Woman Sues Google Over Dangerous Directions

Has anyone seen that old Law & Order episode where there is a deranged man who goes on a shooting spree and kills 5 ppl and injures a lot more? It turns out he used a modified gun. It was a semi-automatic but he illegally modified it to become fully automatic. The gun company knew about this flaw and did nothing to fix the flaw. The DA’s case was that if the gun company had fixed the flaw, the deranged man would not have been able to kill/injure so many people. Jack McCoy, played by the awesome Sam Waterston, demonstrates this by emptying out a container full of bullets the gun SHOULD have been able to discharge and then a container of the bullets the gun DID discharge b/c it was modified to be fully automatic. It takes over two minutes for the bullets to stop raining to the ground in the courtroom, and that’s all you hear. It was pretty awesome to watch and you end up thinking “stupid gun company. It’s gonna cost them a lot more now then it would have to just fix the flaw.”

This is what the whole Google/McDonald’s cases remind me of. A person does something stupid, on behalf or with a company’s product, and the company is found partially liable.

Yes, the lady should have had her grandson put the creamer/sugar in her. Maybe she should have told the drive-thru when she got the cup to pour some of the coffee out since she had only ordered a medium. Yes, the Google lady should have been paying attention to the street. In hindsight, all of these things are logical. People, unfortunately, are not 100% logical 100% of the time.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

No, and you’re just trying to bait me because you know I’m an attorney…[/quote]

Sugarplum, when and if I decide to bait you it will be entirely for prurient reasons which will have nothing to do with your attorney-ness.[/quote]

Sweet ass, I wouldn’t fuck you with LankEy’s dick.

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Has anyone seen that old Law & Order episode where there is a deranged man who goes on a shooting spree and kills 5 ppl and injures a lot more? It turns out he used a modified gun. It was a semi-automatic but he illegally modified it to become fully automatic. The gun company knew about this flaw and did nothing to fix the flaw. The DA’s case was that if the gun company had fixed the flaw, the deranged man would not have been able to kill/injure so many people. Jack McCoy, played by the awesome Sam Waterston, demonstrates this by emptying out a container full of bullets the gun SHOULD have been able to discharge and then a container of the bullets the gun DID discharge b/c it was modified to be fully automatic. It takes over two minutes for the bullets to stop raining to the ground in the courtroom, and that’s all you hear. It was pretty awesome to watch and you end up thinking “stupid gun company. It’s gonna cost them a lot more now then it would have to just fix the flaw.”

This is what the whole Google/McDonald’s cases remind me of. A person does something stupid, on behalf or with a company’s product, and the company is found partially liable.

Yes, the lady should have had her grandson put the creamer/sugar in her. Maybe she should have told the drive-thru when she got the cup to pour some of the coffee out since she had only ordered a medium. Yes, the Google lady should have been paying attention to the street. In hindsight, all of these things are logical. People, unfortunately, are not 100% logical 100% of the time.[/quote]

No, the culpability in that case went beyond not fixing a flaw. They designed the gun in a way to make it easy to modify.

But being a design engineer, I can tell you for a fact that it is possible to design a system to protect people against accidents. It is not possible to design a system to make it impervious to intentional misuse. It is a fundamental law of engineering.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

No, and you’re just trying to bait me because you know I’m an attorney…[/quote]

Sugarplum, when and if I decide to bait you it will be entirely for prurient reasons which will have nothing to do with your attorney-ness.[/quote]

Sweet ass, I wouldn’t fuck you with LankEy’s dick.[/quote]

Of that fact I am quite happy.[/quote]

I was going to say “burn.” but you handled that quite nicely.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

No, and you’re just trying to bait me because you know I’m an attorney…[/quote]

Sugarplum, when and if I decide to bait you it will be entirely for prurient reasons which will have nothing to do with your attorney-ness.[/quote]

Sweet ass, I wouldn’t fuck you with Lanky’s dick.[/quote]

Of that fact I am quite happy.[/quote]

I’m not. :confused:

Wait… wat?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

They did find her 20% liable so I’m guessing they factored in all of that.

I’m not saying how I would have judged this case because I was not a juror and I’m sure we still don’t know all of the facts or how they were presented. Presentation is a big deal, as well.

I just posted a link so everyone gets a different perspective other than “Coffee is supposed to be hot!”
[/quote]

I agree and I am making all my comments based on what I know. As you suggest there may be other non-considered circumstances.

However, $2.9 million? Sorry, that is just plain and simple, "Aw shit, SchmackDonalds has plenty of money…let’s “redistribute the wealth” thinking.[/quote]

wow you still have not even bothered to read the posted links and you would be all up in someone else’s case if they were blathering on in ignorance.

[quote]kross001 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kross001 wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

Here you go, thanks Lanky, I think you had a better link, but this one is also pretty good.

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

The woman had every right to sue.[/quote]
The article sites the National Coffee Association recommending an optimal serving temperature of >185 degrees. I guess mentioning that helps make third degree burns justifiable. [/quote]

The article I posted mentions there is no benefit to keeping coffee that hot, so like always, there are a multitude of opinions to choose from.[/quote]

I wasn’t disagreeing I was being sarcastic. I too see no benefit in coffee that hot.[/quote]

OSHA doesn’t either. It is beyond their recommended standards.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Doncha try and reply to that post, Celeste. I gotcha and you know it and you just need to put that in your peace pipe and smoke it, baby.[/quote]

A reasonable man would have realized he keeps being wrong and expounding in ignorance and after being shown his ignorance repeatedly a reasonable man would want to cure himself of his ignorance.

But more power to you. I just will remind you of this when you go after someone who hasn’t gotten up to speed on an issue about which they are opining.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Doncha try and reply to that post, Celeste. I gotcha and you know it and you just need to put that in your peace pipe and smoke it, baby.[/quote]

A reasonable man would have realized he keeps being wrong and expounding in ignorance and after being shown his ignorance repeatedly a reasonable man would want to cure himself of his ignorance.

But more power to you. I just will remind you of this when you go after someone who hasn’t gotten up to speed on an issue about which they are opining.[/quote]

Maybe a reasonable woman should point out where this alleged unreasonable man “kept being wrong” and chastise him accordingly.

Maybe a reasonable woman should expound in her transcendent knowledge and remit some edification to this alleged unreasonable man as to his alleged ignorance.

Nurse me, baby. Gimme the cure.[/quote]

She wasn’t driving. You had said she was.

She had asked for a medium coffee in a large cup. You said she felt the weight of the cup so she would have known it was large. Why?

She wasn’t awarded 2.9 million as you are suggesting.

McDonald’s coffee in that year had seriously burned over 700 customers that year and although McDonalds was aware of the danger they did not warn their customers nor did they intend to change the temperature despite it being hotter than OSHA standards.

Sure you can say it is hot coffee, but that coffee was more than 60 degrees hotter than other coffee places.

Why not just read the links.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Just in case any of yall are wonderin’ me and Miss OG are going at it via PM and I am spanking her good and proper over yonder as well.[/quote]

why do you lie Push? speaks ill of you.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Just in case any of yall are wonderin’ me and Miss OG are going at it via PM and I am spanking her good and proper over yonder as well.[/quote]

and I am still being punished with post delays which is why the PM.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Doncha try and reply to that post, Celeste. I gotcha and you know it and you just need to put that in your peace pipe and smoke it, baby.[/quote]

A reasonable man would have realized he keeps being wrong and expounding in ignorance and after being shown his ignorance repeatedly a reasonable man would want to cure himself of his ignorance.

But more power to you. I just will remind you of this when you go after someone who hasn’t gotten up to speed on an issue about which they are opining.[/quote]

Maybe a reasonable woman should point out where this alleged unreasonable man “kept being wrong” and chastise him accordingly.

Maybe a reasonable woman should expound in her transcendent knowledge and remit some edification to this alleged unreasonable man as to his alleged ignorance.

Nurse me, baby. Gimme the cure.[quote]

She wasn’t driving. You had said she was.[/quote]

Like I told you via PM whether she was driving or not is irrelevant. I don’t care if she was in the passenger seat, the back seat, the trunk, sitting on the air filter, or standing and flashing her boobs through the sun roof, an 81 year old woman with palsy shouldn’t be pulling the lid off a cup of coffee in a car whether she bought it at McDonalds, Starbucks, an espresso stand, Olive Garden, or at the Costco deli.[quote]

She had asked for a medium coffee in a large cup. You said she felt the weight of the cup so she would have known it was large. Why?[/quote]

You have me confused with another poster. A reasonable commentator would keep track of who she should be chastising.[quote]

She wasn’t awarded 2.9 million as you are suggesting.[/quote]

That was not the initial award? Or what Bendem, Over and Fuckem, PC was asking for?[/quote]

While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20 percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages – but the judge later reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the “actual” damages that were awarded.

See…lil ol me thinks it is “unreasonable” to have to tell folks, “We make our coffee with hot water.” You’d think a person who orders coffee might have drunk it or even made it before and would have arrived at the conclusion that invariably coffee is prepared via the hot water method.[/quote]

Witnesses for McDonald’s admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s required temperature, admitted that it did not warn customers of this risk, could offer no explanation as to why it did not, and testified that it [u]did not intend to turn down the heat even though it admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it is too hot.[/u]

nor did they intend to change the temperature despite it being hotter than OSHA standards.[quote]

Fuck OSHA. Pardon my Swahili.[quote]

Sure you can say it is hot coffee, but that coffee was more than 60 degrees hotter than other coffee places.[/quote]

Bullshit. I don’t for a minute believe other coffee places are preparing and serving 125 degree coffee.[/quote]

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. [u]Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degree[/u]

this is all just another example of you taking your ball and crying when people don’t play your way.

EDIT: sorry these new quote boxes suck