Death of common sense

[wyld1]

Well after seeing a few articles here like the teen pregnancy pacte, daughter suing her father to get out of grounding & others. I thought this is appropriate.

For The Late Mr. Common Sense


'Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who
has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was,
since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He
will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets the
worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more
than you can earn) and reliable strategies: adults, not children, are in
charge.

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but
overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy
charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended
from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for
reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the
job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly
children. It declined even further when schools were required to get
parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student;
but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted
to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses;
and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a
burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to
realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in
her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his
wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He
is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now,
Someone Else Is To Blame, and I'm A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If
you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do
nothing.'

[RichMan]

R.I.P.

You just created a Hallmark print. You should try to market it. It would be common sense

[The Wall33]

Nice post....

One truism is certain: common sense in not so common.

[chrono]

Haven't been on the board for that long, but this should be Thread of the Year. Well said!

[PSULion22]

I agree there is a huge lack of common sense, and way too many frivilous law suits or threats of such causing knee jerk reactions. But maybe you should add a line in there which comments about how common sense suffers when people regurgitate what they hear on tv, without actually verifying it.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to
realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in
her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Sorry, Wyld, check the facts in McDonald's burn case and you will see it was hardly a little burn. Common sense is rolling in its grave

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

[wyld1]

Originally Posted by PSULion22

I agree there is a huge lack of common sense, and way too many frivilous law suits or threats of such causing knee jerk reactions. But maybe you should add a line in there which comments about how common sense suffers when people regurgitate what they hear on tv, without actually verifying it.



Sorry, Wyld, check the facts in McDonald's burn case and you will see it was hardly a little burn. Common sense is rolling in its grave

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

Well I didn't write the article, but found it & thought it made allot of sense in this world.

But I am surprised that she didn't also sue the sweatpants company, the car company that she was in for not having cup holders & the styrofoam company that made the cups...

[chrono]

I have studied this case many times over the course of my college studies and I'm sorry, but I'm still not buying it. Coffee is hot. Common sense. Spill something hot on yourself and you get burned. Common sense. Carelessly handle something hot and you increase your chances of getting burned. Common sense.

Every time I read about this case I always reach the same conclusion - Sounds like "human error" to me. She was careless and was utilizing inherently unsafe handling practices. She should have been held far more than 20% resposible. It is the same thing as suing a gun maker for a gunshot wound. It completely discounts a person's actions during the incident and focuses solely on the "hazard" posed by the product.

Lets put it another way - you are taping up a new stick for tomorrow's practice. You are standing the stick upright, leaning on it while taping the shaft. The stick slips, catches your foot, you fall over hitting your eye on the stick causing an injury that effects your vision. Do you now turn around and sue the stick manufacturer because during the course of building the stick they used materials that could cause a stick to slide around on carpet if you lean on it?

This is 100% a common sense case - and common sense lost.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by chrono

Coffee is hot. Common sense.

There is a difference between hot (140F) and unsafe HOT (190F), that was the point of the lawsuit.

Originally Posted by chrono

- and common sense lost.

It certainly did in your understanding of the legal points of the case.................

Two years of treatment and rehabilitation, due to an unsafe product which caused 700 burn cases/lawsuits in the 10 years prior resulted in a "common sense" verdict.

[chrono]

140 = hot. Common Sense.
180 = hot. Common Sense.

Hot = Hot. Common sense.

Coffee = Hot. Common sense.

You telling me you won't get badly burned from 140 degree coffee? Wanna dump 140 degree coffe in your lap? Fine by me. 140 or 180, I know that I would never put anything hot (she knows that coffee is coffee is served hot) near my crotch. The point that everybody (including you) is missing and discounting is that she was carelessly handling the coffee. She palyed a major role in her own misfortune. Personal liability and responsibility for one's actions are legal points. Trust me, my grasp of the legal system is just fine, don't you worry. The issue with this case is (and henceforth the reason for this thread) is that those points were barely considered at all.

Let me reiterate: It is simple common sense to carefully hadle things that are hot. Coffee is inherently hot. If you don't know the exact temprature of a liquid you are handling, but know it to even be potentially hot, chances are you should not be taking risks by handling it in such a way as to facilitate its ablitiy to harm you. She took a risk, she got hurt, she should be hel responsible for her actions.

I guess I'm just wasting my time. You can't ague sense to those who have none And arguing over the internet just isn't me...belive whatever you want

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by chrono

You telling me you won't get badly burned from 140 degree coffee? Wanna dump 140 degree coffe in your lap? Fine by me.

30 seconds contact for full thickness burns at 140F

3-5 seconds contact for full thickness burns at 180F

Originally Posted by chrono

Personal liability and responsibility for one's actions are legal points. Trust me, my grasp of the legal system is just fine, don't you worry. The issue with this case is (and henceforth the reason for this thread) is that those points were barely considered at all.

Her award was reduced by 20% due to her culpability. Seems to me it was considered.

And yes, I am very worried about your grasp of the legal system.

Originally Posted by chrono

I guess I'm just wasting my time.

Yup, but keep trying.

Your attempts at using big adult words to make it sound like you know what you are talking about, is genuinely amusing me.........................

[maximum31]

The woman was at fault for spilling coffee on her crotch, obviously. McDonalds was partially repsonsible for her injury by making there coffee much hotter than coffee normally is. The point of our legal system is to arbitrarily decide how much fault belonged to whom, which is impractical at best. My personal and for the most part unimportant viewpoint is that the extra hot coffee posed something of a health risk and since McDonalds has enough money do so, they should just pay the womans health bills and maybe offer a little extra. However it doesnt really matter what i think or what any other individual thinks which is why we have a legal system in the first place.
As a sidenote Chrono using your "common sense" logic any two things with a similarity are exactly the same. Apparently 180 coffee is exponentially more dangerous than 140, sometimes thought beyond common sense is necessary.

[HMHINC]

She should have put the balm on. Was her lawyer Jackie Childs? I recall a similar case with a Mr. Kramer but he put the balm on...... In other words, people are stupid. The term 'common sense' is an optimistic one, hope that such a thing would be common. I am painfully reminded of this every morning while sitting in the parking lot that is I-40 at 7:00 am .

[chrono]

I guess we can just agree to disagree...It's the beauty of living in a free society

[chrono]

Jackie Childs...Hee Hee! Made me laugh! Thanks.

[PSULion22]

Originally Posted by chrono

140 = hot. Common Sense.
180 = hot. Common Sense.

Hot = Hot. Common sense.

Coffee = Hot. Common sense.

You telling me you won't get badly burned from 140 degree coffee? Wanna dump 140 degree coffe in your lap? Fine by me. 140 or 180, I know that I would never put anything hot (she knows that coffee is coffee is served hot) near my crotch. The point that everybody (including you) is missing and discounting is that she was carelessly handling the coffee. She palyed a major role in her own misfortune. Personal liability and responsibility for one's actions are legal points. Trust me, my grasp of the legal system is just fine, don't you worry. The issue with this case is (and henceforth the reason for this thread) is that those points were barely considered at all.

Let me reiterate: It is simple common sense to carefully hadle things that are hot. Coffee is inherently hot. If you don't know the exact temprature of a liquid you are handling, but know it to even be potentially hot, chances are you should not be taking risks by handling it in such a way as to facilitate its ablitiy to harm you. She took a risk, she got hurt, she should be hel responsible for her actions.

I guess I'm just wasting my time. You can't ague sense to those who have none And arguing over the internet just isn't me...belive whatever you want

Clearly you grasp is not fine. The standard for most civil decisions is reasonability - ie what would an average, reasonable person do?. How many reasonable people put the cup between their legs, even when they are driving (which she wasn't), especially at that time when cup holders weren't as prevalent? Many of them. Therefore, it was not as important to the case as you would think. It was barely considered? It was the main arguing point for McDonald's. How can they be responisble when it was she that put the cup there and spilled it (as you contend)?

Here's how: The temperature of the coffee was NOT at a reasonable level. A company initiated study was done BEFORE the incident in which the temperature of the coffee was found to be hot enough to cause severe burns. It was recommended that McDonald's turn the temerature down on the warming plates. The temperature of McDoand's coffee was so hot that it burned a person so badly, she needed to be hospitalized for 8 days and required skin grafts. I have seen reports that her labia had fused together and she needed grafts to that as well. McDonald's argued that people liked the temperature to be so high because they drove a distance with the coffee before drinking it, allowing time for it to cool. Another study by McDonald's themselves had already found that not to be the case: most people began to drink the coffee immediately while driving. The temperature was such that drinking it would cause severe burns to the lips, mouth, tongue, and throat. Therefore, it would be too hot for the average, reasonable consumer also.

So what? you say, coffee is hot she should know that. True. However, as Thumper pointed out, there is a difference between hot and McDonald's hot. Most restaurants and home coffee makers heat the coffee to 135-140 degrees. That is not hot enough to cause the kind of injury seen in this case. Sure it would have burned, but we're talking a little redness and swelling, not a fused labia. This was testified to by McDonalds executives in the trial, meaning they knew that most places kept the coffee cooler, that their temperature was dangerously high, and the extent of the injuries it could cause, yet negligently decided to keep the temp up.

And that is the basis for the punitive award. It was mostly reasonable for the woman to put the coffee between her legs because many, many other people did so. It was reasonable because the temperatures most people associated with coffee would usually result in a sting and a lot of cursing. It was reasonable becuse she did not (and likely could not) know the extent of the injuries that McDonald's unreasonably and uncommonly hot coffee could cause. The only reason they found her 20% liable was because it was she that actually opened the cup and did the spilling. (the integrity of the cup design came into question too) However, it was only 20% because there would not have been nearly as much injury if the contents had been kept at a reasonable, common temperature.

I guess you need to go back to college and do some more studying. And we are the ones lacking sense.