I’ve been invoked. Some observations about the New York case of Alice Griffin v. Starbucks: 1) Hey, it’s Starbucks that caused second-degree burns. Haven’t ATLAAAJ and Professor Turley been telling us that only McDonald’s sold…

Six of the eight most expensive Google AdSense search terms are for attorneys (the other two are for mortgage and loan refinancing), with “mesothelioma lawyers” topping the charts at $54.33. A regularly updated page can…

We’ve added, along the right column of this site’s front page, a new sidebar feature entitled “Greatest Hits”, linking to a selection of our and readers’ favorite posts from the past (and maybe a stray…

Aha, another hidden gem of the Tort tax.

Companies shouldn’t have to consistently pony up the fees to put the best lawyers out there on trials that are inherently dumb. That’s what they are, dumb. Oddly enough, many items come ‘underlabeled’, because most people haven’t achieved the level of retardation/enlightnement to hurt themselves. Household electricity is a significant hazard, and I will rue the day when lighters have frickin ‘Danger, causes fires’ warnings on them.

Until there are enough judges with brains out there (read if you bring a frivolous lawsuit, you pay your lawyer fees, opposing lawyer fees, and compensate the state for having to put up with your s**t), and then throw out cases such as these, it will remain problematic.

I understand the need for legal oversight in cases where neglect or harmful intent is observed, and would even push that inadequate marking and too little safety research exists on some products (but punishing with exorbetent dog-and-pony shows is an unethical and wrong way to do it),
but the problem is that stupid people just won’t understand that life is inherently risky, and that nobody owes you jacks**t if you cause any harm to yourself. You are only legally entitled to the ability to breathe free, the right to say what you wish and do what you wish, and to live without goventment inteference. If you decide to purchase something from another individual or a corporation, that’s a decision you’ve chosen to do.
Caveat emptor: if you think your coffee might be too hot, ASK. If not, then your assumption is irrelevant. Unless there was misleading, gross error, or neglect on the part of the seller that an implied promise (note, no implied promise that coffee wouldn’t need to be handled carefully), then a means of legal (and political) recourse is simply wrong, and the legal system needs to stop selling itself out in these cases.

Common sense isn’t hard to come by, whar irks me are people unwilling to use it.

Up next on the docket: I’m going to sue a paper company over a paperclip. Hooooooray!

A woman in New York is suing Dunkin’ Donuts after burning herself with hot coffee. She wants $10 million….

Litigation-reform opponents regularly criticize the mention of the McDonald’s coffee-case lawsuit on the phony grounds that the McDonald’s coffee was unusually hot, and thus “defective.” A search of this website can find many other lawsuits…

Example: I claim that McDonald’s served their coffee 5,000 degrees hotter than normal.

One would hope that the judge would throw that out.

This isn’t quite that obvious, but it’s close.

The way I learned the case in Civil Procedure (from Arthur Miller), the facts of the case as presented to the judge/jury were that McDonald’s served its coffee at 30-40 degrees hotter than what was “normal.” As your links show, that might not be true, but the judge can’t very well take judicial notice of that fact.

Individual cases are won and lost for a variety of reasons. I guess I’ve always thought the purpose of learning some of the justifications behind the McDonald’s case was to understand how such a decision could be reached, not to use it as proof of some immutable larger truth.

Perhaps McDonald’s just hired bad counsel.