Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Video & Multimedia

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)

3. I had never seen the photos of the burns before this, no one would laugh if they saw those

Reply to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 11:09 PM

Nov 2013

When you see just how badly that woman was scalded it is clear that her suit was justified, for the media to mock this woman without even examining the facts of the case it shows just how shameful our press is.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Woman Burned by McDonald's Hot Coffee, Then the News Media [View all] Quixote1818 Nov 2013 OP

Thanks for posting... suzanner Nov 2013 #1

Its a frivolous lawsuit not because she wasn't burned. She was, horribly. She was burned because ... marble falls Nov 2013 #6

Except for the fact that the coffee was far hotter than it should have been ET Awful Nov 2013 #7

My tea is hotter zipplewrath Nov 2013 #8

Your tea is 180 degrees? I doubt that seriously. ET Awful Nov 2013 #9

The jury did zipplewrath Nov 2013 #10

You seem to have misread the verdict. ET Awful Nov 2013 #11

When served zipplewrath Nov 2013 #12

So, in your world, receiving hundreds of reports of injury doesn't warrant action? ET Awful Nov 2013 #13

Action or responsibility? zipplewrath Nov 2013 #16

Complete and utter nonsense. ET Awful Nov 2013 #19

How low was low enough? zipplewrath Nov 2013 #20

What an astounding demonstration of your lack of reading comprehension . . . ET Awful Nov 2013 #21

I'm trying to stay civil zipplewrath Nov 2013 #22

Ummm. . . they didn't need to know what would satisfy a jury, they needed to listen to the numerous ET Awful Nov 2013 #23

Easy to say in hindsight zipplewrath Nov 2013 #24

You're merely trying to over complicate things. ET Awful Nov 2013 #25

I'll ignore your personal attacks zipplewrath Nov 2013 #30

It's quite obvious that you have no knowledge of what product liability is ET Awful Nov 2013 #32

I understand, I just don't agree zipplewrath Nov 2013 #39

You fail to grasp the whole concept of product liability... Hassin Bin Sober Nov 2013 #35

Oh, I understand it zipplewrath Nov 2013 #38

Please see my post #14 about how a splash on my sister's ankle gave her 3rd degree burns Hekate Nov 2013 #17

I'm sorry for your sister zipplewrath Nov 2013 #18

A buddy of mine spent two weeks in the hospital after spilling... Hassin Bin Sober Nov 2013 #34

except that is not true....they were parked. VanillaRhapsody Nov 2013 #26

Oh, then why did the trial judge portion some of the blame on her and her grandson? marble falls Nov 2013 #31

Proof please.. VanillaRhapsody Nov 2013 #36

I live in the city where it happened and we got a lot more news about it than Chung reported Warpy Nov 2013 #27

One... rsdsharp Nov 2013 #29

Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #33

Yes, thank you. Very informative and interesting. closeupready Nov 2013 #2

I had never seen the photos of the burns before this, no one would laugh if they saw those Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #3

Links to some facts on the case... SpankMe Nov 2013 #4

The simple thing would have been for McDonald's to settle for $20,000 davidpdx Nov 2013 #5

A bit? I'd say a bit more than a bit. n/t VWolf Nov 2013 #15

My sis burned her ankle so badly she almost needed a skin graft Hekate Nov 2013 #14

McDonald's Coffee yeoman6987 Nov 2013 #28

1. Watch the video 2. Read the information in this thread 3. Use fewer question marks. Hekate Nov 2013 #37