Warning: tickets should not be taken internally.

"This sidewalk closed to through traffic."

Didn't she win like a million dollars in that court case? We shouldn't reward people like this. Sigh.

I know that she won the case, though I do not know how much she won. I'm assuming it's around that amount.

The lady won that case because the coffee was far above the temperatures acceptable according to McDonalds rules, or so I was told.

The most important label on a rocket launcher:

Point in this direction --->

Fuck Wackarnolds. That lady rules for gettin' dat bank from those fools.

In the woman's defense, McDonald's used to serve their coffee at a skin-meltingly-hot temperature, ranging between 180 - 190 F, enough to cause third-degree burns. When she spilt the coffee on her, she had to get skin grafts done on 6% of her body, which may not sound like much, but it is ridiculously painful and even more expensive than it sounds to have something like that corrected. The amount she received was never disclosed, but considering how much her medical bills must've cost, not to mention the painful recovery she had after getting the grafts done on her lap, thighs, ass, and vagina, I doubt she got to have as much fun as people would like to believe with that money.
The more you know...

To you folks who consider yourselves to be knowledgeable enough to deem the woman in the McDonald's case a fool, I have to ask: Were you on the jury? How familiar are you with the facts surrounding the case? Perhaps a bit of education is in order:

• The coffee in question was heated to about 180 degrees Fahrenheit. That's enough to cause third-degree burns in under ten seconds. Do you know what third-degree burns look like? They're not pretty.
  
  
• The burns the woman suffered were so bad that she spent a week in the hospital after the accident. Treatments for the burns included skin grafting.
  
  
• McDonald's first testified that the reason the coffee was so hot was for "taste optimization" (i.e. so customers couldn't taste it at all). They later changed their story and said the reason the coffee was so hot was so that it'd still be warm after a drive home.
  
  
• The woman was awarded only $200,000 in compensatory damages, and around $500,000 in punitive damages.
  
  
• The reason this case is so popular is because it was often cited in widely-disseminated propaganda promoting "tort reform," i.e. legislation that would make it even more difficult for victims of corporate recklessness or malfeasance to sue.
  
  
• You people are suckers for buying into it hook, line, and sinker.

She actually received less than those amounts because the jury deemed the accident as partially her fault, so it's closer to 160 000$ and 480 000$ respectively, though ultimately, the actual amounts were never disclosed despite the media attention the case garnered.

I believe the lesson here is that the McDonald's case is a warning label of stupid people.

You'd be very very surprised.

Not much of a warning label but there was: "For indoor and outdoor use only." in the side of a Christmas light. I suppose that message excludes underwater use though it doesn't point that out very distinctly.

Valid points. My issue is that McDonalds was held liable for her clumsiness. If a worker spilled it on her, sue away. If her dumb ass tried to play "juggle that drink!" I'd have an issue with allowing compensation. Okay, so maybe that was a bit harsh. Look at it this way. I think it's common knowledge not to squeeze a Styrofoam cup between your legs, because most people experience the outcome. You're gonna have a sticky crotch.( No, Lonely Island fans, not jizz related.) Pair that with a moving vehicle, and there is barely any room for a positive outcome. Maby that poor old woman made an honest, day do day mistake and dun goofed. Maybe she did it on purpose and lied to the courts. Hell, I really couldn't care less. What it boils down to is that if someone makes a goofy mistake and blames it on someone else, there really isn't a logical way to defend yourself. That is my problem with several current American lawsuits. There are too many loopholes.

To be fair, if I space off and shut my hand in a George Forman grill, I wouldn't sue the man. Hell, I wouldn't even consider it. He'd knock my punk ass out.

I remember very vividly the warning labels on packages of the old style of Quick Clot used by the military. For those that don't know QC is a hemostatic agent used to control arterial bleeds...but the original formula got insanely hot when it got wet. Naturally, there was a warning to "not swallow or ingest this product." I always thought it was funny.

Warning Labels from "The Simpsons"

ON A ROCKET: Aim away from face.

ON A TUBE OF CRAZY GLUE: If swallowed, consult a mortician.

Hence why I think the case was funny. What you just posted is my reason why.

I forget what the item was exactly, but during Christmas last year there was a box with a little diagram showing someone putting a bag over a babies head with a big warning symbol 'X' over it. I don't think the comapny would be liable if someone used their bag to suffocate their baby >>

She was held partially liable for her clumsiness according to the link Jerrod posted, which is why she didn't receive more in damages. Whether or not it was her fault the coffee was spilled (it obviously was) was not the issue, the issue was whether or not McDonald's was placing their customers in an excessive amount of danger by serving them 180-degree coffee (they obviously were). The woman would not've suffered the sorts of injuries she did if the coffee had been heated to normal/relatively safe temperatures. If the coffee were heated to normal temperatures there would have been no case.

Yes, I know what the issue of the lawsuit was. (Also, forgive the misinfo in that last post, the vehicle was stopped, misread the article.) It's a circle jerk case. A lady spills coffee on her she-peen, and blames McDonalds for the results. In the mean time, millions of other consumers enjoyed their McFire without making a major case of it. Without any major safety inspectors telling McD's to chill out or any other major injuries to make them aware, then of course they won't fix anything.

Don't get me wrong, I don't feel sorry for McDonalds, they could certainly afford the penalty. It's also horrible that the lady suffered from such serious burns. My issue lies with the majority of lawsuits being caused by stupid reasons. Most coffee comes hot. It's not a fucking Jackinthebox surprise. McDonald's just went overkill. By a lot. Where were the safety inspectors who have undoubtedly eaten at McDonalds? Why the hell did that woman try to open a styrofoam cup between her knees without supporting it with her other hand? Sure, give the lady enough cash to cover her operation. But giving her the leisure of being called a victim is just stupid. This was a hundred party screw up, and could have easily been avoided.

You'd hope so, but you never know.

Going back to the McDonald's coffee issue, when I was a barista (not at McD's), we had a set temperature we never let the coffee get past- i think it was 160. I

This may not exactly be a warning label, but there are instructions on the back of a Pop-Tarts box telling people how to toast them. Comedian Brian Regan does a stand-up routine on it, it's really funny. You can find it on YouTube.
JIRONOBOU- love the picture.

ON A 15-LB BOX OF PEANUTS: Allergen information- contains nuts. (Really? I thought there were crayons inside!)

ON A TUBE OF GLUE: Caution- do not dry clean. (Ok...)

Peanuts are not nuts. They're legumes, closely related to beans.
Yes, I've fallen for that one too, don't worry.

YOU'RE A LEGUME!!!

Just kidding. You're totally right, but that's what the box said!