Would you like fries with that ambulance?

[plonq]

In the kind of thing that appeals to the schadenfreude in many dark, twisted little minds, a lady at a McDonalds drive through somehow ran over herself with her own SUV.

While I can see how it could happen, and I empathize for the severity of her injuries, I couldn't get this image from my mind:



If it had been hot coffee on her legs, rather than her own giant urban assault vehicle, then she there might have been some sweet lucre for her in it. As it is, if she tries to file suit over this, she won't have a leg to stand on.

Comments

You mentioned

[typographer.livejournal.com]

You mentioned the hot coffee, so I had to speak up to dispell the myths inherent in you mention.

First, the McDonalds in question had been cited numerous times for serving coffee that was hotter than health regulations allowed. The 20° F difference in temp between the health reg maximum and the actual temp served was significant. At the health reg maximum, it takes more than a minute of exposure to cause merely second degree burns. At the temperature actually served, it takes less then 20 seconds to cause third degree (and the first and second degree burns happen much quicker). Can you get your pants off in less then 20 seconds?

While seat-belted into your son-in-law's car?

Second, she asked only for McDonalds to cover the portion of her medical expenses that her own insurance wouldn't cover. They refused.

Third, while the jury awarded an incredibly insane punitive amount over and above the amount she asked for, the judge knocked most of that off. And the appeal judge reduced it further.

In other words: the restaurant actually was at fault, she didn't ask for an unreasonable amount, and once the judicial process was finished, she didn't get an unreasonable amount.

As a side note, a friend of mine was working at the graphic production department that was hired by the expert witnesses to turn the pictures of the massive third-degree burns into poster sized pictures to display for the jury. You want to see something that will make you want to curl up in a ball and squeal in pain just from seeing it, you should see those pictures.

Re: You mentioned

[ionotter.livejournal.com]

Oh, you missed the part where McDonald's lawyers tried to argue that an old woman doesn't need her labia or vagina anymore, so they shouldn't have to pay for the skin grafts.

Re: You mentioned

[plonq.livejournal.com]

If a McDonalds employee had spilt the coffee on her, I might see how she would arguably have a case, but the fact remains that it was a self-inflicted injury. The thing that has bothered me most about this case is the ridiculous size of the cash reward (which was thankfully reduced later). As long as juries keep giving out huge lottery winnings to people who sue corporations over self-inflicted injuries, we will continue to see people <a href="http://cbs13.com/watercooler/local_story_274134320.html>filing spurious lawsuits</a>. Personal accountability seems to take a back seat when the other person is rich. A fair reward in that case would have been for half of her medical expenses, since the temperature of the coffee was a contributing factor. The jury's ruling apparently ignored the prime aggravating factor in the case - you know, the part where she dumped the coffee on herself while handling it in an unsafe manner. I get annoyed when juries award huge cash settlements based not on the merits of the case, but on the perceived depth of the defendant's pockets. Saying "the restaurant was at fault" is only partly true. It was "at fault" in the same manner that a manufacturer of scissors is "at fault" for making them too sharp in the event that somebody falls on a pair while running with them. I'm sure that a lawyer could produce lots of similarly graphic pictures for the jury to ogle over.

Re: You mentioned

[typographer.livejournal.com]

I know I only alluded to this part, but I did mention "portion" of the medical expenses. It's all she asked for and once the judicial process was finish, it is all she got.

As a point of fact, the jury did apply a formula on the actual damages side that assigned a substantial portion of the blame to her, and therefore gave her the complimentary percentage of the actual damages. And as I did say, once the judicial process was complete, the punitive damages were almost completely thrown out. In other words, under your definition she got a fair settlement.

A wider investigation of facts in similar cases will reveal that the number of lawsuits of this sort filed per year has been going down steadily for the last sixty years. Both the median and mean sizes of jury awards in all liability cases have been (when adjusted for inflation) also going down significantly for sixty years.

[ionotter.livejournal.com]

The "Coffee Lawsuit".

Every time I hear about that thing, it's always heard as the lie, never the truth. And every time, I always tell people The Truth, yet this pustulent shibboleth keep sloughing back to life, poisoning the air and water with it's very presence.

*HUFF*

[plonq.livejournal.com]

I have never felt that her case totally lacked merit, only that that the jury was on crack and awarded her far more than she deserved. The extent of her injuries is less material to me than the fact that they were self-inflicted. The restaurant should have been held 50% responsible, with the temperature of the coffee being a contributing factor, and the award should have been for one half of her medical expenses.

Whether McDonalds should have been a "good citizen" and simply picked up her expenses is an exercise for another day.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p7Q6v8ZsMc

[plonq.livejournal.com]

Now that's comedy.