<p>Woman</a> Sues Google After She Follows Google Maps Directions And Gets Hit By A Car | Techdirt</p>
<p>I really hope natural selection weeds out people like this. </p>
<p>Anyways, I didn't know where else to put this. Maybe you guys run into these types of people in college? Anyways, let me know what you think about that article.</p>
<p>It sickens me how quick people are to sue. What has happened with the values of our country? Anything for a quick buck! It almost reminds me of the crazy lady who sued McDonalds when she got burnt from her coffee…don’t you expect your coffee to be fresh and hot when you order it? Take responsibility for your own decisions and actions, stop blaming other people for your own mistakes!
This is ridiculous!</p>
<p>^ That woman who sued McDonald’s made quite a pretty penny off of that lawsuit, if I remember correctly. Basically, McDonald’s sells its coffee at a temperature that they know is against regulation (i.e. too hot) because their customers constantly ask for very hot coffee (so it’s still hot when they get to the office). McDonald’s basically decided that it’s cheaper and easier to settle the few lawsuits brought against them for the too-hot coffee than actually change the temperature (and thus garner complaints from their customers that their coffee is too cold).</p>
<p>I think the McDonald’s woman was completely within her rights to sue. I’d be ****ed if a retailer sold me something that went against a national regulation and injured me in the process.</p>
<p>^ So you’re suggesting that McDonald should include temperature as a choice? Would you like your coffee at 90 degree or 120 degree?</p>
<p>I actually agree with Artemis - I feel terrible that the woman who sued McDonald’s gets such a bad rap, because she was quite within her rights to sue. She wanted her medical bills paid for the THIRD DEGREE BURNS she received because McDonald’s had its coffee against regulation, and the judge gave her much, much more than she had asked.</p>
<p>OTOH, this woman is insane. The article makes a very good point: if she couldn’t tell that the road was unsafe when she was ** standing on the side of it **, then how could google’s algorithm tell?</p>
<p>
From what I read, the customer demands had nothing to do with it. McDonalds was serving the coffee so hot because it meant that customers would sit in the restaurant longer waiting for it to cool, and would thus be more likely to buy food to munch on while they waited.</p>
<p>The McDonald’s coffee was 180 F. That’s too hot to even drink. It would scorch your esophagus. Also, the woman was found partially at fault. Originally she only asked for McDonald’s to cover her medical bills for the skin grafts. Even though she was awarded a couple million dollars, it was reduced to around half a million on appeal.</p>
<p>I feel like Google did it on purpose to take one more stupid person off this earth.</p>
<p>The McDonald’s lawsuit was acceptable.Their coffee shouldn’t literally scorch your skin. It’s expected to be hot; but if you’re leaving with whatever-degree burns, then there’s a huge problem. </p>
<p>Now the Google lawsuit is just a waste of tax dollars.</p>
<p>Also, there were several hundred reported complaints and claims from customers who were burnt prior to the lawsuit. McD’s knew the situation and decided the costs of reducing their coffee’s temperature outweighed the benefits of avoiding potential liability. </p>
<p>The reason that McD’s served coffee at high temps was (according to what I’ve read) because hotter water required less coffee beans per cup, saving them several cents per drink.</p>
<p>You can argue that they have the right to choose whatever temperature they want to serve coffee at. But they are liable for their products just like every company in the USA. It was a civil case–it was about whether Mcdonalds was liable for their product (yes) and whether the old lady who was sitting in a parked car drinking coffee assumed the risk (apparently no), not whether choosing to serve hot coffee was legal. Not surprisingly, McD’s lowered their coffee’s temperature a few days later. </p>
<p>Also, I’m pretty sure the punitive damages were severely reduced in appeals. I think Mcdonald’s ended up owing “only” $250,000 (rather than the 2-3 million originally imposed), most of which was to cover medical expenses.</p>
<p>Edit: I just searched and there’s a wiki article on it <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald’s_Restaurants[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald’s_Restaurants</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, what does it say about us that we even have national regulations (is this actually true?) about the correct temperature at which to serve coffee :rolleyes: the term “nanny state” comes to mind…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…I was just about to post something like that.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is/was a regulation. The poster misspoke. It wasn’t that it was outside of a regulation, it was that they knew it was at an unsafe temperature. As others have said, there had already been complaints, suits and settlements prior to this incident. McDonald’s was well aware that the coffee could injure someone.</p>
<p>sun_shine said: “What has happened with the values of our country?”</p>
<p>How soon we romanticize the old days; we have been excessively litigious since colonial days</p>
<p>The idea that we are all equal under the law helped discourage religious divisions . . .</p>
<p>“As freemen, they will be litigious; pride and obstinacy are of the cause of lawsuits; . . . religion curbs them not in their opinions; the laws inspect our actions; our thoughts are left to God. Industry, good living, selfishness, litigiousness, country politics, the pride of freemen, religious indifference, are their characteristics.”</p>
<p>And we used law diligently to settle differences . . .</p>
<p>“The people were not quarrelsome in the ordinary sense, but they were very jealous each one of his private rights, and the opportunities for litigation over such matters seemed to provide themselves without end. Lands were given to settlers without accurate description of their boundaries; farms were unfenced and cattle wandered into neighboring fields; the notaries themselves were almost illiterate, and as a result scarcely a legal document in the colony was properly drawn. Nobody lacked pretexts for controversy. Idleness during the winter was also a contributing factor.”</p>
<p>Visitors from other countries noted how litigious we were . . .</p>
<p>"Long before the Revolution and for many years afterward travelers from abroad were consistently struck by the litigious nature of American life and the familiarity of even the most rural people with the intricacies of legal argument.'</p>
<p>and today, the same thing, except on the internet QED 
</p>
<p>P.S. there are NO “national regulations” about coffee temp; there were - and are- prevailing industry norms and standard industry practices about coffee temps</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is it “against the values of our country” to request that the judicial branch make a determination of law and fact?</p>
<p>I’m annoyed that the courts are not accessible to everyone and at the stigma against them. My state tried to pass legislation that would prevent school officials’ decisions from being subject to judicial review. This was no doubt a result of how the media spins court decisions in an alarmist manner, so everyone gets the idea that the courts are incompetent and evil.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t the understanding that a product, used as directed, will not cause harm to the consumer an implied warranty?</p>
<p>I think the ones complaining about product liability would be pretty upset if tort law was actually reformed. There’d be plenty of new products that could enter the market even though they hurt/killed consumers because liability would be limited.</p>
<p>You wouldn’t trust anything from baby toys to pharmaceuticals. Tort law is supposed to protect consumers. Even as it stands today, most states limit punitive/pain & suffering damages, which already encourages companies to make harmful products.</p>
<p>The only legitimate argument I can see is if someone said that these lawsuits are jacking up the price of goods for consumers. It’d be a good point, and I think it’d make the most sense to offer punitive damages to the government so they can subsidize liability insurance premiums–since the plaintiff doesn’t deserve these compensations. (Or subsidize malpractice premiums if we’re talking about physician negligence instead of consumer products)</p>
<p>The large liability lawsuits award most of the damages as punitive, after all medical expenses are usually <$1M, and even lost income has a limit. All that money should be going somewhere useful, and then we wouldn’t have so many people complain about a legal system that’s trying to deter companies from making unwanted products. Plus, it would discourage frivolous cases since the plaintiff/plaintiff’s lawyer wouldn’t see most of the rewards.</p>
<p>When my dad’s lawsuit was going on, he heard another trial going on. Some parents were trying to sue the teacher of their 17 year old son for not calling them to inform them of the fact that their child was getting a D in their class. </p>
<p>My dad’s lawyer later told him that the judge was dumbfounded that this had made it all the way to be heard in court and threw out the case. </p>
<p><em>shakes head</em></p>
<p>As for Google- isn’t there a warning that says “THIS IS A BETA VERSION.” on it? There is on my phone’s Google version when I pull up walking directions.</p>