Choked on plastic in my food

[justalayman]

cbg, just questioning

wouldn't the lawyer already consider the idea of pain & suffering as a damage?

especially since when someone chokes so violently that they vomit, and during that it could have gotten lots worse like death, plus vomiting that hard can leave someone very weak and exposed to other dangers?

could have is not worth anything

and vomiting one time can leave a person very weak and exposed to other dangers? not only is that argument beyond reasonable, it involves another "could have" that isn't worth anything.

 

[Ohiogal]

Elevating the conversation, I see. How klassy.
/sarcasm

but but but but.... if the op were female and could do that she would have NEW CAREER OPTIONS available!

 

[jack-d]

That is not how it works.

can you elaborate on your statement?

I remember the woman that sued McDonalds over hot coffee, where she got burned

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_legal_cases

but the important thing, even though it is considered frivilous litigation (quoting the wiki) ".In addition, McDonalds failed to provide proper warning. Warning consumers of possible dangers of their products is strictly enforced by the FDA. Furthermore, McDonalds should not be serving substances that are potentially harmful to their consumers."

I don't think I would expect trash in my food, but maybe someone else would. I guess it depends on where you eat.

 

[justalayman]

can you elaborate on your statement?

I remember the woman that sued McDonalds over hot coffee, where she got burned

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_legal_cases

but the important thing, even though it is considered frivilous litigation (quoting the wiki) ".In addition, McDonalds failed to provide proper warning. Warning consumers of possible dangers of their products is strictly enforced by the FDA. Furthermore, McDonalds should not be serving substances that are potentially harmful to their consumers."

I don't think I would expect trash in my food, but maybe someone else would. I guess it depends on where you eat.

don't even get me started on dear Stella. Her situation is very different than the situation at hand.

and her litigation was not frivolous as evidenced by the fact the jury originally awarded her something like $200k actual damages and a couple mil in punitive damages.

 

[Ohiogal]

can you elaborate on your statement?

I remember the woman that sued McDonalds over hot coffee, where she got burned

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_legal_cases

but the important thing, even though it is considered frivilous litigation (quoting the wiki) ".In addition, McDonalds failed to provide proper warning. Warning consumers of possible dangers of their products is strictly enforced by the FDA. Furthermore, McDonalds should not be serving substances that are potentially harmful to their consumers."

I don't think I would expect trash in my food, but maybe someone else would. I guess it depends on where you eat.

Burn your labia please. Or your penis. Make sure the skin all falls off of your genitalia due to the burns. That is how badly Stella Liebeck was burned. That was not a frivolous lawsuit and you thinking it was only shows your ignorance. McDonald's knew their coffee was dangerously hot to the point that it would cause severe deep burns and decided not to change the temperature because it would cost too much money and paying the claims would be less expensive. Try to educate yourself before speaking.

 

[Ohiogal]

don't even get me started on dear Stella. Her situation is very different than the situation at hand.

and her litigation was not frivolous as evidenced by the fact the jury originally awarded her something like $200k actual damages and a couple mil in punitive damages.

She was awarded one to two days of profits from dangerously hot coffee which caused her severe lasting burns. From an actual reputable site:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

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. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.

 

[cbg]

You had a couple minutes of discomfort and no lasting damages.

Stella suffered major burns for which she was hospitalized and for which she has lasting damages.

Not even close to the same thing.

No. You are not going to get a pain and suffering award. You don't get to sue for what might have happened.

 

[Ohiogal]

More on Stella for the ignorant:

https://www.caoc.org/index.cfm?pg=facts

•McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
•Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds.
•The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty.
•McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.
•An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year.
•At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn’t taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted, “there was a person behind every number and I don’t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.”
•McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
•McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then-required temperature.
•McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.

And watch the video. Get an education before speaking about frivolous lawsuits.

 

[justalayman]

yes, I have read about anything I have ever found pertaining to the issue. In the end, it was a private settlement suggested to be around 5-600K but due to the non-disclosure agreements, nobody's talking, especially Stella since she passed in 2004.



for anybody that minimizes the issue, here is a link to pictures of her injuries. WARNING: GRAPHIC AND NASTY


http://justicebeforecharity.org/stella.php

 

[Ohiogal]

yes, I have read about anything I have ever found pertaining to the issue. In the end, it was a private settlement suggested to be around 5-600K but due to the non-disclosure agreements, nobody's talking, especially Stella since she passed in 2004.



for anybody that minimizes the issue, here is a link to pictures of her injuries. WARNING: GRAPHIC AND NASTY


http://justicebeforecharity.org/stella.php

Yeah, she wasn't injured at all. And OP surely was injured just as badly.

This case (Stella) ticks me off because people talk about it as though they have a clue when they really don't. She asked for $20k to pay her medical bills and give her a bit for pain and suffering. McDonald's refused. The jury got ticked by the callousness McDonald's showed and, while the punitive damages seemed like a lot, for the company they were NOTHING.

 

[Paul84]

I don't think I would expect trash in my food, but maybe someone else would. I guess it depends on where you eat.

To paraphrase Jay Leno, if you eat at Taco Bell, you should expect ANYTHING in your food.