US tribe sues beer makers for $500m over alcohol abuse
-
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
-
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
Espen Harlinn wrote:
what does it all mean?
it means i'm peaking too early. i wont be 42 for another 7 months!
-
Again, that is totally different. Just drink a little bit of alcohol everyday and see what happens. I really can't believe people are trying to compare alcohol to oxygen or water.
ryanb31 wrote:
Just drink a little bit of alcohol everyday and see what happens
Nothing will happen.
ryanb31 wrote:
I really can't believe people are trying to compare alcohol to oxygen or water.
Because obviously you don't understand what the word "poison" means.
-
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 Losinger wrote:
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.
I burnt myself on a stove when I was young - third degree. Those hot burners were just right out there where absolutely anyone could touch them. And yet stoves are still sold without locking those burners up.
Chris Losinger wrote:
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.
So you are not clear on how the current US legal system works? Let me help... Client X wants money for an 'injury' that they 'claim' was caused by something that business A should have known about. And company X gives them that without restriction. And then next week there are 1000 or 10,000 cases filed against the company. So what company that is being lead by anyone that is half way rational wouldn't fight the first claim. And that doesn't even address the merit of the case.
Chris Losinger wrote:
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.
And it still happens. Far more cases than the McD too. So the car must be the problem.
Chris Losinger wrote:
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 Losinger wrote:
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.
I burnt myself on a stove when I was young - third degree. Those hot burners were just right out there where absolutely anyone could touch them. And yet stoves are still sold without locking those burners up.
Chris Losinger wrote:
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.
So you are not clear on how the current US legal system works? Let me help... Client X wants money for an 'injury' that they 'claim' was caused by something that business A should have known about. And company X gives them that without restriction. And then next week there are 1000 or 10,000 cases filed against the company. So what company that is being lead by anyone that is half way rational wouldn't fight the first claim. And that doesn't even address the merit of the case.
Chris Losinger wrote:
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.
And it still happens. Far more cases than the McD too. So the car must be the problem.
Chris Losinger wrote:
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.
since you insist on ignoring my point, i'm not going to go through it all again. let's agree to disagree.
-
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.
Sort of the same thing here in Canada. Most reserves are broke, living conditions terrible, alcoholism is rumpant. Also, First Nations/Native Americans dispropotionately represented in the jails. I think part of the problem is that it is difficult to maintain past cultural practices[living off the land] while desiring to enjoy the amentities of modern living. Here in Canada, the first nations are taken care of by the federal government but I think as long as they depend on the feds, they are not likely to really prosper. Personally, I am an immgrant to Canada. I struggled at first but I was able to put my foot into the door. So if an immigrant from Africa can make it, definitely a first nation, on whose land we live, can make it. I took a class a long time a go in something they called political economy, and I learnt stuff like means of production. The aboriginals in Canada want to live off the land which has its advantages; however, it is a hunter gatherer/communal mode of production which is at odds with Capitalism(well we don't have pure capitalism- we have a mixed economy).
-
But the problem is ice is water and they keep arguing that water is the same as alcohol. So, this won't work because then they'll just say they were poisoned by the water and not the alcohol. :wtf: