal fees and medical fees out of it at the end. Nothing
> else, the stupid, scheming wench.




Something everyone here seems to have missed (unless I missed your not
missing it) is she put the cup between her legs and TOOK THE LID OFF!

How frigging stupid can someone be as to remove the top of a styrofoam
cup and expect it to be held between their legs? It's awful damned
optimistic to think the cup wouldn't crush * with * the lid.




--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)

A minor point, but the murder (sorry, killing, not murder) & trial
were both in Galveston, not Houston.
John

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:42:37 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"George Myers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I live in Houston and saw some of the people that were on the jury in the
>> local press. They give a new meaning to dumber than dumb. How some of
>> these people even found the court house to show up for jury duty is
>> amazing.
>
>
>I am not so sure that the jury was the dumb group here. Keep in mind that
>out court system in Houston insults the jurors with $6.00 a day compensation
>and expects valuable decisions from this under paid group. IIRC they were
>only to decide whether they believed beyond a reasonable doubt if this was
>murder. Not being there I would have called it a 50/50 chance.
>Unfortunately they were not to consider manslaughter or cutting up the body
>or improperly disposing of the body.
>The prosecution seemed the to be the dumb group as they indicated that if
>they had it to do all over again they would not change anything. Now that
>was a dumb statement. They should have gone after all counts and not just
>murder.
>
>IMHO for our court system to work out fairly for every one, equal money
>should be spent on the defense team and the prosecution team.
>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
letseatpaste@RATATAT_TAThotmail.com says...
> > Why? Because other people got burned by hot coffee? I've looked at
> > those items in the past and still don't understand how the fact that
> > someone in a car driven by her son-in-law, putting *hot* coffee between
> > her legs while he was driving could hold McDonalds responsible for the
> > fact she got burned when the car took off. Was McD's coffee hotter than
> > others'? Yes, but does that mean if it was a not as hot she still would
> > not have been burned? The injuries may not have been as serious,but I
> > still don't see how one can hold the company accountable for the fact
> > that, knowing she had a hot drink, she still used a very unsafe means of
> > holding that hot coffee while in a moving vehicle. If I was McD's I'd
> > just start serving the stuff cold -- screw the public.
> >
>
> Because when a company knows that there is a risk of injury (as they were
> well aware from the many burn cases before), and knows that the customer
> doesn't understand that risk, it's their obligation to make it as safe as
> they can. They knew the risk of third degree burns with liquid at that
> temperature, and they knew that they were serving coffee at a temperature
> well above what other restaurants serve it at. She only had 2-7 seconds to
> get the scalding coffee away from her skin, which had soaked into her
> sweatpants, to avoid serious injury. If it'd been served at a more normal
> temperature for coffee, the liquid would have cooled quickly enough for her
> to avoid serious injury. McDonald's had reasonable and economically
> feasible means to make their product safer, and they made a calculated
> decision not to do that.

Hot coffee is supposed to be hot. That's why they call it hot coffee.
The optimal temperature for storing HOT coffee is 175-180 degrees.
McDonnalds was serving coffee well within that temperature range. The
claim that other places do not serve their coffee properly is of no
concern.

If we are going to follow your sill logic, then we should force all
restaurants to pre-chew our food for us. After all everyone knows that
people can choke on large pieces of food, and pre-chewing would prevent
this. how dare those nasty stores not pre-chew everything and risk
subjecting us to serious injury

>
> Are third degree burns an appropriate (or commonly expected) consequence for
> spilling coffee? Eight days in the hospital, skin grafts, tens of thousands
> in medical bills... Is that a potential consequence you think about when you
> hold coffee in your hand? You'd normally expect some mild burns or skin
> irritation.

Stupidity should hurt. When I hold something hot in my hand, I know
what can happen, and behave responsibly. While this concept may be to
complicated for some, I really don't feel the need to suffer for their
ignorance.

>
> McDonald's knew of the danger, and figured it was such a small percentage of
> the amount of coffee they sell, they testified to that in court. They
> figured out it was better economically in the long run to pay off the
> relatively few claims for injury. That's the whole reason for huge punitive
> damages, so companies don't get to make the choice between your safety and
> their bottom line. Businesses shouldn't be able to calculate the economic
> value of your safety against severe injury.

This is a woodworking newsgroup. The makers of tools know of the
dangers of such tools. A small percentage of users manage to hurt
themselves on these devices. Just how much extra safety stuff should
they be required to add onto their tools just to prevent a few Darwin
candidates from showing their lack of smarts. Already, you can't buy a
table saw in the EU that will accept a dadao blade.

>
> Granted, there are abuses of the system, but you can't just throw out the
> legit cases on a knee jerk reaction... Especially given the fact that she
> only sued after McDonald's offered to pay her a measly $800 instead of just
> covering her medical bills, which is all she wanted in the first place.

Why should they be expected to pay out anything. She spilled the coffee
on herself. If they wanted to be really polite, They might want to
offer a refill, but expecting someone else to pay for a persons own
stupidity is just plain pathetic.

>
> Jonathan
>
>
>

"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> All she wanted...at the very beginning...was for her medical bills to
> be paid. Wouldn't YOU think that was fair?

No, she was the one that spilled the coffee, she's responsible for the
bills.
>
> They basically told her to fuck off.

Good.
>
>

Seems others have pointed out that these may be bogus, but to top all of
them was "the" Houston trial. A Mr. Durst killed a man, cut the body up and
disposed of it in Galveston bay IIRC. He was found not guilty of murder by
the jury..
Seems the fact that Mr. Durst also admitted to killing the man was not
strong enough evidence. Stupid were the prosecutors for only going for
murder charges. Had the prosecutors alternatively gone for manslaughter,
cutting up a dead body, or hiding a dead body, Mr. Durst probably would be
in jail for a long time. But since the prosecution could not prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that this was a murder, Mr. Durst walks. Mr. Durst
claimed it was an accident and the jury bought that story.

Neal wrote:

>
>
> I was in the restaurant business for 29 years and learned that the correct
> temperature for brewing quality coffee is around 200°- 205° and the holding
> temperature should be 185°. The quality of the coffee declines at lower
> temperatures.



I went through my period of being a coffee snob and that's what I
learnt, run 200 degree water over the grounds.

Never worried much about holding temperature as even the bad coffee I
now drink isn't around very long.



--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)

In article <clHxb.13042$P%[email protected]>,
Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
<...snipped...>
>
>Correct reason: there would never have been a serious injury, and thus
>no lawsuit, because Ma & Pa's Coffee and Donut Shop doesn't serve coffee at a
>HUNDRED AND NINETY degrees.
>
>FWIW, when this story first came out, I stuck a thermometer into a pot of
>coffee freshly brewed by my Black & Decker [OBWW] automatic-drip coffee maker:
>one-sixty-one. And that's plenty hot as far as I'm concerned, hot enough that
>I won't drink it right away. One-ninety is *waaaaay* too hot to be serving
>coffee without a warning.
>
>--
>Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>

How hot do you think it would have been if you used a percolator?



--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:37:10 -0600, "Jonathan"
<letseatpaste@RATATAT_TAThotmail.com> wrote:

>That's all I've got to say, I'll let someone else have the last word if they
>want. I gotta go find my scraper and burnisher and smooth up some
>mahogany...
>
>Happy Thanksgiving,
>Jonathan
>

You too, Jonathan.

This might save others a lot of posting time...

http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785

No one knows for sure how much she actually finally got.



Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...

Trent

todd wrote:

> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Is this stuff true? If it is, this country is in far more trouble than I
>>thought, because the possibility of coming up with 6 or 12 people to agree
>
> that
>
>>any of these clowns deserved recompense of any kind is frightening.
>>
>>Charlie Self
>>
>>"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
>>promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken
>
>
> Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.htm) says that these are
> fabricated.
>
> todd
>
>

You could look at http://stellaawards.com/ where they tend to post links of
newspaper reports in their emails.
Joe

"Ehvee8or" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<snip>

> At what temperature do you have to start issuing warnings? Maybe it's
> just me, but I learned a long time ago that coffee is hot, and if I
> spill it on myself, it is going to hurt. If I were stupid enough to
> put a cup of hot liquid between my legs in a moving vehicle, I would
> accept the consequences of that decision.

How long can we keep this no win debate going?

Early 60's, worked as tech in large computer room w/floating floor, so all
entrances had been ramped up from original floor. Rear corner of comp. rm.
was a hot/cold fountain with instant coffee, hot choc., etc.. One of the
programmers was a polio victim in a wheelchair. When he would come in for a
cup of coffee, the ONLY way he had to carry it was between his legs. Every
so often the door(self-closing) would bump the back of his wheelchair on the
way out, and the resulting "GREAT BALLS OF FIRE" would resound throughout
the department.
Nahmie

"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Norman D. Crow" wrote:
> > Early 60's, worked as tech in large computer room w/floating floor, so
all
> > entrances had been ramped up from original floor. Rear corner of comp.
rm.
> > was a hot/cold fountain with instant coffee, hot choc., etc.. One of the
> > programmers was a polio victim in a wheelchair. When he would come in
for a
> > cup of coffee, the ONLY way he had to carry it was between his legs.
Every
> > so often the door(self-closing) would bump the back of his wheelchair on
the
> > way out, and the resulting "GREAT BALLS OF FIRE" would resound
throughout
> > the department.
> > Nahmie
>
> Your premise is wrong. There was no ONLY way. Did someone
> say he had had to transport it in the original full open
> container? I doubt that. Did someone say that only he
> could transport it and not someone else transport it for
> him? I doubt that. Now a lawyer might be able to convince
> a jury that the ONLY way was.... but it wouldn't be true.
> Do you assume that he was too stupid to realize that he
> spilled it once, that he should do things differently? If
> he was that stupid he shouldn't have been programing. The
> truth was, he made a decision to continue carrying his hot
> beverage in a way that it would spill. He could have put it
> in a larger container so it wouldn't spill on him or a dozen
> different things. Get the drift? It was his decision
> process that resulted in the spills.

I was not working on a "premise"!
It was intended as a little humor.
If there was someone nearby, they frquently carried it for him, but if
there was no one around, he put the PAPER cup from the dispenser rack
between his legs, and generally was in good enough control of everything
that he made it out the door and down the ramp without getting bumped.
However, once in a while he would get jarred and spill a little(not the
whole cup). The scream was not one of intense pain, just his way of letting
the whole department he *screwed up* again.
Get a life.
Nahmie

"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorry my humor level is a little low. Hey you wrote it and
> you said "the only way way he had to carry it...." That is
> a premise, you need to look in a dictionary.

Too lazy to look it up. Maybe I should have changed the emphasis to "the
only way HE had to carry it". That work for you?(LOL)
Nahmie

You guys might want to check out www.overlawyered.com if you're
interested in this kind of thing.

Bill

In article <[email protected]>, Ehvee8or <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Bullsh*t. If the "victim" had gotten her coffee at Ma & Pa's Coffee
>and Donut Shop, she wouldn't have ever seen a dime.

Right answer...

>Why? Because no
>attorney would have taken the case because they knew there was no
>money in it. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

.. wrong reason.

Correct reason: there would never have been a serious injury, and thus
no lawsuit, because Ma & Pa's Coffee and Donut Shop doesn't serve coffee at a
HUNDRED AND NINETY degrees.

FWIW, when this story first came out, I stuck a thermometer into a pot of
coffee freshly brewed by my Black & Decker [OBWW] automatic-drip coffee maker:
one-sixty-one. And that's plenty hot as far as I'm concerned, hot enough that
I won't drink it right away. One-ninety is *waaaaay* too hot to be serving
coffee without a warning.

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> The annual "Stella Awards" ......... Only in America
> The Stellas are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled
> coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds. That case inspired
> the Stella awards for the most frivolously successful lawsuits in the
> United States.
> Here are the 2002 winners:
> <cut>

Sorry, all fabricated.

http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html

This might almost be believable but number one blew it. The last time I
heard this story, a woman was driving, her husband was asleep in the back
and they were both killed when she set the cruise control and went into the
back. No lawsuit in that version.


"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The annual "Stella Awards" ......... Only in America
> The Stellas are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled
> coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds. That case inspired
> the Stella awards for the most frivolously successful lawsuits in the
> United States.
> Here are the 2002 winners:
> 5th Place (tie): Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded
> $780,000 by a jury! of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over
> a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the
> store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the
> misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 5th Place (tie):
> 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses
> when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman
> apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when
> he was trying to steal the hubcaps.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 5th Place (tie): Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving
> a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not
> able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was
> malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door
> connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The
> family was on vacation, and Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the
> garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a
> large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance, claiming
> the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the
> tune of $500,000. -------------------! --------
> --------------------------------------
> 4th Place: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500
> and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door
> neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard.
> The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have
> been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams, who had climbed
> over the fence into the yard and was shooting it repeatedly with a
> pellet gun.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 3rd Place: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of
> Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and
> broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms.
> Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an
> argument.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 2nd Place: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the
> owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the
> bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This
> occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the
> ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She! was awa rded
> $12,000 and dental expenses.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 1st Place: This year's run away winner was Mr. Merv Grazinski of
> Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot
> Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, (from an OU football
> game), having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70
> mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make
> himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the RV left the freeway,
> crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising
> him in the owner's manual that he couldn't actually do this. The jury
> awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually
> changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were
> any other complete morons buying their RVs!
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> :-)
>

Sounds like the jury members are on commission to me! LOL! How sad!

Jim

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message:
> Is this stuff true? If it is, this country is in far more trouble than I
> thought, because the possibility of coming up with 6 or 12 people to agree
that
> any of these clowns deserved recompense of any kind is frightening.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
> promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:38:32 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Ehvee8or <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Bullsh*t. If the "victim" had gotten her coffee at Ma & Pa's Coffee
>>and Donut Shop, she wouldn't have ever seen a dime.
>
>Right answer...
>
>>Why? Because no
>>attorney would have taken the case because they knew there was no
>>money in it. What ever happened to personal responsibility?
>
>.. wrong reason.
>
>Correct reason: there would never have been a serious injury, and thus
>no lawsuit, because Ma & Pa's Coffee and Donut Shop doesn't serve coffee at a
>HUNDRED AND NINETY degrees.

I don't think that's a valid assumption.

>FWIW, when this story first came out, I stuck a thermometer into a pot of
>coffee freshly brewed by my Black & Decker [OBWW] automatic-drip coffee maker:
>one-sixty-one. And that's plenty hot as far as I'm concerned, hot enough that
>I won't drink it right away. One-ninety is *waaaaay* too hot to be serving
>coffee without a warning.

At what temperature do you have to start issuing warnings? Maybe it's
just me, but I learned a long time ago that coffee is hot, and if I
spill it on myself, it is going to hurt. If I were stupid enough to
put a cup of hot liquid between my legs in a moving vehicle, I would
accept the consequences of that decision.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:30:00 GMT, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>letseatpaste@RATATAT_TAThotmail.com says...
>>
>> "jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > The annual "Stella Awards" ......... Only in America
>> > The Stellas are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled
>> > coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds. That case inspired
>> > the Stella awards for the most frivolously successful lawsuits in the
>> > United States.
>>
>> Aside from the other ones being false, if you actually look at Stella's case
>> against McDonald's you'll see it's not frivolous.
>> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm ... There's a ton of info about this
>> if you search on Google, it's actually pretty interesting. I'd say
>> McDonald's got off relatively easy.
>>
>
> Why? Because other people got burned by hot coffee? I've looked at
>those items in the past and still don't understand how the fact that
>someone in a car driven by her son-in-law, putting *hot* coffee between
>her legs while he was driving could hold McDonalds responsible for the
>fact she got burned when the car took off. Was McD's coffee hotter than
>others'? Yes, but does that mean if it was a not as hot she still would
>not have been burned? The injuries may not have been as serious,but I
>still don't see how one can hold the company accountable for the fact
>that, knowing she had a hot drink, she still used a very unsafe means of
>holding that hot coffee while in a moving vehicle. If I was McD's I'd
>just start serving the stuff cold -- screw the public.

Excellent, I'll have even more reason to boycott them. Cold coffee
should put them out of business, for others can manage to get it
right. You are right, SERVE COLD COFFEE, please do.

Actually, I grew up the city of South Houston, (somewhat South of the
city of Houston,) and Galveston was (and is) about 45 miles south of
there. ;>

John

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:40:43 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Isn't Galveston a subdivision in South Houston? ;~)
>
>

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:54:29 GMT, Mark <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785
>>>>
>
>>
>>
>> I believe the judge remittitturred most of it and she got
>> legal fees and medical fees out of it at the end. Nothing
>> else, the stupid, scheming wench.
>
>
>
>
>Something everyone here seems to have missed (unless I missed your not
>missing it) is she put the cup between her legs and TOOK THE LID OFF!
>
>How frigging stupid can someone be as to remove the top of a styrofoam
>cup and expect it to be held between their legs? It's awful damned
>optimistic to think the cup wouldn't crush * with * the lid.


My wife says there is nothing stupider than people. However maybe
judges are stupider!!
Ken in NS

If you think this stuff is bad, read "The death of Common Sense"
writen by a NY lawyer some years ago and reissued in paperback,.
He also wrote "The Lost Art of Drawing the Line"
Now those will make you puke


On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:38:23 GMT, "Wade Lippman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You know that this stuff is either entirely fake, or reversed on appeal,
>don't you?
>

George in Maine
[email protected]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:23:43 -0500, "G.E.R.R.Y."
<DON'[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Trent©
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785
>>
>> No one knows for sure how much she actually finally got.
>
>That is the thing that p*sses me off the most. There should never be
>civil suit decisions without *full* disclosure of the terms of
>settlement. What ever happened to "...justice must also be *seen* to be
>done"?

I agree.



Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...

Trent

Isn't Galveston a subdivision in South Houston? ;~)

"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The annual "Stella Awards" ......... Only in America
> The Stellas are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled
> coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds. That case inspired
> the Stella awards for the most frivolously successful lawsuits in the
> United States.

Aside from the other ones being false, if you actually look at Stella's case
against McDonald's you'll see it's not frivolous.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm ... There's a ton of info about this
if you search on Google, it's actually pretty interesting. I'd say
McDonald's got off relatively easy.

Jonathan

I live in Houston and saw some of the people that were on the jury in the
local press. They give a new meaning to dumber than dumb. How some of
these people even found the court house to show up for jury duty is
amazing.


"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Seems others have pointed out that these may be bogus, but to top all of
> them was "the" Houston trial. A Mr. Durst killed a man, cut the body up
and
> disposed of it in Galveston bay IIRC. He was found not guilty of murder
by
> the jury..
> Seems the fact that Mr. Durst also admitted to killing the man was not
> strong enough evidence. Stupid were the prosecutors for only going for
> murder charges. Had the prosecutors alternatively gone for manslaughter,
> cutting up a dead body, or hiding a dead body, Mr. Durst probably would be
> in jail for a long time. But since the prosecution could not prove beyond
a
> reasonable doubt that this was a murder, Mr. Durst walks. Mr. Durst
> claimed it was an accident and the jury bought that story.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Why? Because other people got burned by hot coffee? I've looked at
> those items in the past and still don't understand how the fact that
> someone in a car driven by her son-in-law, putting *hot* coffee between
> her legs while he was driving could hold McDonalds responsible for the
> fact she got burned when the car took off. Was McD's coffee hotter than
> others'? Yes, but does that mean if it was a not as hot she still would
> not have been burned? The injuries may not have been as serious,but I
> still don't see how one can hold the company accountable for the fact
> that, knowing she had a hot drink, she still used a very unsafe means of
> holding that hot coffee while in a moving vehicle. If I was McD's I'd
> just start serving the stuff cold -- screw the public.
>

Because when a company knows that there is a risk of injury (as they were
well aware from the many burn cases before), and knows that the customer
doesn't understand that risk, it's their obligation to make it as safe as
they can. They knew the risk of third degree burns with liquid at that
temperature, and they knew that they were serving coffee at a temperature
well above what other restaurants serve it at. She only had 2-7 seconds to
get the scalding coffee away from her skin, which had soaked into her
sweatpants, to avoid serious injury. If it'd been served at a more normal
temperature for coffee, the liquid would have cooled quickly enough for her
to avoid serious injury. McDonald's had reasonable and economically
feasible means to make their product safer, and they made a calculated
decision not to do that.

Are third degree burns an appropriate (or commonly expected) consequence for
spilling coffee? Eight days in the hospital, skin grafts, tens of thousands
in medical bills... Is that a potential consequence you think about when you
hold coffee in your hand? You'd normally expect some mild burns or skin
irritation.

McDonald's knew of the danger, and figured it was such a small percentage of
the amount of coffee they sell, they testified to that in court. They
figured out it was better economically in the long run to pay off the
relatively few claims for injury. That's the whole reason for huge punitive
damages, so companies don't get to make the choice between your safety and
their bottom line. Businesses shouldn't be able to calculate the economic
value of your safety against severe injury.

Granted, there are abuses of the system, but you can't just throw out the
legit cases on a knee jerk reaction... Especially given the fact that she
only sued after McDonald's offered to pay her a measly $800 instead of just
covering her medical bills, which is all she wanted in the first place.

Jonathan

>
> Hot coffee is supposed to be hot. That's why they call it hot coffee.
> The optimal temperature for storing HOT coffee is 175-180 degrees.
> McDonnalds was serving coffee well within that temperature range. The
> claim that other places do not serve their coffee properly is of no
> concern.
>

McDonald's was serving coffee between 185 and 190 degrees, they require all
their restaurants to do so. It's above normal, and it is of concern if they
decide to serve their coffee hotter than anyone else. If everyone else
brews their coffee at, say, 155, then most people would assume that it's the
way McD's serves it. If you spill coffee from another restaurant on
yourself, you won't need skin grafts.

> If we are going to follow your sill logic, then we should force all
> restaurants to pre-chew our food for us. After all everyone knows that
> people can choke on large pieces of food, and pre-chewing would prevent
> this. how dare those nasty stores not pre-chew everything and risk
> subjecting us to serious injury
>

There's a big difference between expecting the absurd extremes you're
describing and brewing coffee at a more normal temp, in line with what most
other restaurants do.

> Stupidity should hurt. When I hold something hot in my hand, I know
> what can happen, and behave responsibly. While this concept may be to
> complicated for some, I really don't feel the need to suffer for their
> ignorance.
>

Do you know what third degree burns even are? Haven't you ever spilled
something? It's just a mistake, it's not stupid. It's a mistake that
happens all the time. It happens all the time.

> This is a woodworking newsgroup. The makers of tools know of the
> dangers of such tools. A small percentage of users manage to hurt
> themselves on these devices. Just how much extra safety stuff should
> they be required to add onto their tools just to prevent a few Darwin
> candidates from showing their lack of smarts. Already, you can't buy a
> table saw in the EU that will accept a dadao blade.
>

If a company knows of a reasonably cost-effective way to make their product
safe that doesn't ruin the function it's supposed to serve, then they should
do that.

I'm not an anti-corporation person, and I think gov't over-regulation of
private business is a bad thing... But when you have a clear case where a
company knows there's a danger, has a history of people being injured by
this danger, has a cost effective and reasonable way to avoid causing
injuries,and makes a calculated decision not to do something about it, they
should be punished for that.

That's all I've got to say, I'll let someone else have the last word if they
want. I gotta go find my scraper and burnisher and smooth up some
mahogany...

Happy Thanksgiving,
Jonathan

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:clHxb.13042$P%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Ehvee8or
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Bullsh*t. If the "victim" had gotten her coffee at Ma & Pa's Coffee
> >and Donut Shop, she wouldn't have ever seen a dime.
>
> Right answer...
>
> >Why? Because no
> >attorney would have taken the case because they knew there was no
> >money in it. What ever happened to personal responsibility?
>
> .. wrong reason.
>
> Correct reason: there would never have been a serious injury, and thus
> no lawsuit, because Ma & Pa's Coffee and Donut Shop doesn't serve coffee at a
> HUNDRED AND NINETY degrees.
>
> FWIW, when this story first came out, I stuck a thermometer into a pot of
> coffee freshly brewed by my Black & Decker [OBWW] automatic-drip coffee maker:
> one-sixty-one. And that's plenty hot as far as I'm concerned, hot enough that
> I won't drink it right away. One-ninety is *waaaaay* too hot to be serving
> coffee without a warning.
>
> --
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss
America?




I was in the restaurant business for 29 years and learned that the correct
temperature for brewing quality coffee is around 200°- 205° and the holding
temperature should be 185°. The quality of the coffee declines at lower
temperatures. This is for quality coffee and I don't think McDonald's serves
very good coffee and they don't need the high temperatures. Safety sometimes
has to come before quality.

Neal

> >> > The annual "Stella Awards" ......... Only in America
> >> > The Stellas are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled
> >> > coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds. That case inspired
> >> > the Stella awards for the most frivolously successful lawsuits in the
> >> > United States.

Waiting for someone to sue Hustler magazine because they got tennis elbow

"Neal" <[email protected]> writes:

>I was in the restaurant business for 29 years and learned that the correct
>temperature for brewing quality coffee is around 200- 205 and the holding
>temperature should be 185. The quality of the coffee declines at lower
>temperatures.

What temperature did you *serve* it at?

Given the amount of gadgetry McDonalds uses, you would think they
could come up with a machine that would hold the coffee at one
temperature and then serve it at a lower temperature. For a given
temperature and flow rate, you could design a heat exchanger to
remove the appropriate amount of heat. It wouldn't be that hard
to do.

One of the articles said McDonalds claimed people were buying
coffee to drink later at home or at the office, while their own
research showed that people wanted to drink it in the car on the
way there. It makes them sound like they don't know what they're
talking about.

Most fast food places serve *everything* too hot to eat...

"Ron Bean" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Neal" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >I was in the restaurant business for 29 years and learned that the correct
> >temperature for brewing quality coffee is around 200- 205 and the holding
> >temperature should be 185. The quality of the coffee declines at lower
> >temperatures.
>
> What temperature did you *serve* it at?
>
> Given the amount of gadgetry McDonalds uses, you would think they
> could come up with a machine that would hold the coffee at one
> temperature and then serve it at a lower temperature. For a given
> temperature and flow rate, you could design a heat exchanger to
> remove the appropriate amount of heat. It wouldn't be that hard
> to do.
>
> One of the articles said McDonalds claimed people were buying
> coffee to drink later at home or at the office, while their own
> research showed that people wanted to drink it in the car on the
> way there. It makes them sound like they don't know what they're
> talking about.
>
> Most fast food places serve *everything* too hot to eat...
>
>

We served coffee at 185°. This is what Bunn coffee machines are set for from
the factory. The majority of restaurants use Bunn coffee machines. What about
tea? The water should be brought to a boil before the tea bag is inserted.
McDonalds is in a no win situation. They have to decide between quality or
safety. The type of cliental at McDonald's makes me think that safey should win
out.

Neal

I thought I was going to puke my lunch when I read the original post.

THESE ARE BOGUS !!!!

http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html

There are some frivilous lawsuits and someday they may approach the audacity
of these bogies.

Rich


"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jo4hn posts:
>
> >
> >The annual "Stella Awards" ......... Only in America
> >The Stellas are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled
> >coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds. That case inspired
> >the Stella awards for the most frivolously successful lawsuits in the
> >United States.
> >Here are the 2002 winners:
> >5th Place (tie): Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded
> >$780,000 by a jury! of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over
> >a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the
> >store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the
> >misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >5th Place (tie):
> >19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses
> >when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman
> >apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when
> >he was trying to steal the hubcaps.
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >5th Place (tie): Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving
> >a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not
> >able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was
> >malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door
> >connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The
> >family was on vacation, and Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the
> >garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a
> >large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance, claiming
> >the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the
> >tune of $500,000. -------------------! --------
> >--------------------------------------
> >4th Place: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500
> >and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door
> >neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard.
> >The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have
> >been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams, who had climbed
> >over the fence into the yard and was shooting it repeatedly with a
> >pellet gun.
> >--------------------------------------------------------------
> >3rd Place: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of
> >Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and
> >broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms.
> >Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an
> >argument.
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> >2nd Place: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the
> >owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the
> >bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This
> >occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the
> >ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She! was awa rded
> >$12,000 and dental expenses.
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> >1st Place: This year's run away winner was Mr. Merv Grazinski of
> >Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot
> >Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, (from an OU football
> >game), having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70
> >mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make
> >himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the RV left the freeway,
> >crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising
> >him in the owner's manual that he couldn't actually do this. The jury
> >awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually
> >changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were
> >any other complete morons buying their RVs!
>
> Is this stuff true? If it is, this country is in far more trouble than I
> thought, because the possibility of coming up with 6 or 12 people to agree
that
> any of these clowns deserved recompense of any kind is frightening.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
> promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You know that this stuff is either entirely fake, or reversed on appeal,
don't you?