TXsilverado

iTrader: (19)

man, i catch myself biting my tongue a lot lately. i will leave it at sucks to be her, and vehicle design is none of the govs business.

wheeliE-maxx

She either had to be going fast enough to knock the kid dead, or not hear a cry to stop if the kid got under the tire. That's ridiculous. The world is ending.

06sierra5.3

iTrader: (7)

Most people don't know, but that was 100% a legitimate claim. She got 3rd degree (no exaggeration) burns. She didn't sue because she spilled the coffee, she sued because the coffee was so impossibly hot, it physically and mentally scarred her for life. I have seen the pictures, it's pretty horrible. She was harassed by attorneys and eventually forced to settle. She got railroaded, she deserved every penny, just for the way they treated her.


If you back over your own kid, or any kid, or anyone/anything, it's your fault.

As a joke when I was about 7, I put a frozen yogurt cup and plastic spoon behind my dad's tire in the drive way. He was always jumping out of corners scaring me and I could never scare him. Well, he completely lost his mind. He thought he ran over me and that the sound was my bones breaking. Ever since then I have been extremely cautious about walking around cars and houses. I have to admit though, I tend to back out of my driveway quickly. I always look carefully, but I back out quickly. I live on a busy street and there have been a few narrow instances. I need to rein it in a little.

Gadgetized

iTrader: (9)

I just googled the pics OMG, I had no idea how bad she got burned. This is one of those old stories that originated before the net, and it was impossible to see pics. Now it is easy to look those things up. I also read a long article about it. I had never believed she deserved any money until now. I will admit I will not get coffee from McDonald's because it was always too hot. It does surprise me that they would sell something at a restaurant that is completely too hot to consume.

TXsilverado

iTrader: (19)

from what i understand, the mcdonalds was a neglegance case. the manager of the mcdonalds knew that the thermostat was broken on the coffee machine and continued to sell coffee from it. the machine was supposed to regulate the coffee to a certain temp....without the regulator it just boiled the **** out of it and they served it anyways. she deserved every penny.

06sierra5.3

iTrader: (7)

that's not correct. MacDonald's had a branch-wide policy to maintain the coffee at 180-190, which they admitted in court. The tests done on the plaintiff's side showed that at those temps, you could sustain a 3rd degree burn within seconds, and that it was likely nobody would be able to react in time. If you accidentally spill on your clothes, the clothes would hold it close to the skin.

At first, the lawsuit was only to recover medical costs. Macdonald's blew it off and denied responsibility, so she sued the **** out of them.

TXsilverado

iTrader: (19)

who the hell drinks 180-190* coffee?

beastmode

iTrader: (52)

This statement pretty much sums up this woman...