Florida jury awards $23.6 billion to widow in smoking lawsuit

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

They'll drag this out in court for years before they pay out.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9371472].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

No way that verdict will stand. That's the definition of a runaway jury and an example of how out of whack our lawsuit system has become in the U.S.

I don't believe anyone on a jury thought no one knew tobacco was harmful prior to 1990's. During the tobacco trials of the 90's we learned how far tobacco companies would go to keep people addicted.....but we knew about the addiction long before that.

In the 60's - when this particular man was a "new smoker", cigarettes were already referred to as "cancer sticks".

More than that - this makes a circus out of our legal system and jury system.
- [ 6 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9371532].message }}
- Alexa Smith Banned 10 years ago
  
  The quantum of the damages will doubtless be reduced on appeal.
  
  Some juries (more so in America than in other countries, I think?) like to try to "send a message". And in a legal system in which the lawyers themselves are directly involved in the financial outcome of cases - by being paid a percentage of the damages - they're often encouraged to, as well, by the plaintiff's/claimant's lawyers.
  
  John Grisham "predicted" this, long ago: The Runaway Jury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
  .
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9371551].message }}

Lucian Lada

10 years ago

Originally Posted by WalkingCarpet

This is utter incredible but well deserved.

Why is it well deserved? I mean, yes, it's not good for one's health to smoke, but the guy started smoking at the age of 13, which is illegal. Furthermore, how can a sane person say that in 20+ years of smoking he never thought about it being dangerous to his health?

How ignorant can one be to claim such a thing?

Sometimes I wonder if some people don't have too many rights.

I think it would be much more effective to just significantly reduce the amount of nicotine in each cigarette until it makes very difficult to reach the "tipping point" that transforms occasional smokers into heavy smokers. Anyway, that's one of the proposed solutions.

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Professional autoresponder email writer.
I also write premium quality articles, e-books, etc.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9371604].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Lucian Lada

Furthermore, how can a sane person say that in 20+ years of smoking he never thought about it being dangerous to his health?

How ignorant can one be to claim such a thing?

Sometimes I wonder if some people don't have too many rights.

I think it would be much more effective to just significantly reduce the amount of nicotine in each cigarette until it makes very difficult to reach the "tipping point" that transforms occasional smokers into heavy smokers. Anyway, that's one of the proposed solutions.

Well, your initial question is, in my book, INSANELY ludicrous! How could a person exposed to cigarettes for even 10 seconds not consider it dangerous? If there is even a doubt, MY DO IT? And how could ANYONE have the SLIGHTEST idea of how they work or, being fully ignorant of all that, see merely how the cigarette is affected, not see the burn and/or fire potential of the cigarette?

YEAH, non smokers really have NO rights! If you say smoking in public should be banned, they say they have a right to smoke. HEY, they can smoke in LOTS of places! I *****HAVE***** to breath where I am, and what of insurance and all?

Reducing the nicotine would just make some mad. They would still smoke,

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9371631].message }}

sbucciarel Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Lucian Lada

Why is it well deserved? I mean, yes, it's not good for one's health to smoke, but the guy started smoking at the age of 13, which is illegal.

Because there has never been an industry that has committed so much fraud and deception about their product as the tobacco industry has. Fraud and deception in advertising is illegal.

In addition to the fraud and deception and marketing to children, they deliberately manipulated the nicotine delivery to produce the highest degree to addiction to their product because nothing sells cigarettes like addiction, now does it?

In addition, they deliberately targeted the youth market. For anyone really interested in the deception and fraud of the tobacco companies, complete with excerpts from their own internal memos and documents and studies, read this:

http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/...oExplained.pdf
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372456].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

She is going to get BILLIONS of dollars because she married a #$%^&*(?

Where are all MY billions for all the people that practically SUFFOCATED me? I sometimes took showers and changed clothes DURING LUNCH because of the STENCH! My performance dropped, I failed to do so much. Even my LUNGS STUNK! If I exhalled into "clean" air, it smelled like rancid cigarette smoke! My uncles, mother, and father smoked incessantly. My first and second bosses did. I couldn't even EAT in piece. I, unlike her and her husband, had no real control over the matter.

Where are MY billions?

Alexa, This was never so unusual. Anyone remember the woman at mcdonalds? SHE was not the first or the last, but it is so LUDICROUS! MOST people drinking coffee DEMAND hot coffee. That often means that, at some point, in the carafe, it will be close to 100C or 212F. The ONLY reason I pick those two numbers is because water usually can't get any hotter than that. MOST coffee makers work by filtering immediately condensed water through grounds and a filter, and that point is perhaps 99C or 211F. To insure that the coffee stays hot, they usually have a heating plate. So, if you asked for coffee, you could expect it to be HOT. She ALSO held it near a sensitive part of her body in the most haphazard way.

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9371618].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Alexa, This was never so unusual. Anyone remember the woman at mcdonalds? SHE was not the first or the last, but it is so LUDICROUS! MOST people drinking coffee DEMAND hot coffee. That often means that, at some point, in the carafe, it will be close to 100C or 212F. The ONLY reason I pick those two numbers is because water usually can't get any hotter than that. MOST coffee makers work by filtering immediately condensed water through grounds and a filter, and that point is perhaps 99C or 211F. To insure that the coffee stays hot, they usually have a heating plate. So, if you asked for coffee, you could expect it to be HOT. She ALSO held it near a sensitive part of her body in the most haphazard way.

This was someone who sued and (astonishingly, perhaps?) got some huge damages award "because the coffee she spilled was hot", wasn't it? It does ring a bell.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9371990].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

This was some who sued and (astonishingly) got some huge damages award "because the coffee she spilled was hot", wasn't it? It does ring a bell.

YEP!

THEY SAID:

Liebeck's attorneys argued that at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C) McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original award was over 2.8million. TODAY, that would supposedly be about 4.5million.

IMAGINE! The coffee was DEFECTIVE because it was too hot! REMEMBER, I said it would be as hot as 99C, 211F That was just an educated guess on how they work, etc.... THEY claimed as much as 88C or 190F. So they even were a little BELOW the possible temperature. But people want coffee HOT, and some people get takeout to have LATER. So NOW, they try to make it a little colder, and put warnings on it!

ALSO:

Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[10]

MAYBE, to be fair, she should have sued Ford for not having cup holders! She could have sued her grandson for not selecting a better car. She could have sued the maker of the sweat pants for not making them waterproof.

And she could have sued herself for tying everything together so well! I mean she was in the car, couldn't use cup holders, had absorbent shorts, put the cup close to her groin, removed the lid, and just let the heat go where it may.

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372118].message }}

Paul Myers

10 years ago

Alexa,

That was Stella Liebeck, and the award wasn't anything close to as absurd as people make it sound.

Did you know there were 700-some reported incidents of people getting seriously burned by McDonald's coffee in the preceding decade? McD's KNEW the temp they served it at was dangerous, and they knew they were handing it to someone in a less than optimal environment for handling liquids at those temps. They were the only major chain at the time that served their coffee that hot.

Stella's burns were so bad she required skin grafts. That's not just "hot."

I was listening to an argument once in which a gentleman with extensive knowledge of the case debated it with someone whose only info was derived from bad jokes on talk radio. It was silly.

I suggested to them that the real basis of the suit should have been that the product was unsafe for its intended purpose and that McD's knew that. Basis: 700+ burn incidents, and they were handing the product directly to people in the environment in question.

A lawyer in the group looked at me and said that would be a sound argument, and wondered why it hadn't been used.

Side note: Stella wasn't the driver of that vehicle and it was not moving at the time she was burned.

Paul

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372126].message }}

Alexa Smith Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

A lawyer in the group looked at me and said that would be a sound argument, and wondered why it hadn't been used.

Thanks, Paul ... please excuse the observation that it's occasionally struck me that you'd have been a natural for law school. (I say "please excuse ..." because I'm not sure how much of a compliment it is, overall: one or two people have occasionally said the same to me, also, and probably not intending it altogether as a compliment ).

.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372152].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Well, I HAVE ordered coffee at restaurants before. I have made it myself, and others have made it for me. It has generally, as a rule, been TOO HOT! If I drank it too quickly, I would burn my tongue. It was rarely more than that, because I would generally sip, at first. And I have heard of people complaining that coffee was too COLD! And a place like mcdonalds does NOT know where the food is going. Will the person drink it on the way home, or are they going to some event or place to have it there? And how long would they take to drink it?

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372140].message }}

Paul Myers

10 years ago

Steve,

3rd degree burns. Skin grafts on more than 6% of her body.

That's too hot to be considered a responsible temperature for a liquid served into a motor vehicle. And every other major chain with drive-thrus at the time knew it.

Paul

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372153].message }}

Claude Whitacre 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Steve,

3rd degree burns. Skin grafts on more than 6% of her body.

Paul

I saw photos of the burns. They were horrific. It was way..way beyond "a hot cup of coffee". It was criminal.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372220].message }}
- Paul Myers 10 years ago
  
  Claude,
  
  Most of the people who deride Mrs Liebeck for the lawsuit have no clue just how bad the burns were, or talk like she was trying to put cream in the coffee while she was driving down the road. And they almost all assume the coffee was the same temperature they get from Wendy's or Arby's or their local gas station.
  
  To be fair, the incidents of serious reported burns were one in some number of millions of cups of coffee sold. I don't think that absolves McD's of responsibility, but it puts it in perspective.
  
  It's not a slam dunk either way, but it bothers me to see people ridiculing someone who suffered a very real injury she had no reasonable way to anticipate.
  
  Paul
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372244].message }}

Joe Mobley

10 years ago

Let me offer a slightly different line of thinking regarding the spilled coffee incident.

The first question that comes to my mind in a situation like this is,

Who... Is... Responsible?

Who ordered the coffee? with the expectation of it being hot coffee?
Who had possession of the coffee at the time of the incident?
Who mishandled the coffee that resulted in the injuries?
Had the coffee not been mishandled by the person who had possession of the coffee, would there have been any injuries?

There is only one party that was responsible for and caused the injuries to Stella Liebeck, and that is Stella Liebeck. She should get nothing.

Joe Mobley

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372268].message }}

Paul Myers

10 years ago

Joe,

Actually, the jury considered those factors, and determined that Mrs Liebeck was 20% responsible for her injuries.

The overriding consideration was the question: Who was responsible for the coffee being served at a temperature significantly and dangerously outside what one would normally expect?

A reasonable person does not expect "hot coffee" to be able to cause 3rd degree burns.

Paul

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372293].message }}

Joe Mobley

10 years ago

Fair enough. I just disagree with the overriding consideration.

I probably won't be picked for many juries.

Joe Mobley

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Joe,

The overriding consideration was the question: Who was responsible for the coffee being served at a temperature significantly and dangerously outside what one would normally expect?

Paul

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372342].message }}

Claude Whitacre

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

Let me offer a slightly different line of thinking regarding the spilled coffee incident.

The first question that comes to my mind in a situation like this is,

Who... Is... Responsible?

Joe; It may be the first question to come to mind.

But, if you saw the photos of the burns, you wouldn't be saying this.

Did she spill the coffee on purpose? No.
Did she get burned on purpose? No.

Did McDonalds burn her on purpose? Of course not.

But they heated the water to the point where it could cause 3rd degree burns. That was going to cause a serious burn like this eventually. To me, whoever made that rule, was responsible.

Anyway, there is always at least one valid point of view. And the jury saw all the evidence, we didn't. So, even my opinion is based on incomplete information.

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372312].message }}

Paul Myers

10 years ago

A thought, for the folks who say "She knew it was hot. She wanted hot coffee."

Consider: If you went into a public restroom and turned on the hot water, do you expect the act of washing your hands to result in 3rd degree burns?

Probably not.

If it did, you would not be unreasonable to hold the owner of the facility responsible, especially if they were aware of previous injuries from the same condition and made a policy decision not to make adjustments.

"Hot" is a subjective term. "190 degrees" and "150 degrees" are not. Nor is the difference in risk to the consumer of the product.

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372340].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

A thought, for the folks who say "She knew it was hot. She wanted hot coffee."

Consider: If you went into a public restroom and turned on the hot water, do you expect the act of washing your hands to result in 3rd degree burns?

Probably not.

If it did, you would not be unreasonable to hold the owner of the facility responsible, especially if they were aware of previous injuries from the same condition and made a policy decision not to make adjustments.

"Hot" is a subjective term. "190 degrees" and "150 degrees" are not. Nor is the difference in risk to the consumer of the product.

Paul

I can stand HOT water! I even set my water heater to heat the water to a higher temperature. Still, I ******NEVER****** just run hot water without testing it. And YEAH, hot water CAN burn! I once cleaned some things for a church that constantly had wax on them, etc... I used VERY hot water, as hot as it came from the tap. One person even asked how I could stand it. But I didn't just linger under the water. STILL, my hands were RED!!!!!!! But I had a limited time, wanted to do a good job, and cold water just didn't cut it.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372357].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Joe; It may be the first question to come to mind.

But, if you saw the photos of the burns, you wouldn't be saying this.

Did she spill the coffee on purpose? No.

She DID act to greatly increase the chance. The law calls that NEGLIGENCE!

Did she get burned on purpose? No.

Temperatures DO NOT CARE! If you are exposed long enough, it burns you. Most little kids know that.

Did McDonalds burn her on purpose? Of course not.

NOPE! They weren't near it.

But they heated the water to the point where it could cause 3rd degree burns. That was going to cause a serious burn like this eventually.

If that were true, we would all be pieces of burnt charcoal! We AREN'T! WHY? Because heat seeks BALANCE! That coffee will eventually be the temperature of the environment around it, though not colder than ~0C, or hotter than ~100C. If the environment is cold enough, that coffee will eventually be ICE! THAT is why you can run a hose full bore in your garden and never flood your home! LIQUID, like temperatures, seeks a BALANCE! The water will simply run to the lowest level possible, and spread out.

To me, whoever made that rule, was responsible.

I guess they should not sell ANYTHING then! People want coffee to be HOT. If it is too cold, they complain. They want pop to be cold. If it is too hot, they complain. I guess a person could sue for soda being too cold, and causing pain in the teeth.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372345].message }}

Paul Myers

10 years ago

Steve,

I guess a person could sue for soda being too cold, and causing pain in the teeth.

Assuming they could get such a suit heard, the award would probably not exceed the cost of a case of Sensodyne.

Dental temperature sensitivity is unlikely to require skin grafts over 6-16% of a person's body. And the majority of people are aware of such a condition if they have it and know to avoid very cold beverages.

An ice cream headache is hardly in the same class of injury as 3rd degree burns, sir.

Paul

PS: Either are "red hands."

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372359].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Steve,Assuming they could get such a suit heard, the award would probably not exceed the cost of a case of Sensodyne.

Dental temperature sensitivity is unlikely to require skin grafts over 6-16% of a person's body. And the majority of people are aware of such a condition if they have it and know to avoid very cold beverages.

But people DON'T know that HOT water can cause such pain? WOW! I guess I should write a book! Don't look at the up in the sky unless it is a time when you would normally expect little sunlight, even if there is a total eclipse, unless you have appropriate eye protection. Don't bump into anything at an aggregate speed exceeding 10mph(Realize that many cars can sustain bumper damage at an aggregate speed over 5mph). Don't put yourself in a position where you are likely to fall more than your height, or 6', whichever is more, etc..... Don't come in contact with anything colder than 33F or hotter than 100F. Don't push against anything sharp. Don't light fires that are where they will substantially raise the temperature of combustible materials nearby. Don't release gas in the open more than 3 seconds without lighting it. Don't rely on such fires staying lit. Don't drive on slick roads. Don't walk on slick floors. Always look where you are going, etc....

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372379].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

PS: Either are "red hands."

I MIGHT have been able to get a burn if I stayed there long enough. SORRY I wasn't so careless.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372381].message }}

Paul Myers

10 years ago

Steve,

I MIGHT have been able to get a burn if I stayed there long enough. SORRY I wasn't so careless.

If the water had been as hot as the coffee under discussion, you would have been able to stand it for somewhere between 3 and 7 seconds before you started screaming in agony and had to be taken to the hospital, probably in shock, for emergency burn treatment.

Are you being sarcastic, Steve, or are you simply oblivious to the concept of relative severity?

Paul

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372409].message }}

Paul Myers 10 years ago

Joe,

I'm not hearing any evidence that someone other than Stella Liebeck caused the accident.

That's because there is no evidence of that. To the extent that it can be said someone "caused" this sort of accident, it was all on Stella.

Had she had the same accident with coffee from almost any other chain at the time, she would not have suffered the burns she did. McDonald's knew their coffee could cause 3rd degree burns (and had, on numerous other occasions) and chose to continue selling it at dangerous temperatures through a drive-thru window despite that knowledge.

Paul
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372417].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Steve,If the water had been as hot as the coffee under discussion, you would have been able to stand it for somewhere between 3 and 7 seconds before you started screaming in agony and had to be taken to the hospital, probably in shock, for emergency burn treatment.

Are you being sarcastic, Steve, or are you simply oblivious to the concept of relative severity?

Paul

You HAPPEN to be writing to a person that once leaned on a HOT SOLDERING IRON for several seconds! I was HEAVILY distracted at the time. HERE is how hot it was:

60/40: melts between 183-190 °C (361-374 °F)

It ended up burning a hole in the carpet, and leaving a nice welt on my lower arm. You had to be there.

ALSO, in highschool through an oh so nice event(sarc), I got an opportunity to see how hot a burning stick could be. I had a nice big welt reminiscent of that sunburn I spoke of earlier. Luckily, both healed fine.

NO, I know relative severity. People take risks EVERY DAY! USUALLY there is no problem. USUALLY, if there is a problem, people weigh the facts and may toss it up to even dumb luck.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372446].message }}

Paul Myers

10 years ago

Wow, Steve. You seem to have completely lost the ability to stay on a single topic for more than a few seconds.

The whole point is that your ability to withstand prolonged exposure to water at 130 degrees or less on perhaps 3% of your body is going to be very different from your ability to withstand the same duration at 190 degrees on 6-16% of your body.

This is especially true when talking about the hands vs the lap. Very different skin thicknesses. (Stella's age no doubt had an effect, as skin becomes thinner as one gets older.)

Paul

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372473].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

There is "hot" and then there is "HOT". I had 2nd degree burns on my hands from a few seconds exposure to steam - man, did that hurt and hands were bandaged for 2-3 weeks.

The part of the McDonalds' case that gets left out is the woman offered to settle for about $20k to cover her medical costs...and McDonald's refused.
That led to the court battle - the big award - but at the end the actual settlement paid was reported to be about $500k.

We know tobacco is bad - we knew that before the public trials in the 90s - tobacco related diseases are not a surprise.

In the trials, the states suing tobacco giants got an award of over $200 billion to be spread out over 25 years. Now we have 23 billion for one person? That shows the change in mindset of the public but the award itself makes no sense.
- [ 3 ] Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372570].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Wow, Steve. You seem to have completely lost the ability to stay on a single topic for more than a few seconds.

The whole point is that your ability to withstand prolonged exposure to water at 130 degrees or less on perhaps 3% of your body is going to be very different from your ability to withstand the same duration at 190 degrees on 6-16% of your body.

This is especially true when talking about the hands vs the lap. Very different skin thicknesses. (Stella's age no doubt had an effect, as skin becomes thinner as one gets older.)

Paul

Actually, I mentioned the different skin, etc... in my FIRST post! I thought that was IMPLIED by "VERY SENSITIVE AREA","GROIN", etc... That IS a big part of what I was talking about. And YEAH, my arms are less likely to be damaged, but if I get a welt THERE,imagine how the groin, etc... would be.

As for the percentage? A lot of that was due to the wicking of the fabric, and the initial area.

Oh well, coffee is generally HOT! The area in question is generally sensitive. If you can't assess the temperature, set it somewhere rather safe, and WAIT! Stellas age doesn't matter AT ALL! 7, 17,70, or 700. she should have been more careful!

Steve

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372713].message }}

Paul Myers

10 years ago

Steve,

Seriously? Significant wicking would diffuse the thermal mass so quickly that the damage done would have been minor. Certainly nothing like what Mrs Liebeck suffered.

she should have been more careful!

Yeah, 'cause, you know, nobody ever spills anything by accident when they're being careful...

I thought that was IMPLIED by "VERY SENSITIVE AREA","GROIN", etc...

Really? You meant skin thickness? I was somehow of the impression, especially based on the rest of that comment, that you had an entirely different reference in mind.

Silly me...

Allow me to clarify my earlier comments, and distill them into a question that requires no more than a yes or no:

Could you have done the previously mentioned work you did at the church for the same amount of time if the water you were using had been at a temperature of 190 degrees Fahrenheit without causing yourself serious injury?

[ ] Yes.
[ ] No.

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372739].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Could you have done the previously mentioned work you did at the church for the same amount of time if the water you were using had been at a temperature of 190 degrees Fahrenheit without causing yourself serious injury?

Being hot enough to soften the wax WAS a real help. Do I know how hot it was? NOPE! It almost certainly WAS over 120F though. It DID steam the mirrors, etc... But I doubt it was 190.

And I wasn't about to let myself get hurt.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372786].message }}

Paul Myers 10 years ago

Steve,

OSHA recommends something in the area of 140-150 degrees for heaters if there's bacterial presence in the water. Most residential or commercial heaters serving municipally treated water are more in the 120-130 range.

90 degrees or more is enough to help in softening wax. (Yeah. Less than your body temperature.)

Consider: The difference in water temps between 120 and 190 is similar to a difference in air temp of 80 and 126 degrees. I can do 80 all day long. 126 for more than an hour and I'm probably history.

The answer to my question is, for any normal human organism: No.

Paul

Edited to correct: Scalding is much more immediate and damaging then dry baking...
- Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372801].message }}

Steven Wagenheim 10 years ago

I can see both sides of this. But the bottom line for me is simple.

The average person, myself included, does not expect a spilled cup of coffee to cause 3rd degree burns. I have been burned by coffee in my life. It hurts like hell. But I never had to have skin graphs from it. That's the bottom line and that's why the woman was awarded the money. Had I been on the jury, just on that fact alone, I would have done the same.

As for the smoking, sorry. We've known smoking has been dangerous to your health since I was a kid back in the 60s when my mother used to scare the crap out of me with the "You want cancer? You want to die? Go on, smoke a cigarette."

He lectures literally scared me so much that I never dreamed of smoking and yet, even then, I still tried it once. Coughed like the devil after one puff and I was done.

How anybody can willingly put that crap in their bodies just boggles my mind.

So no, had I been on this jury there is no way in hell I would have found in favor of the plaintiff.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372743].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

"Thousands of internal tobacco industry documents released through litigation and whistleblowers reveal the most astonishing systematic corporate deceit of all time."

And those disclosures of manipulation of consumers turned the tide of smoking in this country. I don't think anyone should discount the tremendous impact those tobacco trials had...or the amount of money that was spread around as a result.

Richard Scruggs' tobacco settlement fee arrangements will continue to pay him $20 million a year until the year 2025.

Dickie Scruggs was a power player - and the leading lawyer credited with the $248 billion tobacco settlement made to Mississippi.

When you consider the fees above - interesting to note Dickie Scruggs was released from prison (judicial bribery) three months ago after a 7 year sentence. How many people make $20 million a year while in prison?

I don't disagree about the effects of tobacco or the scheming of the tobacco companies. However, tobacco was regulated and you have to wonder how many regulators were paid off to be asleep at the wheel.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372753].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

I don't disagree about the effects of tobacco or the scheming of the tobacco companies. However, tobacco was regulated and you have to wonder how many regulators were paid off to be asleep at the wheel.

... and that is the saddest fact of our political system that allows elected officials to act on behalf of the richest lobbies rather than on the behalf of the people who put them in office. If politicians were acting in the best interest of the people in this country, there would be no tobacco industry in the US. If agencies like the FDA don't really protect people against harmful products, what do they do with their time and what is their purpose?

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9373472].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

... and that is the saddest fact of our political system that allows elected officials to act on behalf of the richest lobbies rather than on the behalf of the people who put them in office. If politicians were acting in the best interest of the people in this country, there would be no tobacco industry in the US. If agencies like the FDA don't really protect people against harmful products, what do they do with their time and what is their purpose?

Let me start off by saying that I totally detest smoking. The problem is, the FDA is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If we shut down the industry, our economy will take such a major hit on so many levels that it's incomprehensible.

Forget the number of people who will be out of work, thus spending less money causing other industries to suffer.

Add to that the number of people who will now have to go to some rehab program or get some kind of drug treatment to handle the withdrawal symptoms. And God knows what other side effects we'll suffer (illegal cigs, etc) after we shut everything down.

It is simply not a solution. At least not a practical one.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9373598].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

If politicians were acting in the best interest of the people in this country, there would be no tobacco industry in the US.

The FDA has never been a "protection" to the level people seem to expect. I'm not sure it was meant to be that.

But pols had more than "interest of the people" in mind when it came to tobacco - or perhaps more accurately had more in addition to the interest of the people.

There was big money in big tobacco - and that was one reason it took so many years to really look into tobacco risk and damages done.

On one hand big tobacco subsidies are paid to tobacco farmers - on the other hand high taxes have been added ('sin' taxes) to tobacco at both state and federal level. Add in kickbacks, handouts, powerful lobbyists and it's amazing the tobacco trials of the 90's happened at all.

However, there is no way I can look at this case and think an award in excess of 20 BILLION dollars makes any sense at all.
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9373621].message }}

Richard Van

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Steve,

3rd degree burns. Skin grafts on more than 6% of her body.

That's too hot to be considered a responsible temperature for a liquid served into a motor vehicle. And every other major chain with drive-thrus at the time knew it.

Paul

Hi Paul,

One thing that I did just think about but the said man who died, thankfully did so by being ill. Imagine if he'd been driving at high speed, dropped the cigarette, crashed and died as a result so his wife could sue the cigarette company for not pointing out the dangers of smoking and driving, the government for allowing smoking in cars and the car industry for endorsing it by providing in car ash trays.

It's legal to smoke and drive here still, albeit just. Fascinating when you think of the dangers of handling hot coffee while not driving in a stationary vehicle.

Edit. I don't know enough about the coffee incident though I remember it well, to say the compensation was too much or not. The 23.6 billion in this case strikes me as a bit excessive though, surely someone told the chap in question there's a connection between his smoking habit and inability to breathe before it was too late? Like his wife.

She's now wealthier than some of this countries top entrepreneurs but at least she's over the moon about it.

“When they first read the verdict, I know I heard ‘million,’ and I got so excited,” Ms. Robinson said in a phone interview Saturday. “Then the attorney informed me that was a ‘B’ — billion. It was just unbelievable.

She said Mr. Johnson, a longshoreman and hotel shuttle bus driver to whom she was married from 1990 until his death six years later, began smoking around age 13. He often lit a fresh cigarette with the butt end of another.

“He really did smoke a lot,” she said.

Thanks

Signature

Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9373669].message }}

Joe Mobley

10 years ago

Claude, let me disagree with you a bit here.

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Joe; It may be the first question to come to mind.

But, if you saw the photos of the burns, you wouldn't be saying this.

I'm not agreeing with the logic here. The idea that the injuries are so severe that it changes who is responsible just doesn't work.

Did she spill the coffee on purpose? No.
Did she get burned on purpose? No.

Did McDonalds burn her on purpose? Of course not.

On this we agree.

But they heated the water to the point where it could cause 3rd degree burns. That was going to cause a serious burn like this eventually. To me, whoever made that rule, was responsible.

How hot is the water in your coffee maker? How hot is the grease on your stove when you (okay... your wife) cooks something?

All of that notwithstanding, the temperature of the coffee did not cause the accident. The actions of Stella Liebeck caused the accident.

Anyway, there is always at least one valid point of view. And the jury saw all the evidence, we didn't.

Absolutely.

So, even my opinion is based on incomplete information.

I'm not hearing any evidence that someone other than Stella Liebeck caused the accident.

Joe Mobley

Thanks

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372405].message }}

Paul Myers

10 years ago

Alexa,

I've been told that before, usually by lawyers. I usually ask "Really? Prosecution or defense?"

If they know me well enough to form an opinion, that stumps them.

Paul

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372180].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Yeah, who knows. I once got HUGE blisters from swimming in a swimming pool. I mean they were HUGE! I guess I could have tried to sue the apartment owners, but I knew it was my fault for staying in so long, etc... I can only assume that, if I had had hot coffee, such as I made for MYSELF, spill on MY groin, that I would be in MAJOR pain and lose a LOT.

According to the burn foundation, a liquid temperature of only 140F can cause 3rd degree burns in 5 SECONDS:

https://www.burnfoundation.org/progr...ce.cfm?c=1&a=3

I'm sure MANY would consider even 100F to be too cold. So what temperature would be considered a good temperature?

Returns from google suggest that coffee is served between 150F and 190F and Google suggests 160F to 185F. So I guess most places offer coffee that is "too hot".

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...ee+temperature

BTW wikipedia says:

Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[28] relying on more sternly-worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[28][29] The Specialty Coffee Association supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[30] Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C). Retailers today sell coffee as hot or hotter than the coffee that burned Stella Liebeck.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372327].message }}

Paul Myers

10 years ago

Steve,

But people DON'T know that HOT water can cause such pain?

How can such an intelligent person become so fixated on ignoring clear and obvious considerations like "fit for intended use" or "reasonable expectations?"

"Hot" is not a universal constant.

Paul

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372392].message }}

Cali16

10 years ago

Paul, thank you for providing a balanced perspective regarding the McD’s coffee incident.

As for this current lawsuit and the verdict - as much as I despise the tobacco industry, I can't begin to wrap my brain around $23.6 billion in damages for a single person (if it had been a class action lawsuit, then that would make much more sense). Obviously there are aspects of the case of which I'm not aware.

Also, the guy was born in 1959 or 1960, and didn't start smoking until the early 70s - people weren't completely clueless back then regarding the dangers of smoking or the highly addictive potential of nicotine.

I lost my mother to emphysema 10 years ago. She was 71. She had started smoking in her mid to late teens in the 1940s. She was very addicted and a heavy smoker for over 30 years. She tried quitting numerous times, and was finally able to stop completely in her early 50s. I admired her so much for that, as I know it was very difficult for her.

Sadly, though, the damage to her lungs was such that she spent the last 10 years of her life on oxygen - initially part time and eventually full time. It was heartbreaking, as the quality of her life was greatly diminished due to her emphysema. She wasn't overweight. She had no other health issues. But her lungs were simply shot.

The thing about my mother, though, was that she ALWAYS took full responsibility for her condition. Not once did she ever blame the tobacco industry, like this widow (and so many others) is attempting to do. And my mother probably had far more grounds to do so, as we knew far less about the long term hazards of smoking in the 1940s than we did 25+ years later, when this guy started smoking. But blaming others for her choices was simply not part of her character, and I deeply respected and admired that about my mom.

Much as I'd absolutely love to see all forms of tobacco eradicated entirely, I just don't see how all the blame goes to the tobacco companies for so many of these smokers' deaths. How is this widow's deceased husband not at least partly to blame for all the years he smoked? And on what planet is $23.6 BILLION a reasonable amount for damages in a case like this? While I highly doubt it will ever actually get paid, I imagine this verdict will result in even more people suing the tobacco companies, hoping they can become billionaires if they win...

Don’t get me wrong; I have no sympathy for the tobacco companies and yes, they’ve engaged in some abhorrent practices. But people also have to take some responsibility for the choices they make in life. All you have to do is look at older smokers to see the damaging effects that years of smoking has on one’s health. All the warnings in the world aren’t going to stop a lot of people from smoking. There will always be people who make really foolish choices when instant gratification is involved - even if it means risking addiction and eventually destroying one's health.

(Perhaps my siblings and I should have sued R.J. Reynolds for my mother's death...but it never once crossed our minds.)

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372591].message }}

Paul Myers

10 years ago

Cali,

thank you for providing a balanced perspective regarding the McD's coffee incident.

For that, you should also thank Joe, Kay, Claude, Alexa, and Steve.

You never get a really balanced perspective based on a single person's view of a topic like this.

Paul

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372660].message }}

Cali16

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Cali,For that, you should also thank Joe, Kay, Claude, Alexa, and Steve.

You never get a really balanced perspective based on a single person's view of a topic like this.

Paul

Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully. "Reasonable" perspective may have been a better way to put it, based on facts and logic (facts of which I had not been aware, and which helped give me a more objective viewpoint).

(And I did thank Kay below her post.

I'll add a thanks to Claude as well.)

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372677].message }}

Paul Myers 10 years ago

Cali,

'Reasonable' is, in this kind of discussion, subjective. Alexa didn't really express any strong opinions. Joe and Steve are both very intelligent people and, despite the fact that I might disagree with them, are likely to view their opinions as being more reasonable than mine.

Depending on which sets of underlying assumptions are seen as being more correct, they might well be deemed right.

Paul
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372709].message }}
- Cali16 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Paul Myers
  
  Cali,
  
  'Reasonable' is, in this kind of discussion, subjective.
  
  Good grief, Paul, just take the compliment! (I thanked the people that I felt most contributed to that part of the discussion.)
  
  @Suzanne, let's just agree to partially disagree on a few points. I do appreciate and understand your perspective.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372779].message }}

Claude Whitacre 10 years ago

I would pay good money for a book, just full of a discussion..on anything...between Paul and Steve.

Originally Posted by Cali16

(And I did thank Kay below her post. I'll add a thanks to Claude as well.)

No...no...please...this is all so sudden.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9373036].message }}
- Paul Myers 10 years ago
  
  Claude,
  
  I would pay good money for a book, just full of a discussion..on anything...between Paul and Steve.
  
  The first edition of that series was published around 10 years ago. Subsequent titles have varied little from that milestone.
  
  Paul
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9374734].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Cali16

Much as I'd absolutely love to see all forms of tobacco eradicated entirely, I just don't see how all the blame goes to the tobacco companies for so many of these smokers' deaths. How is this widow's deceased husband not at least partly to blame for all the years he smoked? And on what planet is $23.6 BILLION a reasonable amount for damages in a case like this?

When a company knowingly and very deliberately increases the nicotine delivery to achieve the maximum amount of addiction to a product because it's the one selling point that ensures your customer will keep coming back, when it deliberately markets to appeal to children, when it's product is responsible for an annual global death toll of 4 million with a projected annual death toll of 10 million by 2030 (faced with reducing levels of smoking in the West and an insatiable need for money, the companies have moved aggressively into developing countries and Eastern Europe), when a company develops a cigarette called a "light" or "low tar and nicotine" cigarette that actually isn't any healthier than any other cigarette ...

"Thousands of internal tobacco industry documents released through litigation and whistleblowers reveal the most astonishing systematic corporate deceit of all time."

My question would not be on what planet is 23.6 billion a reasonable amount for damages, but would be on what planet is the death of 10 million people annually an acceptable consequence of using a company's products, particularly given the amount of lies and deception by executives and their legal representatives about their products.

At a certain point after studies showed the health risks involved with smoking cigarettes, the companies actually debated making a healthier product, but decided not to. Their lawyers advice was that to now make a healthier product would be admitting that their previous products were not healthy.

The one factor of smoking cigarettes ... the addiction to nicotine is the only thing that has kept the tobacco industry alive and well, and that is the one feature that they have deliberately manipulated to ensure that their customers are as addicted as they can possibly be. Without the addiction, there would be no tobacco industry. Tobacco companies are nothing more than legal drug pushers and cigarettes are their drug delivery device. Why people cut them any slack at all is beyond me.

The pdf link I referred in my first post quotes from the internal memos of tobacco execs and their lawyers and they are damning. In my opinion, they are criminal and rather than award a big judgment that they probably won't pay, I'd just as soon see them all in jail.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372663].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Cali16

As for this current lawsuit and the verdict - as much as I despise the tobacco industry, I can't begin to wrap my brain around $23.6 billion in damages for a single person (if it had been a class action lawsuit, then that would make much more sense). Obviously there are aspects of the case of which I'm not aware.

Yeah, if you REALLY want to hurt them, and punish them for this, have them pay some significant, but NOT fantastic amount to the family in question, like equivalent to a low end insurance policy, with the lawyer getting his/her share on THAT, and have a fine and punitive damages to some open ended fund for such future claims.

If she got $23.6, SHE would get MAYBE 16.52 billion, and the rest gets paid to the attorney. ESPECIALLY if this is a contingency case, lawyers generally get paid upwards of 30%. The company may get out of future lawsuits, and there is no benefit. You just made two families stinking rich.

The idea that someone couldn't figure out, and never heard, about how bad this is doesn't wash. HECK, s lot of states have limited smoking areas, and stores have begun to get out of the business. Tobacco products have warnings on them! They have PSAs. much of this was true like 30+ years ago.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9372751].message }}

Florida jury awards $23.6 billion to widow in smoking lawsuit

Trending Topics

How do I effectively build and nurture an email list for affiliate marketing purposes?

Are Solo ADs the Most Cost Effective Way to Promote your Product?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?