The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Man sues McDonald's because chicken sandwhich oil burns mouth.
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 9th, 2010 9:58 AM Author: carmine deer antler http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/09/a-new-tort-reform-talking-point-the-chicken-sandwich-case/ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340593) |
 |
Date: March 9th, 2010 10:00 AM Author: Beady-eyed frum people who are hurt I bet that shit hurt. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340604) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 10:01 AM Author: carmine deer antler Don't drink the oil straight out of the fryer. It's bad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340608) |
Date: March 9th, 2010 9:59 AM Author: claret comical parlor when did bothered change his name to frank? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340596) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 9:59 AM Author: carmine deer antler He was too well known on the intertubes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340600) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 10:07 AM Author: federal brunch pervert To be fair, I was under the impression that all the meat at McDonalds was microwaved and that there was nothing to drain from it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340640) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 10:09 AM Author: Beady-eyed frum people who are hurt I bet it was a breaded chicken sandwich--deep fried. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340656) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 10:17 AM Author: sadistic antidepressant drug candlestick maker lol @ him for not taking advantage of the 2 fillet-o-fish for $3 deal during lent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340692) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 10:48 AM Author: Mewling house internal respiration http://www.amazon.com/Sunstar-Industries-Inc-McDonalds-Frankie/dp/B002RCIBRS/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340797) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 10:39 AM Author: appetizing legend institution lemme guess....it also caused psychological trauma? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340759) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 10:43 AM Author: dark trailer park he wants 2 Mil LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340770) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 10:48 AM Author: appetizing legend institution he'll never be able to relax and eat a chicken sandwich again. he'll always be in fear of hot chicken sandwiches. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340799) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 10:50 AM Author: dark trailer park *demands compensation for music therapy* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340804) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 10:52 AM Author: opaque adulterous dingle berry french chef I'm really sick of McDonald's getting so much hate from people. Look at the comments "I have never been to a McDonald's where I got food that was above room temperature"
Yeah that's how McDonald's got to be number 1 RESTAURANT in the world, serving cold food. |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 10:53 AM Author: dark trailer park your biased (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340824) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 10:57 AM Author: Vigorous church mediation its unavoidable. mcdonalds is prolish, so self-loathing proles will pretend to hate it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340845) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:00 AM Author: opaque adulterous dingle berry french chef Yeah that commenter probably spends 15 hours a week reading e-mail at Starbucks (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340858) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:00 AM Author: adventurous lake haunted graveyard private investor does your mcdonalds have wifi with nice new plasma tvs? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340861) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:01 AM Author: opaque adulterous dingle berry french chef YNY (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340864) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:12 AM Author: adventurous lake haunted graveyard private investor nice (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340923) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:00 AM Author: Titillating patrolman menage I don't understand why are country types/ conservatives think these sorts of cases are arguments for "tort reform." If a big company gives me a sandwhich that is 500 degrees and explodes hot grease in my mouth, they need to internalize the damn costs.
Tort reform really needs to happen in medical malpractice and products liability (especially prescription drugs). Absent outright fraud/deception, consumers should bear the risk of taking potentially life-saving drugs. |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:04 AM Author: dark trailer park i don't understand why you put the burden of risk on businesses for an activity where information is easy to obtain by the consumer (the heat of the food. does this look dangerous? should i put it in my mouth??), whereas you put the burden on the consumer for taking drugs where information about the risk is difficult to obtain (hm, before I take this, I think I'll analyze it chemically to make sure it doesn't have anything harmful. Good thing I have a medical degree and a lab handy!!)
explain your argument |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:08 AM Author: Titillating patrolman menage Cheapest cost avoider dood. It's much easier for the company to just not give customers food that is 500 degrees rather than expect every person to thoroughly inspect their food before eating it, especially given that most people who get fast food are in a rush/in a car. People reasonably expect food to be safe, since 99% of the time it is.
Drugs, on the other hand, are known to be inherently dangerous and there is much uncertainty about the degree of that harm, and there might be hidden dangers not yet discovered. The benefit to science/the public in letting people take drugs for serious conditions is big enough to outweigh the costs of a few people dying because of some undiscovered side effect, especially since even if they had spent 100 million more in trials and found the side effect, most people would still have taken it anyway. Let the guy dying of cancer weigh to risks and uncertainties rather than exposing the company to millions in liability, possibly forcing them to decide it's not worth manufacturing the drug and definitely increasing the cost of the drug.
Note I am NOT saying drug company's shouldn't be liable if some drug for high blood pressure gives 50% of the people who take it fatal cancer within 2 years - obviously they should have done some basic research. |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 4:18 PM Author: Transparent place of business That's why prescription drugs are not strict liability. The distinction you make is essentially exactly how the system is now in almost all US jurisdictions. The drug companies aren't made to pay unless they are negligent or worse.
I understand that juries sometimes lose sight of that distinction, but what can you do. |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:06 AM Author: appetizing legend institution yeah. good idea. if a company undercooks their food then they get sued because someone gets salmonella (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340887) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:39 AM Author: mahogany dashing orchestra pit windowlicker There are possible and easily obtained outcomes that exist between undercooked food and boiling grease in someone's mouth. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341083) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:00 PM Author: ocher party of the first part is your point that a restaurant is liable neither for overcooking nor for undercooking, or that they are only responsible for undercooking food? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341178) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:11 AM Author: federal brunch pervert your logic is totally wrong. Any moron knows not to bite into a hot sandwich. You dont need to go to Yale to know a dangerously hot piece of food from one that isnt. Also, we live in an age where people do all sorts of shit to themselves to get money. You have to be naive as fuck to think some poor wouldnt take a lighter to his own lips if he thought he could get money out of McDonalds for doing it. In the Kobe Bryant case the whore took a switchblade to her vagina to make it look like he raped her.
|
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:13 AM Author: Titillating patrolman menage There were witnesses in the restaurant dood. He didn't hold a lighter to his lips. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340927) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:14 AM Author: federal brunch pervert in the restaurant they didnt, but who his lips werent bleeding in the restaurant, they bled the next morning at home. God only know what he did or didnt do to himself.
|
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:15 AM Author: federal brunch pervert What you are really wrong about is the pharma and med mal shit. Those are exactly the sort of cases where the law needs no reform. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340937) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:17 AM Author: Brilliant keepsake machete Only in America, right?
Hope there are pics to show his lips that made him avoid work... |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:18 AM Author: violent floppy volcanic crater locale link re: Kobe? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340963) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:19 AM Author: federal brunch pervert we had a thread with the police transcripts on it last week. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340969) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:31 AM Author: high-end thriller native circlehead You've never not realized how hot something was before you ate it? If the chicken was super hot and the bun wasn't, you might not feel it in your hands.
Your point that people sometimes fake shit for money is totally worthless - by that thinking we might as well not allow any tort lawsuits at all because people can fake injuries in almost any situation. Or maybe we could just have a fucking trial to figure out whether he's likely telling the truth like a fucking 1st world nation with a fucking justice system. |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:33 AM Author: dark trailer park honestly the problem is dumb prole juries who hatez teh korperashuns (or the threat of juries driving settlements up). i'm pretty sure the framers didn't intend for every little shit suit to potentially end up in front of a jury (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341054) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:38 AM Author: high-end thriller native circlehead I don't think you can divine any intent of the framers to NOT have everything end up in front of the jury. I mean they were pretty broad about jury trial without much qualification.
Anyway we all know only a tiny fraction of cases actually do wind up in front of a jury, which I guess does go against what I said a little. But settlement also only means a small percentage of what's being asked for anyway. |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:40 AM Author: mahogany dashing orchestra pit windowlicker "Any moron knows not to bite into a hot sandwich."
And the typical consequence of doing so is what? |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:43 AM Author: federal brunch pervert pain (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341098) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:42 AM Author: hot stimulating resort affirmative action this is dumb. if there's hot grease once you bite into the chicken, not sure how you would know that beforehand without doing an unreasonable investigation. when you eat fast food, you take the wrapper off and bite in. unless the sandwich was burning his hand, im not sure how its unreasonable to expect not to damage your mouth by biting in. this is different from putting a lighter to lips, the dude simply took the sandwich and did what mcdonalds would reasonably have expected him to do with it, i.e. immediately eat it. if this caused injury, then this seems like a pretty open and shut case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341095) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:45 AM Author: federal brunch pervert your lips are made out of the shit as your hands. If it burns your lips its going to be painful to the touch in your hands IMHO. As far as the bun acting as an insulator goes, those buns are paper thin and you have to be a fucking idiot to think heat wont conduct through the bun and into your hand fairly efficiently. McDonalds isnt exactly known for having thick fucking bread.
And a reasonable person isnt going to know that "fried food might be hot?" Please. |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:51 AM Author: hot stimulating resort affirmative action weak argument. the bun insulates somewhat. and the grease could have been contained in a pocket of the breading, which would be impossible to detect until puncturing the breading. having hot grease directly in contact with your mouth is going to feel different than having a sandwich with a bun, topping and perhaps breading in between your fingers and the grease. not sure how this is controversial.
there's a difference between "fried food = hot" and "if i bite into this fast food sandwich i will suffer injuries which will impose costs on me" |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:53 AM Author: federal brunch pervert yeah, umm, that "pocket" of grease is still conducting heat into the bread and into your hand. IRL "closed systems" (to borrow a concept from chemistry) dont exist. A bun is hardly the best of insulators. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341140) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:56 AM Author: hot stimulating resort affirmative action so your argument is that grease, buffered from the hand from a number of layers, will be just as hot and injurious to a hand as grease in direct contact with the mouth? interesting theory. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341160) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:08 PM Author: federal brunch pervert not as hot or as injurious, but if you are really talking 500 degree permanent lip PWNAGE heat than you should certainly have plenty of warning just by touching the fucking sandwich with your hand. My 30+ years of eating food have taught me this much. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341200) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:10 PM Author: hot stimulating resort affirmative action seems like a perfect question for a jury (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341215) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:17 PM Author: federal brunch pervert not if they have expert witness reports explaining the sandwich physics sufficient to kill the case on summary judgment. None of us have read the papers in this case.
|
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:20 PM Author: ocher party of the first part explain what that expert would say regarding sandwich physics that would make SJ appropriate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341261) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:25 PM Author: federal brunch pervert If there is no possible way the breading and the bun can insulate your hand from the heat in the oil to a sufficient degree to fail to give you discomfort or pain to the touch -> the client had proper notice that the sandwich was too hot to eat and there was no "hidden" pocket of heat. If the hot grease pocket theory is killed by expert reports and depositions you could win on SJ. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341275) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:28 PM Author: ocher party of the first part contributory negligence is an affirmative defense so the burden of proof is on the defendant. in that case the SJ burden is that no rational jury could possibly find for the plaintiff. you'd have to agree that the odds of sandwich/bun/grease "physics" testimony being compelling enough to meet that standard is pretty remote, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341288) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 4:23 PM Author: federal brunch pervert less remote than finding 12 people who believe a hot chicken sandwich can render you unable to work.
|
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:24 PM Author: Startling useless brakes organic girlfriend "A bun is hardly the best of insulators." a bun is ONE OF THE BEST INSULATORS ON THE PLANET i dont know wtf you're talking about |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:52 AM Author: ocher party of the first part everything you're saying is relevant, but you seem to be saying that the kinds of allegations in this case shouldn't ever be able to survive a 12(b)(6)/56 motion.
of course it's relevant if a dood assumes the risk or fakes injuries, but that doesn't mean we can assume from the outset that "some poor is taking a lighter to his lips."
the actual problem is that there are people as stupid as you out in society who end up on juries that then hand out ridiculous awards. |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:54 AM Author: federal brunch pervert you have no reading comp skills. HTH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341146) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:56 AM Author: ocher party of the first part you landed in shitlaw from a T14 in a good economy for a reason. HTH (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341156) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:47 AM Author: ocher party of the first part why is it okay for companies to serve dangerously hot food in the first place? wouldn't we prefer companies *not* serve dangerous food?
wrt this Kobe example, seriously wtf? a) link? b) okay? so if one unscrupulous person fakes their injuries that means that the presumption is that injured people are faking it? if i can point to a single example of a company doing something/taking a risk with malicious intent or deliberate indifference does that flip the situation back?
seriously, how stupid are you? |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:51 AM Author: federal brunch pervert I've been eating for 30+ years and have never actually encountered "dangerously hot food" at a fast food place. The very idea is funny to me.
The Kobe thing in this situation really comes down to a question of credibility before the jury. If I have to decide who Im going to believe Im pretty sure Im going to take the word of McDonalds over the word of some poor in a case like this. McDonalds has only served like 10 billion chicken sandwiches without burning anyone with one before. |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:53 AM Author: high-end thriller native circlehead No one gives a fuck whose word you would take. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341139) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:54 AM Author: federal brunch pervert you are a dumb fuck. HTH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341148) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:55 AM Author: ocher party of the first part no number of observations of white swans would be large enough to allow one to conclude with absolute certainty that all swans are white. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341153) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:59 AM Author: federal brunch pervert unfortunately when it comes to questions of negligence the rules of formal logic dont really apply. You have to sell a jury that a duty was breached and when all you did is the same shit you've done to make 10 billion prior sandwiches convincing people that you breached your duty will be hard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341172) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:02 PM Author: hot stimulating resort affirmative action by that same token, i would assume that the customer would have a reasonable expectation that the same shit has been done to his sandwich as millions of other sandwiches, and that no injury will come from eating the sandwich. the fact that injury resulted seems to suggest that mcdonalds departed from its normal sandwich making process in this case (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341185) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:05 PM Author: federal brunch pervert strict liability or per-se negligence for fast food cases now? I dont think so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341190) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:08 PM Author: hot stimulating resort affirmative action no, didnt say that. but i dont think 'mcdonalds has served a bunch of sandwiches before without harm' necesssarily cuts the way that you seem to think, nor should it be a bar to liability (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341199) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:17 PM Author: ocher party of the first part reasonable expectation = strict liability god your dumb (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341240) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:19 PM Author: federal brunch pervert "the fact that injury resulted seems to suggest that mcdonalds departed from its normal sandwich making process in this case"
that's the very argument first made for the use of strict liability HTH. It's an assumption that if there is an injury there must be wrongdoing sufficient to warrant damages. Negligence doesnt work that way. |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:23 PM Author: ocher party of the first part no, idiot: res ipsa requires that there not be contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, which is what you've been alleging all along. HTH.
|
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:26 PM Author: federal brunch pervert I was addressing his comment here and not my own point. HTH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341279) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:29 PM Author: ocher party of the first part his comment doesn't imply strict liability/res ipsa, HTH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341294) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:29 PM Author: federal brunch pervert yes it fucking does. I quoted you the relevant part. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341298) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:04 PM Author: ocher party of the first part sure-- but it's still a jury question. i have no problem with people saying "this dood should probably lose because it's unlikely that either a) he was actually burned that bad or b) he was inadequately warned."
my problem is with the ARE COUNTRY polemic that goes something like "how do we even let people bring *these* types of lawsuits? tons of people eat at mcdonalds every day and none of them sustain permanent injuries!!" well, there's a reason that people who aren't injured don't bring lawsuits. |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:37 AM Author: mahogany dashing orchestra pit windowlicker "If a big company gives me a sandwhich that is 500 degrees and explodes hot grease in my mouth, they need to internalize the damn costs."
Those from ARE COUNTRY know from frying turkeys that cooked birds are dangerous. |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:15 AM Author: Big dead national main people should i go buy a chicken sandwich and let the grease burn my mouth too? perhaps i could collect $2 mil. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340938) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:21 AM Author: dark trailer park cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14340981) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:51 AM Author: Swashbuckling bronze shrine quit giving bothered ideas for new professions (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341131) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:55 AM Author: appetizing legend institution i've cooked pizzas and pizza pockets before and was so hungry i kept eating it, even after the hot cheese burned the roof of my mouth. the next day the roof of my mouth was blistered. my fault, not Tombstone Pizza (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341152) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:57 AM Author: hot stimulating resort affirmative action tombstone pizza didnt deliver you a pizza that was hot enough to cause injury. you did. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341163) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:00 PM Author: appetizing legend institution they should have posted warnings or time limits for cool down periods on the front of the box in BOLD letters (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341180) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 11:58 AM Author: ocher party of the first part wow. saying it's *your* fault that *you* cooked *your* food and then ate it *yourself* really flips the bitch on all these lawsuits. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341169) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 12:26 PM Author: Startling useless brakes organic girlfriend this kind of lawsuit is the #1 thing random people pick fights with me about after prying it out of me that i'm a law student (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341281) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2010 1:06 PM Author: Mind-boggling Headpube In Mother Russia, the chicken bites you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1245594&forum_id=2#14341484) |