mcDonald's hit with French fry lawsuit

Originally posted by dawnstar
But I thought that french fries now ranked as a fresh fruit and vegetable. We all know that fresh fruit and vegetables are good for us, right???
still don't get that one....only way it could be a fresh vegetable is if it were cut from a fresh potato and fried up....most of the french fries now days are frozen...thus they aren't fresh anything!
Guess it depends on weather they desire to worry about our health..(usually connected to them worrying about paying for the healthcare of the population), or catering to the farmers....maybe??

Nobody is catering to the farmers. French fries being considered as fresh fruit and vegetables is somebody elses idea. I don't see how they can be considered as fresh either since they are frozen.

Wow, this bitch deserves to die. Eat up fat ass and when your heart explodes hope your family gets the extra large casket instead of cutting your arms and legs off to make your fat ass fit.

I hope she loses. I hope the judge, defense lawyer, the jurors, everyone in the courtroom sit and eat McDonalds while this lawsuit goes on and when she snaps and attacks her lawyer for his Big Mac she gets arrested for assault.

Originally posted by MBF
I don't see how they can be considered as fresh either since they are frozen.

The Frozen Potato Products Insititute (real people) has gone to great lengths to legally explain why they're fresh. But I don't see why everyone gets mad at the lawyers. It's the CLIENTS!

And if these corporations weren't allowed to contribute to campaigns, then the USDA wouldn't be so beholden. Why is this remotely surprising in a world where Ketchup is deemed a vegetable?

USDA is full of a bunch of lying, cheating crooks. They put on a good front to convince the public that they are doing great things for the good of the public, but they are not as lilly white as people think.

it would be nice to have a case number for this, or even better, if someone posted the complaint. because maybe... not likely, but *maybe* she has a case. obviously it has some merit or it wouldn't still be on the docket. im not saying its not a frivolous lawsuit, but it would be nice to attack her actual claims rather than just the fact that she's suing mcdonalds "for putting fat in the fries".

-koji K.

Originally posted by jeeze louise
McDonalds is being sued by a California woman who is bringing suit against the corporation for failing to reduce fat in the cooking oil they use to cook french fries and other foods.

OK THAT'S IT! Im gonna have to go and start slapping people for doing this #.

Thing is the world's so full of these morons that I'll never end!

[edit on 9-7-2004 by Ocelot]

Originally posted by koji_K
it would be nice to have a case number for this, or even better, if someone posted the complaint. because maybe... not likely, but *maybe* she has a case. obviously it has some merit or it wouldn't still be on the docket. im not saying its not a frivolous lawsuit, but it would be nice to attack her actual claims rather than just the fact that she's suing mcdonalds "for putting fat in the fries".

-koji K.

i'm going to give you an idea of what the courts deem to have merit.

i remember watching, i think it was 20/20 years ago, many years ago and they showed convicted felons who were clogging up the court systems with the most asinine lawsuits you've ever heard of. one sued because he got chunky peanut butter. thats right! he sued because he didnt get creamy peanut butter. and that was just one of many lawsuits that were just like it. they sued over any little thing just to waste the courts time and money. because of jackasses like this just about any lawsuit can go to trial. the rule of thumb is in this country and this was taught to me before all these lawsuits and even before the old lady burned her crotch because her of own stupidity, you can sue anyone for anything. this doesnt mean you'll win but you have the right to have you arguments be heard in court and they can either dismiss it or let it go to trial/mediation. judges not wanting to get caught in a legal mess later should they deny a case and they decide to take the lawsuit elsewhere and it does go to court simply stamps their name on just about anything that enters their courtroom and approves it for trial. criminals have sued homeowners and WON claiming the homeowner made it hard for them to break into their house and in the process were injured as a result. homeowners have lost everything as a result of such lawsuits.

should felons sue being they didnt get the peanut butter of their choice? no! should people sue because they ate at mcdonalds every day for 40 years of their life and is now obese and has health problems related to their weight problem? no certainly they should be heard or else we'd have judges that applied hteir own standards morality and personal opinions on what lawsuits are "stupid" and throw them out leaving the possiblity for some legitimate lawsuits to be thrown out. which is not to say it doesnt happen now...because it does happen but i feel it would only become worse should we change our system to deem such lawsuits "stupid" and have them dismissed.

what baffles me is there are juries that find in favor of these people! people geting rewarded for their own stupidity or lack of common sense (if it was common everyone would have it)

i dont know what the answer is but i do believe there is a major problem with our legal system when thigns like this tie up our courts and criminals have to wait weeks months and even years to go to trial over SERIOUS crimes. i understand suing mcdonalds goes to a civil court and murderers go to a criminal court but all the resources are having to be spread out and the system is overloaded which slows everything down for everyone.

Originally posted by koji_K
it would be nice to have a case number for this, or even better, if someone posted the complaint. because maybe... not likely, but *maybe* she has a case. obviously it has some merit or it wouldn't still be on the docket. im not saying its not a frivolous lawsuit, but it would be nice to attack her actual claims rather than just the fact that she's suing mcdonalds "for putting fat in the fries".

It would be nice to know, but would it matter?

My grandfather is still mad "those whiny babies" made them take lead out of paint. People are mad they have to wear seat belts, can't put asbestos in their houses and can't use MA BELL.

For all our bitching, when it comes right down to it... WE LOVE CORPORATIONS and hate people. It's that simple. Vote Republican.

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
the rule of thumb is in this country and this was taught to me before all these lawsuits and even before the old lady burned her crotch because her of own stupidity, you can sue anyone for anything.

you have a point, and it is a good one. but really, has anyone taken the time to read what these people are complaining about? i refuse to take part in the criticisism unless i've gone one step beyond the knee-jerk reaction to point out how stupid the case *sounds* and find out how stupid it may *be*.

for example, the case you mention above. i know it well. did you know the woman who brought the suit suffered third-degree burns on 6% of her body? including her genitals? she was in hospital for around 2 weeks and required skin grafts. mcdonalds admitted that, to save time and money, they were heating their coffee up to 200 degrees farenheit, and they had previously been sued some 700 times for similar burn occurences and did NOTHING about it? the truth is, she didnt burn her crotch because she was stupid, everyone spills coffee on themselves at least once in their lives... she burned her crotch because the coffee was hot.

so, what i am saying is that sometimes there is *more* than meets the eye in these cases. there are a large number of frivolous ones, it's true, but don't call it one until *after* you've heard both sides of the story. i think that's how the courts feel about these issues also.

-koji K.

[edit on 10-7-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 10-7-2004 by koji_K]

Well, it wasn't that long ago you made coffee by BOILING the water. Still do as a matter of fact when I have the time, it tastes better. Which would put it at 212f, or have I forgotten things again?

This woman grew up doing this (I assume) so the fact that the coffee was 200 degrees shouldn't have been unheard of for her.

I feel sorry for her having to deal with the pain of her injuries. It certainly wouldn't be fun.

BUT IT'S STILL HER OWN FAULT!

If I were to do something this stupid (not too much of a stretch ) suing McD's wouldn't be my course of action. Now suing the car manufacturer for not making my car so it could drive itself and leave me with both hands free.... !!!!!

This morning KayEm made me a breakfast burger with eggs. It gave me the trots. Can I sue KayEm ?

Honestly though, people aren't forced to eat at McDogturds. I think its just another sue-happy cretin looking for a quick buck.

for example, the case you mention above. i know it well. did you know the woman who brought the suit suffered third-degree burns on 6% of her body? including her genitals? she was in hospital for around 2 weeks and required skin grafts. mcdonalds admitted that, to save time and money, they were heating their coffee up to 200 degrees farenheit, and they had previously been sued some 700 times for similar burn occurences and did NOTHING about it? the truth is, she didnt burn her crotch because she was stupid, everyone spills coffee on themselves at least once in their lives... she burned her crotch because the coffee was hot.

yes i knew this and i also knew she drove while this cup of coffee was in her lap without a lid.

do you HAVE to be told you shouldnt drive with a unlidded cup of coffee in your lap? should anyone have to be punished for that?

150 0r 200 degrees...you're gettin burned either way, so lets be honest here. they put lids on their cups, i doubt a person gets 6% of their body burned with a lid on their coffee.

i'm not going to defend some company that makes people fat (but these people do so of their own accord) but lets be honest the coffee being a little hotter made littler difference in light of the fact she drove whith the cup in ler lap without a lid. does this sound like a good idea to you? would YOU do this? lets just say its the coffee you make in your own house. would you still drive around with a cup of THAT coffee in your lap without a lid? i still wouldnt do it. i dont even drive with anything to drink in a cup! i dont like the idea of spilling anything on me hot cold or in between so i make it a habit not to do it.

she was an old lady. how many times had she gotten coffee at mcdonals? in light of her age i doubt this was her first visit to mcdonalds and i'm sure it wasnt the first time she had their coffee.


look this boils down to certain people who live life under this ignorant notion "that wouldnt happen to me" when they do stupid things and when it does happen to them they want to blame everyone else. i've personally known people who have done this and it sickens me. its the reason why hairdriers have labels on them saying you shouldnt use it in the shower. its the reason why coffee cups at mcdonalds have warnings on them saying coffee is hot. who doesnt know coffee is hot?

you see, she WASN'T driving with the coffee in her lap. she was in the passenger seat of a parked car. this is why i say, give the people a chance to make their case first and then hear both sides of the story.

the real stupidity in this case was mcdonalds', for deciding to go to court rather than continue with their long history of settling such cases.

-koji K.

The woman who spilled McDonalds coffee has a valid lawsuit.

McDonalds was forced to reveal that it had over 700 complains about burns created from people spilling their coffee.

The average home coffee pot and other retail establishments serve coffee at 135 degrees. McDonalds was serving their coffee at 190 degrees. At that tempature it was unsafe to drink. Drinking it could cause 2nd and 3rd burns inside your mouth. Any liquid 180 degrees or higher will burn the skin with 2 seconds of contact. That's why everyone else but McDonalds was serving at a lower temperature.

McDonalds admitted that they did not evaluate safty regulations on their coffee.

McDonalds lied in court. They tried to say that customers do not drink their coffee when they buy it, but rather wait until they get home or get to work. Later, McDonalds own research was brought out showing that they knew customers drink the coffee during their drive.

McDonalds own quality assurance manager admitted that they knew that serious burns could occur if the coffee was spilled but McDonalds would not put on a warning label.

The woman was 79 years old and suffered third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

The woman won 2.7 million dollars but on appeal that number was lowered to $480,000.




[edit on 10-7-2004 by zerotime]

Originally posted by RANT


The Frozen Potato Products Insititute (real people) has gone to great lengths to legally explain why they're fresh. But I don't see why everyone gets mad at the lawyers. It's the CLIENTS!

And if these corporations weren't allowed to contribute to campaigns, then the USDA wouldn't be so beholden. Why is this remotely surprising in a world where Ketchup is deemed a vegetable?

I don't remember the same government who called ketchup a vegatable also claiming that obesity is a urgent national problem though....

People tend to knock the lawyers for these cases....I can't help but wonder if they'd be calling the lawyers who represented the vets who unknowingly underwent radiation experiments compliments of the US government charletons and crooks. There's a reason we are allowed to sue in the courts, and I'd hate to see what life would be like if we didn't have this right. I agree, it's the people who are actually filing the stupid lawsuits and a few bad apples in the legal system. They are abusing it, and in the process they are kind of unknowingly endangering everybody's right to file legitamate lawsuits.

I would like to point to a thread where I have expressed my opinions about exactly this kind of thing and a possible reason why such ridiculous claims are entertained by the courts, even to the extent of awarding damages for what many would just consider a total failure of common sense on behalf of the person involved.

I agree that all must have access to restitution through legal channels. Certain claims though are just beyond comprehension if to be taken as truth - and if the ruling suggests that such action was brought only with the purpose of gaining 'easy money' then the claimant should be rightfully prosecuted for their greed and waste of the courts time.

This is not in reference to a genuine claim that has just been deemed and accident.

(I am putting a link up to the thread because I think this is preferred to posting twice. I am a little unsure of the Rules regarding this, but I think I am doing the correct thing. If not I apologise and will remove this link if requested.)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jack

It's not McDonalds fault your fat...it's your's. Stop eating there.

[edit on 11-7-2004 by AD5673]

Me personally I hate corporations, but I feel that its the womens fault. Knowing our so called justice system she'll win. But I think there was a Federal Law recently passed or might be passed saying that you can't sue for cases like these. These is a down right sad case for justice. I think that McDonalds should instead of giving her cash give her an exercise machine if she wins.

Yes! Settle out of court and give her a BowFlex.

Q: If you are stranded on a desert island with Adolph Hitler, Atilla the Hun, and a lawyer, and you have a gun with only two bullets, what do you do?

Scroll down for answer
.
.











.
.
A: Shoot the lawyer twice.