At the Twilight's Last Gleaming: Sigh... Another day, another hot coffee lawsuit

November 21, 2005

Sigh... Another day, another hot coffee lawsuit

A Staten Island, NY woman wants $10 million from Dunkin Donuts because of burns she received from spilled coffee in her car:

[Plaintiff Sharon] Shea insists the coffee was too hot and the workers didn't fasten the lids tightly enough.

"The [drive-thru] girl had positioned them where they were in the same line [on the tray], they weren't cattycorner," said Shea, 60.

Some observations come to mind here:

The coffee was too hot—Coffee is made with boiling water. Okay? Everyone understand that now?
The workers didn't fasten the lids tightly enough—What? You're driving away with cups of boiling-hot liquid on the seat next to you, and you didn't think to make sure the lids were secure?
They weren't cattycorner—You noticed this, and you knew that wasn't a stable configuration, and yet you did nothing to correct this before driving away?

Here's an idea:

Some brave restaurant chain ought to post a sign saying something to the effect of the following:

Frivolous lawsuits -- both actual and threatened -- account for x% of the cost you pay for food at this establishment.

Gotta do SOMETHING to eliminate popular sympathy for these plaintiffs. It's not a David-and-Goliath thing; nine times out of ten, it's greed (not to mention an utter failure to admit personal responsibility for one's actions).

(Credit: Right Mind)

UPDATE: From Sacred Cow Burgers:

3 comments:

Ray said...: I'm waiting for the first "I got frostbite from a Starbucks Frappuccino" lawsuit.; 11/21/2005 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Apparently, some European countries, such as France, solve the problem of frivolous lawsuits by giving the plantiff only compensatory damages. Any punitive damages go to the state instead of the plaintiff.

Thus, a large company *still* has significant disincentive to hurt people, because they risk punitive damages, just as before. If someone causes someone else harm, the latter can still obtain redress in the amount of the actual damage or losses that they suffered. However, there is no "lottery" system in which someone out to abuse the system can make tens of millions of dollars in suing someone just because a jury feels that the defendent needs to be punished harshly.; 11/22/2005 2:02 PM
Tim said...: Not being familiar with that system, I'm wondering: Has the fact that punitive damages go to the state instead of to the plaintiff affected the amount typically awarded by the juries? Is there any way for the state to influence the amount awarded as punitive damages (thus creating another revenue source for the state)?

Another idea I'd like to see tried out here is the concept of "loser pays" in civil litigation.; 11/22/2005 2:19 PM

What Happened to C-Pol?

For over a decade, this blog was called "C-POL: Constitutionalist, Conservative Politics". Over time, my deep-thought ponderings have been moving away from the rough-and-tumble of everyday political wrangling and toward the larger philosophical, ideological, and cultural currents of our age.

I've changed the title of the blog to highlight my conviction that the "fundamental transformation" (to adapt President Obama's phrase) of the United States that's currently underway is, in the long run, bad not only for this country but for the world in general.

Scoff if you must; I'm okay with that. I aim to make my case as time goes on. I'm okay with being on the "wrong side of history" if I'm actually right.

Why our country is where it is

As I have traveled across the country, I have been astounded just how many of our fellow citizens feel strongly about their constitutional rights but have no idea what they are, or for that matter, what the Constitution says. I am not suggesting that they become Constitutional scholars -- whatever that means. I am suggesting, however, that if one feels strongly about his or her rights, it does make sense to know generally what the Constitution says about them. It is at least as easy to understand as a cell phone contract -- and vastly more important.

-- Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, October 16, 2008 speech

The U.S. is not a democracy!

Q. If we are not a democracy, why are our officials elected by a majority of the people, and why are our laws passed by a majority of the lawmakers?

A. We are not a democracy because both the people and the lawmakers are limited by the fundamental law of the land, our written Constitution. Election by the people is not a grant of power beyond the constitutional limits of the office. A representative government limited by law is a republic, not a democracy. In a republic a majority of the people cannot vote away their own rights, or the rights of others -- unless ... unless they step outside the Constitution.

-- Preserve The Constitution, By Don Fotheringham (October, 1995)

The Cancer of Democracy

Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome.

— Lazarus Long, in Robert Heinlein's To Sail Beyond the Sunset

At the Twilight's Last Gleaming

Pages

C-Poll

November 21, 2005

Sigh... Another day, another hot coffee lawsuit

3 comments: