Look at the stupid woman who put a hot cup of coffee between her thighs when she was driving - not only did she settle out of court but now the temperature of all McDonald's coffee has been lowered because of one stupid woman who was too dumb to put the coffee cup in the coffee holder of her car. Bet she drives holding her cell phone and puts on mascara on the on ramp to the highway.
We all KNOW that large quantities of fast food and non-diet soda has a heavy calorie burden. I don't care that someone is whining they didn't know - we were all educated in school to know what the four food groups are and that we should eat more fruits and veggies and less carbs and surgar. It doesn't matter who provides it - McDonald's, Starbucks, or Great-Aunt Bertha - we know we shouldn't eat as much of it as we do.
Believe me, I am not blaming us fat chicks for our fat - sure, we are likely to carry a heavier burden than someone who is 5 lbs. overweight and we are less likely to lose that five pounds than someone else without a weight issue. But ultimately, we hold the responsibility for what we eat (speaking for adults; children are an entirely different issue). Just because the fast food joints offer it does not mean we have to eat it.
Plus, it's been proven by the coffee lady and others that stupidity can be rewarded financially. Make a quick (big) buck with a nuisance lawsuit.
(By the way, some of my weaknesses include Portillo's french fries and hard-shell tacos. So I know all about which temptations are out there!)
You know when you start to think about, it's just incredible that these super-sized things even came about. I mean that it even entered the minds of the powers that be at these companies. Just one day it popped into their heads "Ummm, let's offer big, gigantic, astronomical sized portions and I bet people will go for it"? And then the other powers that be all said "Yeah, great idea!" No one thought to say "What are you kidding, who's gonna go for all that food, there's way to much in those portions, no one would even THINK of eating that much at one sitting"
It's quite likely they monitored the free refills and decided to make a buck, rather than giving so much away free, by just selling larger sizes.
Look at the stupid woman who put a hot cup of coffee between her thighs when she was driving - not only did she settle out of court but now the temperature of all McDonald's coffee has been lowered because of one stupid woman who was too dumb to put the coffee cup in the coffee holder of her car. Bet she drives holding her cell phone and puts on mascara on the on ramp to the highway.
It always makes me sad when people bring up this case as an example of frivolous lawsuits. She wasn't driving, she was a passenger and the car was stopped at a drive-through. The coffee was scalding, McDonalds knew it was dangerously hot and didn't lower the temperature (their coffee was 20 degrees higher than coffee from other restaurants). The woman was burned terribly in her groin area and needed skin grafts. She originally only wanted her medical bills paid (20,000) - she wasn't trying for some fabulous payout. I've read about this case and I think she was justified and obviously, the jury actually presented with the evidence was too.
Good summation:
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. But because McDonalds was guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct" punitive damages were also applied. The jury set the award at $2.7 million. The judge then reduced the fine to less than half a million. Ms. Liebeck then settled with McDonalds for a sum reported to be much less than a half million dollars. McDonald's coffee is now sold at the same temperature as most other restaurants.
I don't blame that woman that sued about the coffee. She was a senior citizen, not a cell phone, make up applying talking while driving person. PLUS the industry has standards on how hot something should be for safety reasons. The standards aren't set in stone but are put in place as a way to keep people from being injured. Their coffee was WAY hotter than the industry safety standard and this poor woman was seriously burned on her inner thighs and her hoo-haa. NOTHING should be served that hot. What if she had went inside to get the coffee and when she walked away from the counter she tripped and spilled it on some child? Would someone be right to sue then? Of course.
I agree that people do sue over some dumb stuff but in this case,the slant that reporters put on it made the woman look like a whiner but when you read the actual complaint filed with the court, it's obvious she had every right to sue. Additionally, there are additional $$s you can recover if you have injuries to your sex organs, which she did.
[QUOTE=Glory87;1581133]It always makes me sad when people bring up this case as an example of frivolous lawsuits. The coffee was scalding, McDonalds knew it was dangerously hot and didn't lower the temperature (their coffee was 20 degrees higher than coffee from other restaurants). The woman was burned terribly in her groin area and needed skin grafts. She originally only wanted her medical bills paid (20,000) - she wasn't trying for some fabulous payout. I've read about this case and I think she was justified and obviously, the jury actually presented with the evidence was too.QUOTE]
I was in a poli-sci class where a kid brought this up and the professor spent the rest of the lecture setting us straight on this. You are right, it is a sad misconception.
I think this thread makes an interesting point. As a consumer I don't see how I could find out that Starbucks coffee has more caffiene that coffee made according to the directions at home, or coffee served by their competitors, except that there are consumer watchdogs out there who publish this info. Since my doctor advises me against caffiene, and caffiene is addictive but hamburger is not (I know that's a simplification) it does start making fast food places look a little less "evil".
The alertness benefits of caffiene wear off if you have it every day, btw. Best way to benefit from it is to lay off the caffiene for 2 weeks, then have some the day of the test, event, etc., you want to be ready for.
Although they don't publish drink nutritional information on the cups or in plain view at the store, most coffee chains do have web sites that show the nutritional information on those drinks. Once I saw what my large froufy mocha had in calories, I immediately switched to a medium coffee with milk. If I'm going to consume 700 calories, I'd go for cheesecake.
In America, we have this belief that "Bigger Is Better" whether it be coffees, french fries, or cars. The bigger-is-better belief just doesn't apply to women's bodies in most cases. I think the companies also like doing the bigger-is-better thing, because selling 20 oz of french fries at a time is more cost effective than selling 8 oz of french fries.
our litigious society
