Quote from: FAtlas on September 09, 2011, 02:49:31 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 09, 2011, 02:27:35 PM

1) I believe there is often more to the story than what the court summary presents (remember the story about the lady who spilled McD's coffee on her lap?),

I'm honestly curious what you think about that case. Everybody who has no idea how the law works and just heard a joke about it on TV tends to pick the same side on that case, so lets hear yours.

For the sake of those who don't know:
The summary of the case just says the old lady spilled hot coffee on herserf, sued McDonals, and won.
The details of the case were that the coffee was dangerusly hot, above the recommended safety level. The old lady got third degree burns on her thighs and genitals, and needed hospitalization and surgery. Afterwards she asked McDonald's to compensate her for the hospital bill only (I seem to remember only $10,000?) McDonalds refused. That's when she took them to court. The initial judgement was high, and McDonalds was shown to be negligent in serving way too dangerously hot coffee in really unsafe containers. McDonalds appealed, appelate court still ruled in the old lady's favor, but reduced the judgement.

Quote from: DrZaius on September 09, 2011, 02:52:42 PM

So Bruce is innocent because a jury decided that McDonalds were 80% at fault for serving coffee so hot that a woman suffered third degree burns and was hospitalized for 8 days receiving skin grafts?

Ok.

No, just pointing out that the court summary shows the old lady as a sue-happy opportunist, and that's what most people with preconcieved notions assume. The details often don't match people's assumptions.