Finally, a chink in the armor of ‘Reason Gone Mad’ and the evil minions of the RIAA. Bravo !

The idea being that these judgments can be used as precedent in future cases. If enough of the RIAA’s law suits are struck down like this the RIAA could find that it has nothing to stand on in the future, and may even prompt an official inquiry.

I also hope that kid’s counter-suit is successful.

And thank you, scate, for clear and concise summary of the McDonald’s case, which the Right-Wing Media has definitely spun to sound like it was frivolous when it definitely was not.

the RIAA needs to be burned down. No one is making a profit by sharing their music, so i dont see why they cant share it, its unfathomable!!!

OT:

The self-proclaimed, ironically monikered “SmarterThanDumbasses” writes:

“What moronic ass-hat puts a “hot” beverage in their lap while driving? Even a MONKEY knows better!
She deserved everything she got”

Your comments really speak to your own values or lack thereof more than anything else.

I’d say that a multinational corporation with multiple reports of burned customers would know better than to continue handing flimsy cups of scalding, 180 degree liquids that can cause instant sever burns to customers sitting in cars. McDonalds made the corporate decision, knowingly IMO, that they would rather burn some customers than reduce the temperature of their coffee to a safer and drinkable temperature.

You, however, “SmarterThanDumbasses” think that McDonalds is the victim rather than the elderly burn patient.

McDonalds is totally at fault for doing what all companies do, they see a problem and they say well we could fix it really easy and have no risk to our customers and to ourselves, instead they say screw it let’m burn the majority won’t sue, don’t know how, or we can just bury them with our legal team. so the judgement was justified due their gross negligence because they knew and did nothing.

Now if she sued because she got fat eating there 3 times a day then I would have a problem with that!!!!

See this…. Looks Awesome…http://enginepuller.com/

OT:

AC writes:

“The only reason the woman won the coffee case was because it actually saw a jury.”

She won on the merits. You have not provided evidence to the contrary or rebutted the facts of the case.

“Starbucks serves coffee that is just as hot; today.”

Starbucks in not primarily a drive through business. If Starbucks starts burning their customers through negligence then they may also loose a meritorious lawsuit–as did McDonalds.

“McDonalds had warnings on the cups.”

Some idiot could put warnings on bullets, but that wouldn’t really help people avoid getting shot. Putting a warning on the flimsy cup of scalding liquid is much the same thing–too little, too late.

“Coffee is supposed to be that hot.”

Says who? Brewing temperature and serving temperature are not the same thing. Furthermore, it is negligent to hand people a flimsy cup of scalding liquid through their driver side window no matter what temperature you might serve it at in a sit down environment. You wouldn’t serve an iron sizzle platter to drive through customers even though sizzle platters are “supposed to be that hot.”

“Ladders cost 10 – 30% more because of bullshit litigation.”

Or are ladders much, much safer because of litigation? You fail to cite a source for your allegation nor proof that the litigation, if any, was meritless.

“Do you want your coffee to suddenly cost 10 – 30% more because some idiots can’t hold onto the cup?”

False Dichotomy. McDonalds knew before the lawsuit, and before the elderly woman recieved 3d degree burns, that their coffee was burning customers. McDonalds weighed their finances and decided, in essence, to keep burning their customers rather than reduce the temperature of their coffee to a safer level. The lawsuit was the fault of McDonalds, not the burn victim. They had the power to prevent the situation that caused it but chose not to for economic reasons. Then, even after the woman was burned, they could have just paid her hospital expenses for skin grafts. It was only after they refused to pay her direct costs from the 3d degree burns that she had to sue them.

Don’t blame the victim. (Hint, the victim is not the multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation who chose to burn their customers instead of reducing the temperature of their coffee.)

This post–and all of my posts–represents my opinion.

mrpete writes:

“2) Drinking coffe whilst you are driving is stupid and irresponsible.”

Drinking or eating foods that spill and make a mess–hot or cold–is a significant cause of car accidents. However, in this case the woman burned was the passenger. The car was stopped at the time when the lid came off and the coffee spilled in her lap.

“Maybe there’d be fewer lawsuits in the US (and icreasingly the UK) if people were told to act like the adults they supposedly are.”

Perhaps. But, perhaps corporations would do fewer things worthy of lawsuits if they acted like responsible people rather than amoral money maximizing machines–which is essentially what publicly owned corporations are. (Note that “amoral” means “without morals” not evil or immoral.)

Ambrose Bierce described a corporation as “An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.” A corporation is designed to make money not to be good or “moral.” And laws only matter to the extent the corporation may be caught and have to pay fines. CEO’s rarely go to jail–Enron and Health South are rare exceptions that prove the rule.

Since the only stimulus corporations respond to is financial, it is important that individuals be able to sue them for punitive damages when corporations do illegal harm. Only when their is sufficient threat of financial harm do corporations actually change their behavior.