US tribe sues beer makers for $500m over alcohol abuse
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
and health care is not up the same standard as the rest of the US
When I was in Oklahoma any native american got free health care at any hospital. I can't say about other states, but there was a large population of native americans in OK so it was just common knowledge. The hospitals I went to there were, IMO , better than we have here in Illinois.
i think the issue is that there's not a lot of routine health care for the more rural populations. if you have to drive 50mi to the nearest hospital, you might not go there until things get really bad. of course that's true of all people who live far from cities.
-
This argument again? Come on. Alright, you win. Go drink as much alcohol as you can and see what happens. If you think you are right, take my challenge. Drink as much alcohol as you can and see if it benefits you. It's really that simple. Find a doctor who recommends you drink more alcohol to stay healthy.
You seem obsessed with massive consumption of alcohol. Why is that? I am arguing that SMALL amounts are healthy. Of course drinking oneself to oblivion every night is unhealthy, no-one denies that. By a glass of wine with a meal or a couple of beers watching the football is not inherently bad for you.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
You seem obsessed with massive consumption of alcohol. Why is that? I am arguing that SMALL amounts are healthy. Of course drinking oneself to oblivion every night is unhealthy, no-one denies that. By a glass of wine with a meal or a couple of beers watching the football is not inherently bad for you.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
Quote:
The life expectancy in the community is between 45 and 52 years
OMG :omg:
Guess I would be dead.
-
Don't you know that we aren't responsible for anything we do. It is always the other guys fault. In fact, it's your fault I am even responding instead of working. Thank you the lame lady who sued McDonald's for the hot coffee and the lamer jury that awarded her. That opened it all up.
ryanb31 wrote:
That opened it all up.
product liability lawsuits predate 1994. the Ford Pinto, for example.
-
Guess I would be dead.
No, you can't take the $500m all by yourself :)
-
ryanb31 wrote:
That opened it all up.
product liability lawsuits predate 1994. the Ford Pinto, for example.
-
i'd say coffee that's not just "hot", but is in fact so unexpectedly and exceedingly hot that it gives you 2nd and 3rd degree burns over 18% of your body, requiring skin grafts and years of recovery, is a legitimate cause for complaint. especially when the company in question had, by that time, received over 700 complaints about scalds and burns and had already paid out over $500K in settlements over it. if the coffee is hot enough to literally cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds, and you're serving it in flexible plastic cups to people in cars, you're asking for trouble.
-
Are you tee-total? There are other benefits of the grape, grain or hop. Pleasure, confidence, easing of social interaction, increasing chance of sex and bon homie.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
i'd say coffee that's not just "hot", but is in fact so unexpectedly and exceedingly hot that it gives you 2nd and 3rd degree burns over 18% of your body, requiring skin grafts and years of recovery, is a legitimate cause for complaint. especially when the company in question had, by that time, received over 700 complaints about scalds and burns and had already paid out over $500K in settlements over it. if the coffee is hot enough to literally cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds, and you're serving it in flexible plastic cups to people in cars, you're asking for trouble.
Wow, you are one of them. I should have known. So you are saying McD's was asking for trouble because it was obvious there was a problem. Then she shouldn't have bought from them because she should have known there was an issue. Crazy. Now you ruined my day getting me all worked up. :-D I had a good friend a couple of jobs ago who would take the hot water from the coffee makers in the break room, which was next to boiling to begin with, and then microwave it. There is no way he had any taste buds left. He also ate his pizza as hot as he could.
-
Wow, you are one of them. I should have known. So you are saying McD's was asking for trouble because it was obvious there was a problem. Then she shouldn't have bought from them because she should have known there was an issue. Crazy. Now you ruined my day getting me all worked up. :-D I had a good friend a couple of jobs ago who would take the hot water from the coffee makers in the break room, which was next to boiling to begin with, and then microwave it. There is no way he had any taste buds left. He also ate his pizza as hot as he could.
ryanb31 wrote:
So you are saying McD's was asking for trouble because it was obvious there was a problem. Then she shouldn't have bought from them because she should have known there was an issue.
no. McD's was fully aware people were getting hurt by their coffee but they chose not to do anything about it; they let the problem continue. at the same time, their customers did not know the coffee was hot enough to cause severe injury almost instantaneously upon contact. they knew it was hot. they didn't know it was dangerously hot. that disconnect is why they lost the case. if you know your product is potentially dangerous, but your customers don't know that, and you keep selling it to them anyway, odds are good you're going to need a lawyer someday.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
I was referring to the fact that the life expectancy was rather short.
it is. from what i've read, a lot of that has to do with the general poor economic situations of many tribes. there's not a lot of economic opportunity on a reservation, and health care is not up the same standard as the rest of the US. that probably has something to do with the alcoholism rates, too - no job, nothing to do...
Chris Losinger wrote:
and health care is not up the same standard as the rest of the US.
Do you realize that native american reservations are not in fact 'part' of the US in same way as other places - legally? They are self governing entities independent of anything except the legal standing in relation the the US federal government. And health care for most US citizens is not tied to the federal government, but rather the local governing entities at the state and local level. This extends to other areas such as custody and domestic disputes as well.
-
That's just silly. One of them says it may be "casually" related to lower heart disease. That's a stretch. Another talks about wine and helping the heart. What is wine made of? Grapes. Yes, grapes are excellent for the heart so, no, it is not the alcohol. I challenge anyone to drink straight alcohol and see if it has benefits. It's a poison. Even if it has side-effects of helping the heart, which is a long stretch why would you, drink poison to strengthen your heart? I could lose weight by cutting of an arm too. So, what's your point?
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I challenge anyone to drink straight alcohol and see if it has benefits. It's a poison.
I challenge you to drink a two gallons of water in a short period of time and live.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
So you are saying McD's was asking for trouble because it was obvious there was a problem. Then she shouldn't have bought from them because she should have known there was an issue.
no. McD's was fully aware people were getting hurt by their coffee but they chose not to do anything about it; they let the problem continue. at the same time, their customers did not know the coffee was hot enough to cause severe injury almost instantaneously upon contact. they knew it was hot. they didn't know it was dangerously hot. that disconnect is why they lost the case. if you know your product is potentially dangerous, but your customers don't know that, and you keep selling it to them anyway, odds are good you're going to need a lawyer someday.
Chris Losinger wrote:
McD's was fully aware people were getting hurt by their coffee but they chose not to do anything about it; they let the problem continue. at the same time, their customers did not know the coffee was hot enough to cause severe injury almost instantaneously upon contact. they knew it was hot. they didn't know it was dangerously hot. that disconnect is why they lost the case.
It was coffee. Unless it is iced coffee it is served hot. Any temperature that is considered 'hot' can cause burns. That is common sense. And I seriously doubt that there is any temperature range for coffee at which it would cause burns but not cause them instantaneously. I am rather certain that if I am drinking a hot beverage which is hot enough that I know it will burn my mouth that I am very, very aware that if I spill it in my lap it will in fact burn me. It is not a question of whether it will or not but how badly. As to why they "lost the case" I would suppose that to some extent it had to do with the defendants age and the fact that a jury made the initial award. That initial award was latter significantly reduced on appeal. As for the other cases that is part of doing business in the US for large companies and small. Part of that is settling not based on the merits of the case but rather the overall impact to the company including the publicity.
Chris Losinger wrote:
if you know your product is potentially dangerous, but your customers don't know that, and you keep selling it to them anyway, odds are good you're going to need a lawyer someday.
By that reasoning... I sell my house. It has a stove and a fireplace and stairs and a roof which I know all have the potential for serious injury so I must warn the buyer. Oh wait...I forgot about the ice on the sidewalk in winter...so now I owe someone one million dollars. I sell cars. Which kill kids when they back up over them accidentally so they must be warned about that. I write software that allows people to withdraw money from their bank accounts for reasons that have nothing to do with their financial health so I must warn them before withdrawing it that they will not be able to pay their bills. And the fact that the stuff above continues to happen to a relatively few people just demonstrates, just as the McDs case does that the "customers" don't know that.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
and health care is not up the same standard as the rest of the US.
Do you realize that native american reservations are not in fact 'part' of the US in same way as other places - legally? They are self governing entities independent of anything except the legal standing in relation the the US federal government. And health care for most US citizens is not tied to the federal government, but rather the local governing entities at the state and local level. This extends to other areas such as custody and domestic disputes as well.
jschell wrote:
Do you realize that native american reservations are not in fact 'part' of the US in same way as other places - legally?
yes. and i wasn't trying to say they were.
-
That's just silly. One of them says it may be "casually" related to lower heart disease. That's a stretch. Another talks about wine and helping the heart. What is wine made of? Grapes. Yes, grapes are excellent for the heart so, no, it is not the alcohol. I challenge anyone to drink straight alcohol and see if it has benefits. It's a poison. Even if it has side-effects of helping the heart, which is a long stretch why would you, drink poison to strengthen your heart? I could lose weight by cutting of an arm too. So, what's your point?
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I challenge anyone to drink straight alcohol and see if it has benefits.
You've got to add ice, silly.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
McD's was fully aware people were getting hurt by their coffee but they chose not to do anything about it; they let the problem continue. at the same time, their customers did not know the coffee was hot enough to cause severe injury almost instantaneously upon contact. they knew it was hot. they didn't know it was dangerously hot. that disconnect is why they lost the case.
It was coffee. Unless it is iced coffee it is served hot. Any temperature that is considered 'hot' can cause burns. That is common sense. And I seriously doubt that there is any temperature range for coffee at which it would cause burns but not cause them instantaneously. I am rather certain that if I am drinking a hot beverage which is hot enough that I know it will burn my mouth that I am very, very aware that if I spill it in my lap it will in fact burn me. It is not a question of whether it will or not but how badly. As to why they "lost the case" I would suppose that to some extent it had to do with the defendants age and the fact that a jury made the initial award. That initial award was latter significantly reduced on appeal. As for the other cases that is part of doing business in the US for large companies and small. Part of that is settling not based on the merits of the case but rather the overall impact to the company including the publicity.
Chris Losinger wrote:
if you know your product is potentially dangerous, but your customers don't know that, and you keep selling it to them anyway, odds are good you're going to need a lawyer someday.
By that reasoning... I sell my house. It has a stove and a fireplace and stairs and a roof which I know all have the potential for serious injury so I must warn the buyer. Oh wait...I forgot about the ice on the sidewalk in winter...so now I owe someone one million dollars. I sell cars. Which kill kids when they back up over them accidentally so they must be warned about that. I write software that allows people to withdraw money from their bank accounts for reasons that have nothing to do with their financial health so I must warn them before withdrawing it that they will not be able to pay their bills. And the fact that the stuff above continues to happen to a relatively few people just demonstrates, just as the McDs case does that the "customers" don't know that.
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that if I am drinking a hot beverage which is hot enough that I know it will burn my mouth that I am very, very aware that if I spill it in my lap it will in fact burn me. It is not a question of whether it will or not but how badly.
and the "how badly" for 190 degree coffee is something along the lines of pretty fncking badly. seriously, if it's too hot for anyone to drink, and it's hot enough to give 3D burns in a matter of seconds, it's probably too hot to serve. and if you know your customers are having trouble with your coffee because it's too hot (and it's cost you $500K already to settle claims), and yet you keep serving it that temp, in flimsy plastic cups, with insecure lids, to people in cars... expect a lawyer to come a-knocking.
jschell wrote:
That initial award was latter significantly reduced on appeal.
right. and the jury's award was reduced by the first judge, immediately. but let's remember, the woman only wanted her medical bills paid for. she didn't want the millions that the jury awarded her; she just wanted $20K for medical expenses. McD's couldn't part with that, so they spent a fortune to end up spending many times that. we would've never heard about her had they settled initially. but we would've heard about someone else, eventually.
jschell wrote:
I sell cars. Which kill kids when they back up over them accidentally so they must be warned about that.
people are warned about it, in driver's ed. and cars have back up lights, and only go slow in reverse, and big trucks have backup beepers, etc.. and people are required to pass a driving test to demonstrate that they understand what they're doing. maybe people should be required to learn first hand how quickly 190 degree water will burn the skin off their genitals (A: 2 seconds). i bet we'd get some better coffee cups in our drive-throughs.
-
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that if I am drinking a hot beverage which is hot enough that I know it will burn my mouth that I am very, very aware that if I spill it in my lap it will in fact burn me. It is not a question of whether it will or not but how badly.
and the "how badly" for 190 degree coffee is something along the lines of pretty fncking badly. seriously, if it's too hot for anyone to drink, and it's hot enough to give 3D burns in a matter of seconds, it's probably too hot to serve. and if you know your customers are having trouble with your coffee because it's too hot (and it's cost you $500K already to settle claims), and yet you keep serving it that temp, in flimsy plastic cups, with insecure lids, to people in cars... expect a lawyer to come a-knocking.
jschell wrote:
That initial award was latter significantly reduced on appeal.
right. and the jury's award was reduced by the first judge, immediately. but let's remember, the woman only wanted her medical bills paid for. she didn't want the millions that the jury awarded her; she just wanted $20K for medical expenses. McD's couldn't part with that, so they spent a fortune to end up spending many times that. we would've never heard about her had they settled initially. but we would've heard about someone else, eventually.
jschell wrote:
I sell cars. Which kill kids when they back up over them accidentally so they must be warned about that.
people are warned about it, in driver's ed. and cars have back up lights, and only go slow in reverse, and big trucks have backup beepers, etc.. and people are required to pass a driving test to demonstrate that they understand what they're doing. maybe people should be required to learn first hand how quickly 190 degree water will burn the skin off their genitals (A: 2 seconds). i bet we'd get some better coffee cups in our drive-throughs.
Chris, a question for you: You're member number 42, you're ranked as 42, what does it all mean? I'm expecting some really deep thoughts here ... ;)
Espen Harlinn Senior Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services My LinkedIn Profile