SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 3123>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Sure hope this case does not make the light of day< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
eggs Search for posts by this member.
That's sofa King assume
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4340
Joined: Nov. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 1:19 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- An Idaho family has sued the U.S. Forest Service demanding more than $1 million after a large dead tree at a remote campsite fell and injured their young son.

http://news.yahoo.com/idaho-family-sues-usfs-1m-180507334.html

Poor kid for getting hurt but the parents need to take full responsibility for this situation.


--------------
Eggs
Home of the egg
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 2
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19360
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 1:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

If a tree falls on you in the forest and there isn't a lawyer around to hear you scream....
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43826
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 1:27 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Not a designated, developed campground but simply a backroad site of opportunity?

Totally their responsibility. Just because OTHER people were dumb enough to camp under a widowmaker doesn't mean they had to. They chose to do so.

Agreed: hope this gets tossed.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 1:30 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Yeah, I mean that's awful for that poor kid, really awful, but...

If it was "obvious" that the tree was dead, why were they camping near it?


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
GoBlueHiker Search for posts by this member.
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16405
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 1:33 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

They contend it was a "developed camping site" because there was a fire ring of rocks there, and therefore the Forest Service should have been checking up on it and making sure there weren't any trees around that could possibly fall.  Good grief.

I, too, hope the case is tossed.  I feel sorry for the kid, but the parents just earned a hard lesson about not camping under widowmakers in windy conditions.  It's not the Forest Service's responsibility to teach them that, nor is it their responsibility to make sure that every unofficial camping spot near a road gets "improved" so nothing can pose a danger to anyone at any time.

My take, anyway.


--------------
Wealth needs more.  Happiness needs less.  Simplify.

www.RainForestTreks.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 6
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25998
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 1:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

This day and age, choosing to do dumb things doesn't mean you also need to take responsibility for your own actions!

I's why we can't get single wall, breathable tents made with eVENT.  Fire retardant application compromises breathability; and yet, no one dares to sell tents that aren't made fire retardant.  People choose to do dumb things like cooking inside their tents -- and then they sue!

One reform -- which lawyers fight tooth and nail -- is to make the losing party pay all court and lawyer costs.  Both plaintiff and defendant would think twice.  But not good for lawyers though...


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43826
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 1:39 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(GoBlueHiker @ Apr. 11 2013, 10:33 am)
QUOTE
They contend it was a "developed camping site" because there was a fire ring of rocks there, and therefore the Forest Service should have been checking up on it and making sure there weren't any trees around that could possibly fall.  Good grief.

I, too, hope the case is tossed.  I feel sorry for the kid, but the parents just earned a hard lesson about not camping under widowmakers in windy conditions.  It's not the Forest Service's responsibility to teach them that, nor is it their responsibility to make sure that every unofficial camping spot near a road gets "improved" so nothing can pose a danger to anyone at any time.

My take, anyway.

The answer to that sort of thing would be to "improve" all none campground camping OUT of the national forests roadsides wouldn't it?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
GoBlueHiker Search for posts by this member.
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16405
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 1:44 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Apr. 11 2013, 11:39 am)
QUOTE
The answer to that sort of thing would be to "improve" all none campground camping OUT of the national forests roadsides wouldn't it?

That's a very oddly-worded question.  I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it.


--------------
Wealth needs more.  Happiness needs less.  Simplify.

www.RainForestTreks.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 9
reubenstump Search for posts by this member.
Lago Grey
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sep. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 1:50 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

So the tree was within 8 feet of the fire ring.  The parents were even closer.  Maybe they're the ones that should have been removed.

Maybe the parents would like to pay more taxes so the underfunded USFS could get around to culling dead trees.

Trees in the wilderness.  There oughta be a law.

Where's a big ass asteroid when we need one?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 1:52 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Could the FS give them a ticket for the illegal fire ring?

Kidding aside, unfortunately cases like this are often settled out of court which just encourages more frivolous law suits in the future.

My employer has settled out of court on BS law suits many times.  They claim it's cheaper in the long run.  Where does it end?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43826
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 1:53 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(GoBlueHiker @ Apr. 11 2013, 10:44 am)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Apr. 11 2013, 11:39 am)
QUOTE
The answer to that sort of thing would be to "improve" all none campground camping OUT of the national forests roadsides wouldn't it?

That's a very oddly-worded question.  I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it.

That the unintended consequence of forcing a legally enforced responsibility of maintaining every casual roadside campsite free of all hazards would almost certainly result in the forest service simply banning such camping altogether. "Improving" the safety of the visitors that way.

There is usually more than one way to manage risk and the simplist is a ban. Heck given the hundreds of thousands of miles of National Forest roadsides that might be the only way to ensure such alleged "safety".
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
GoBlueHiker Search for posts by this member.
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16405
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 2:30 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Apr. 11 2013, 11:53 am)
QUOTE

(GoBlueHiker @ Apr. 11 2013, 10:44 am)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Apr. 11 2013, 11:39 am)
QUOTE
The answer to that sort of thing would be to "improve" all none campground camping OUT of the national forests roadsides wouldn't it?

That's a very oddly-worded question.  I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it.

That the unintended consequence of forcing a legally enforced responsibility of maintaining every casual roadside campsite free of all hazards would almost certainly result in the forest service simply banning such camping altogether. "Improving" the safety of the visitors that way.

There is usually more than one way to manage risk and the simplist is a ban. Heck given the hundreds of thousands of miles of National Forest roadsides that might be the only way to ensure such alleged "safety".

Fully agreed.


--------------
Wealth needs more.  Happiness needs less.  Simplify.

www.RainForestTreks.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 13
Tigger Search for posts by this member.
Woods Pouncer
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 12034
Joined: Apr. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 2:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I am scared of trees. It's what keeps me moving in the woods...

--------------
If I'm going to be lost, in the woods is where I want to be...
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 14
retired reddog Search for posts by this member.
"I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."  Robert Frost
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1374
Joined: Jun. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 2:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I feel for the kid, but I believe we all understand that forests  have dead trees in them...   The first thing I tell my scouts when they get ready to set up a tent is "Look up..."

--------------
Good night Chesty, where ever you are!-(It's a Marine thing.)

“The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle!”
General John Pershing, United States Army
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
Tallgrass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 193
Joined: May 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 2:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

They'll get their money. Just watch.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43826
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 3:00 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Tigger @ Apr. 11 2013, 11:38 am)
QUOTE
I am scared of trees. It's what keeps me moving in the woods...

It's not the trees for me, it's what lurks right behind the trees.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
waterdog Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 466
Joined: Sep. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 3:59 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

They're probably an average struggling family looking for a way to avoid personal bankruptcy due to exorbitant medical costs incurred by the accident. They may not have medical coverage, it may not be adequate, or their carrier may be trying to screw them.

Don't get me wrong--I despise frivolous lawsuits and ambulance chasing parasites. But medical care is basically unaffordable in America for most people.

They broke the first rule: don't get sick or hurt in the U.S.! Now they're probably looking for a way out.


--------------
I'm more comfortable with unanswered questions than I am with unquestioned answers.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
GoBlueHiker Search for posts by this member.
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16405
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 4:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(waterdog @ Apr. 11 2013, 1:59 pm)
QUOTE
They're probably an average struggling family looking for a way to avoid personal bankruptcy due to exorbitant medical costs incurred by the accident. They may not have medical coverage, it may not be adequate, or their carrier may be trying to screw them.

Don't get me wrong--I despise frivolous lawsuits and ambulance chasing parasites. But medical care is basically unaffordable in America for most people.

They broke the first rule: don't get sick or hurt in the U.S.! Now they're probably looking for a way out.

That may not be very far from the truth in this case.  Hard to say.

--------------
Wealth needs more.  Happiness needs less.  Simplify.

www.RainForestTreks.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 19
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19360
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 4:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

A couple years ago, I had a mirror knocked off my truck by a deer on I-70.  If I had only known I could have sued CDOT.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19360
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 4:46 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(waterdog @ Apr. 11 2013, 1:59 pm)
QUOTE
They're probably an average struggling family looking for a way to avoid personal bankruptcy due to exorbitant medical costs incurred by the accident. They may not have medical coverage, it may not be adequate, or their carrier may be trying to screw them.

Don't get me wrong--I despise frivolous lawsuits and ambulance chasing parasites. But medical care is basically unaffordable in America for most people.

They broke the first rule: don't get sick or hurt in the U.S.! Now they're probably looking for a way out.

They why don't they sue for "medical expenses"?

They're probably stupid, greedy and entitled.

They want a way out?  Canada is due north.  Socialized health care and all.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
eggs Search for posts by this member.
That's sofa King assume
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4340
Joined: Nov. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 7:00 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(waterdog @ Apr. 11 2013, 3:59 pm)
QUOTE
They're probably an average struggling family looking for a way to avoid personal bankruptcy due to exorbitant medical costs incurred by the accident. They may not have medical coverage, it may not be adequate, or their carrier may be trying to screw them.

Don't get me wrong--I despise frivolous lawsuits and ambulance chasing parasites. But medical care is basically unaffordable in America for most people.

They broke the first rule: don't get sick or hurt in the U.S.! Now they're probably looking for a way out.

Wait so society is suppose to pay for the mistakes of stupid people.

Sorry I disagree but then this just took a turn into the TPA zone


--------------
Eggs
Home of the egg
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 22
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6339
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 7:33 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Well, I'd like to know more facts about the case.

Remember the McDonald's coffee case?  When people first heard about it thy thought it was outrageous, until they learned more of the facts, that from 1982 to 1992 the McDonald's had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. However, Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.  

The jury decided McDonald's should start worrying about burning its customers with coffee being served at an unreasonable temperature and awarded 2.86 million in damages, 2.7 million of it punitive to send a message to McDonald's.  

6 ordinary citizens making a good decision after hearing the evidence.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
wycanislatrans Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2760
Joined: Nov. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 7:50 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

whatever.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
eggs Search for posts by this member.
That's sofa King assume
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4340
Joined: Nov. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 8:00 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(nogods @ Apr. 11 2013, 7:33 pm)
QUOTE
Well, I'd like to know more facts about the case.

Remember the McDonald's coffee case?  When people first heard about it thy thought it was outrageous, until they learned more of the facts, that from 1982 to 1992 the McDonald's had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. However, Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.  

The jury decided McDonald's should start worrying about burning its customers with coffee being served at an unreasonable temperature and awarded 2.86 million in damages, 2.7 million of it punitive to send a message to McDonald's.  

6 ordinary citizens making a good decision after hearing the evidence.

Come on how much is there to read into this. They were camping in a state forest were I suspect no permits were needed, I base that on my local experience in PA and other near by states. They setup camp under a dead tree. It got windy it blew over. Bad luck or stupid I'm not sure which but it could have easily have been prevented by looking up. We all do it when we set our tents up in the woods.

They didn't I'm not willing to foot the bill


--------------
Eggs
Home of the egg
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 25
Chuck D Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7932
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 8:02 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

More NF's will be like the Sam Houston Nat'l Forest, which closed trails and access to many areas 3 years ago due to the threat of dead trees falling, many of the areas and trails are still closed.

--------------
Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
tarol Search for posts by this member.
Well I never!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 11177
Joined: Mar. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 9:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Tallgrass @ Apr. 11 2013, 2:42 pm)
QUOTE
They'll get their money. Just watch.

Yeah, I bet the FS will end up settling.  We, unfortunately, do not have good enough lawyers standing up for the US Govt.

--------------
Got elevation? www.tarol.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 27
SW Mtn backpacker Search for posts by this member.
Born to hike, forced to work ...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7297
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 10:33 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

.. and that's why more regulations get published.   I can see it now - only camp at certain designated campsites, where all trees that could fall are axed down, with the proper permit attached to your backpack (or windshield if carcamping) at all times, etc...

--------------
Usually Southwest and then some.

In wildness is the preservation of the world. - Henry Thoreau
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
Tallgrass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 193
Joined: May 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 10:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(waterdog @ Apr. 11 2013, 2:59 pm)
QUOTE
They're probably an average struggling family looking for a way to avoid personal bankruptcy due to exorbitant medical costs incurred by the accident. They may not have medical coverage, it may not be adequate, or their carrier may be trying to screw them.

Don't get me wrong--I despise frivolous lawsuits and ambulance chasing parasites. But medical care is basically unaffordable in America for most people.

They broke the first rule: don't get sick or hurt in the U.S.! Now they're probably looking for a way out.

May be true,  but that doesn't justify the rest of us paying for their poor choices/risk assessment
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
waterdog Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 466
Joined: Sep. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 10:47 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Tallgrass @ Apr. 11 2013, 10:38 pm)
QUOTE

(waterdog @ Apr. 11 2013, 2:59 pm)
QUOTE
They're probably an average struggling family looking for a way to avoid personal bankruptcy due to exorbitant medical costs incurred by the accident. They may not have medical coverage, it may not be adequate, or their carrier may be trying to screw them.

Don't get me wrong--I despise frivolous lawsuits and ambulance chasing parasites. But medical care is basically unaffordable in America for most people.

They broke the first rule: don't get sick or hurt in the U.S.! Now they're probably looking for a way out.

May be true,  but that doesn't justify the rest of us paying for their poor choices/risk assessment

Yeah, I agree; not saying they should feel entitled to compensation. Just looking at it from a different point of view.

And I'd predict that the USFS will settle for some percentage of medical expenses, rather than litigate, and some sleazy attorney will benefit proportionately more than the injured child or his family.

It just ain't fair.


--------------
I'm more comfortable with unanswered questions than I am with unquestioned answers.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
BradMT Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4031
Joined: May 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 11 2013, 11:13 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(nogods @ Apr. 11 2013, 5:33 pm)
QUOTE
Well, I'd like to know more facts about the case.

Remember the McDonald's coffee case?  When people first heard about it thy thought it was outrageous, until they learned more of the facts, that from 1982 to 1992 the McDonald's had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. However, Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.  

The jury decided McDonald's should start worrying about burning its customers with coffee being served at an unreasonable temperature and awarded 2.86 million in damages, 2.7 million of it punitive to send a message to McDonald's.  

6 ordinary citizens making a good decision after hearing the evidence.

And the woman's burns were actually 3rd degree and incredibly hideous.

AND she never wanted anything other than her medical bill covered.

What is and what the media reports are often two different things...


--------------
Contentment is natural wealth, luxury is artificial poverty. – Socrates
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
66 replies since Apr. 11 2013, 1:19 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 3123>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Sure hope this case does not make the light of day
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions