Boycott Monster Cable?

[DolfanBob]

Oh snap. What about Monster.com
How bout Monster Trucks or anything else with the name Monster. I say roll out the attorney's with the burnt by hot coffee mentality and sue their ash []

[zstyles]

Any opinions on the tactic that this company is using to basically drain a smaller company with nothing to do with their industry dry until they settle out of court? I bet they have done this a few times and gotten quite a bit of free cash out of settling...

[cannon_fodder]

Standard objection to the burnt coffee case as frivolous suit:

McDonald's kept their coffee far hotter than anywhere else.   Normal operating temperature the woman would have suffered 2nd degree burns.  McDonald's temperature she suffered 3rd degree burns in 4 seconds.  It was held negligent to keep coffee that hot (far too hot to actually drink) and serve it in paper cups to people in cars.

- She was not the driver.
- The car was stopped when the spill occurred.
- She had 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body (the 6% you REALLY don't want such burns on)
- She sued for $20,000 in medical damages (8 days of hospitalization, skin grafts, and rehab, McDonalds refused
- McDonald's had 700 claims in the previous 10 years for the same thing and took no remedial actions
- Home coffee is 130, Starbucks is at 150, McDonalds was serving coffee at 190F.
- 155F is "drinkable,"  hotter than that and you will be burned (hence, no point in 190F coffee)
- McDonald's admitted that it knew of the problem and did not remedy it.  They admitted that most people will drink coffee as soon as they are handed it.  They admitted most people were not aware 3rd degree burns were a risk of McDonald's Coffee.
- She was awarded $160,000 for medical damages, lost wages, and pain and suffering.  This amount is reduced by 20%, her degree of personal negligence.
- McDonald's was also hit with a punitive award that was about 1/3 of one days nation wide coffee sales ($500,000).
- McDonald's coffee is now served at 158F.

Like the ruling or not, it shouldn't be the poster boy for frivolous suits.

I thought exactly what you did, until I read the rest of the facts.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Standard objection to the burnt coffee case as frivolous suit:

McDonald's kept their coffee far hotter than anywhere else.   Normal operating temperature the woman would have suffered 2nd degree burns.  McDonald's temperature she suffered 3rd degree burns in 4 seconds.  It was held negligent to keep coffee that hot (far too hot to actually drink) and serve it in paper cups to people in cars.

- She was not the driver.
- The car was stopped when the spill occurred.
- She had 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body (the 6% you REALLY don't want such burns on)
- She sued for $20,000 in medical damages (8 days of hospitalization, skin grafts, and rehab, McDonalds refused
- McDonald's had 700 claims in the previous 10 years for the same thing and took no remedial actions
- Home coffee is 130, Starbucks is at 150, McDonalds was serving coffee at 190F.
- 155F is "drinkable,"  hotter than that and you will be burned (hence, no point in 190F coffee)
- McDonald's admitted that it knew of the problem and did not remedy it.  They admitted that most people will drink coffee as soon as they are handed it.  They admitted most people were not aware 3rd degree burns were a risk of McDonald's Coffee.
- She was awarded $160,000 for medical damages, lost wages, and pain and suffering.  This amount is reduced by 20%, her degree of personal negligence.
- McDonald's was also hit with a punitive award that was about 1/3 of one days nation wide coffee sales ($500,000).
- McDonald's coffee is now served at 158F.

Like the ruling or not, it shouldn't be the poster boy for frivolous suits.

I thought exactly what you did, until I read the rest of the facts.

CF, in my opinion it was an absolutely frivolous products liability lawsuit. The coffee was "unreasonably dangerous" because the warning that the product (coffee) was hot was not large enough? Bottom line. Stella put a cup of hot coffee between her knees, in a vehicle (stopped or not), and got burned. Gee, who would expect that to happen? Also, another reason why this case was so popular for the tort reformers was the excessive punitive damages the jury awarded.

[Red Arrow]

Anytime a company changes or makes an improvement to a product, they leave themselves wide open to lawsuits from consumers of the previous edition of the product.  No wonder we can't get anything fixed.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Stella put a cup of hot coffee between her knees, in a vehicle (stopped or not), and got burned. Gee, who would expect that to happen?

Most people wouldn't expect 3rd degree burns from a food/drink product. We've all eaten things that burned our mouth. Those burns haven't left permanent injury. It's reasonable to expect a product served to you for immediate consumption to not permanently harm you.

[cannon_fodder]

+1 on Nathan.

It was a combination of things Guido.  The warning label was a minimal part of the case, it was an unreasonably dangerous product with the inadequate label being the last line of defense.  After they admitted most people would consume it right away and then admitted that anything over 155F was unnecessarily dangerous it was pretty much res ipsa loquitur.  

I've seen mock jury trials on this case and generally the jury comes back with the same verdict but higher proportion of liability for the lady.  Personally, I would have assigned her 33% fault for spilling the coffee... but if it was regular coffee it would not have entailed 3 surgeries and 8 days in the hospital.  So it makes sense to me.

Hell, I spilled coffee on myself today with nothing more than embarrassment.  I would have been very surprised if I spent the rest of the year in the hospital and had 3rd degree burns on my genitals.