Have we become this...

[gtrain83]

Ok wow. This is NOT a matter of opinion. Raise your hand if you have been to law school....*raises hand*. The Mcdonald's case is open and shut. Their fault. Don't care what your opinion is they were at fault and lost. I don't have to restate the facts they are in black and white for you. Mcdonald's isn't being punished b/c they are the big corp...they are being punished for their intentional practices. Also, this is not about the woman at all. Did she spill coffee on herself? Yes. Not denying that. Should it have been between her legs? probably not. But, had it not been for the overheated coffee this prob would not be a lawsuit. She had an accident. It seems like some of you are saying that accidents are not ok. I'll restate a point I made earlier.....had she been driving, got hit by another car, the coffee is in the cup holder and spills on her...is that different? Or she is leaving Mcdonald's and someone bumps her, thus she spills the coffee on herself. Is that different? No. why? In ALL cases the coffee is still to hot b/c they purposely made it hotter that it needed to be and there were hundreds of incidents reported to them earlier and they failed to take appropriate measures.

As for the guy who broke into the building after climbing a  barred wire fence to steal copper, on the surface that appears to be frivolous and assuming that those are all the facts then, yes, that jury or judge is retarded.

And I disagree with your thoughts Jrong as you should not be allowed to walk into walmart, spill your own water on purpose, then sue walmart b/c u slipped in it. That doesn't make sense just b/c they are a big corp.

[iseya]

Yeah...not a matter of opinion...because every verdict reached by a judge or jury is always correct. ::)

Corporations are people. OJ didnt kill anybody. Gays are gross.

[Jrong]

And I disagree with your thoughts Jrong as you should not be allowed to walk into walmart, spill your own water on purpose, then sue walmart b/c u slipped in it. That doesn't make sense just b/c they are a big corp.

I actually agree with you but let me elaborate why. You shouldn't be allowed to walk into Walmart, spill your own water on purpose, then sue Walmart for slipping...because Walmart shouldn't be allowed to exist.

That's a matter of opinion, though.

[bobrocket]

Doesn't McDs coffee have a warning on the lid? From memory something along the lines of "contents hot".

And come on, surely you could tell it was hot from the cup, never in a million years would I stick a hot coffee between my legs and try and pry the lid off. Even if it was the recommended temperature, hot coffee is hot coffee.

[Frozencat99]

Gays are gross.

 :o Well I never

[Cereal]

Not sure why people are defending big corporations -- that's gotta be the biggest joke in corporate circles -- lower middle class people defending corporations, lmao!

So what if there's some lack of common sense? Big corporation "takes a hit" that's really not a hit at all -- it won't even hurt their feelings, much less their pocket book.

I can understand someone getting bent out of shape when your "avg Joe" (or 'your neighbor') gets sued, but a big corporation/insurance firm? Comeon people, please...to them you are just a stupid peasant and that's all you'll be for the rest of your life. These corporations are making millions unjustly, focus on that, the bigger picture.

Spot on. Anybody remember the assault of the big business apologists on this thread I started a while back?

http://waygook.org/index.php/topic,23687.msg172800.html#msg172800

[gtrain83]

And I disagree with your thoughts Jrong as you should not be allowed to walk into walmart, spill your own water on purpose, then sue walmart b/c u slipped in it. That doesn't make sense just b/c they are a big corp.

I actually agree with you but let me elaborate why. You shouldn't be allowed to walk into Walmart, spill your own water on purpose, then sue Walmart for slipping...because Walmart shouldn't be allowed to exist.

That's a matter of opinion, though.

haha I like that. And you are correct you shouldn't be allowed to do that. That is the sad part.

Yeah...not a matter of opinion...because every verdict reached by a judge or jury is always correct. ::)

Corporations are people. OJ didnt kill anybody. Gays are gross.

You must have stopped reading my post. I said in the next part that the judge/jury who allowed that guy to sue for being inured while stealing copper must be retarded. Thus, I did not say all verdicts are correct.

However, McD verdict is/was correct. I think most of you are getting hung up on the coffee in lap part. The main part is that McD purposely brewed the coffee hotter than necessary and assumed that risk in doing so....esp given there were hundreds of complaints and they could have rectified the situation and chose not to. If you can't see that well I'm sorry and we can agree to disagree.

[woman-king]

Not sure why people are defending big corporations -- that's gotta be the biggest joke in corporate circles -- lower middle class people defending corporations, lmao!

So what if there's some lack of common sense? Big corporation "takes a hit" that's really not a hit at all -- it won't even hurt their feelings, much less their pocket book.

I can understand someone getting bent out of shape when your "avg Joe" (or 'your neighbor') gets sued, but a big corporation/insurance firm? Comeon people, please...to them you are just a stupid peasant and that's all you'll be for the rest of your life. These corporations are making millions unjustly, focus on that, the bigger picture.

Oh, Jrong.  I can't help myself.     Expand on this a little.  Do you know anyone who works high-up in a big eeeeevil evil corporation?  Do you really not think there are any differences in general ethics between different corporations?  This seems like a pretty black-and-white way to look at things, to me.  If you're just philosophically a Marxist, fine, say you don't want corporations/private businesses/free market to exist at all.  Demonizing actual people because of where they work is hardly fair.  A pretty big chunk of the population works for a corporation, after all.  Sometimes people take the first job they can find after college and work their way up in a corporate system until they become a CEO and are still, ZOMG, decent human beings whose opinions of Wal-mart shoppers or Starbucks drinkers or Nike shock wearers or other patrons of their business is actually probably appreciative and respectful.  You can be a Rupert Murdoch asshole or a world-class Bill and Melinda Gates-style philanthropist.  I personally dislike lumping these people together and feel you should be able to critique capitalism, if you want to, without doing so.  Isn't that a essential Marxist idea anyway, that The System is bad regardless of whether or not the people actually are?

All that to say, I found the OP's question, as it was phrased, incredibly funny.  And I am a space cadet who is prone to stick things in the microwave/do other menial kinds of tasks without really thinking it through, because my head is in the clouds thinking about something completely unrelated.  :D  I've probably benefited from extremely obvious warning labels, if anyone has.  But I do get that sudden feeling of "Oh, dear God, what have we done to ourselves?" about the kind of hysteria and over-regulation and general anal-retentiveness that sort of permeates life now in the West/most developed countries.

[confusedsafferinkorea]

Gtrain83. Sounds like you were on that jury... . Wow, you don't think we can have an opinion about the outcome of a case? How kind of you !!!

As someone pointed out, jury's and judges aren't always right and I have an opinion on this case, the woman was an idiot. So shoot me.  People and businesses should be held liable for other people's stupidity, that is my opinion and I am sticking to it.

[iseya]

You must have stopped reading my post. I said in the next part that the judge/jury who allowed that guy to sue for being inured while stealing copper must be retarded. Thus, I did not say all verdicts are correct.

However, McD verdict is/was correct. I think most of you are getting hung up on the coffee in lap part. The main part is that McD purposely brewed the coffee hotter than necessary and assumed that risk in doing so....esp given there were hundreds of complaints and they could have rectified the situation and chose not to. If you can't see that well I'm sorry and we can agree to disagree.

I did read your post all the way through.
 I have been specifically talking about the McD verdict here though.
Whether or not a verdict is correct or not is always up for debate. You think it was correct. I don't. 
Just because the verdict was found in favor of Lieback, that doesn't mean that it was the correct call. There are quite a few retarded examples out there that prove that. 

People focus on the coffee cup in the lap because that's a pretty big part of the story--it's something that a person with common sense wouldnt do.

And people are posting as if McD's made their coffee hotter than normal in order to save a few bucks or for some other nefarious reason.
  Wasnt the reasoning behind making it hotter  because they felt that their customers liked it that way? (the coffee stayed hotter longer on their morning commutes).
  It's not fair to really even compare what Mcds does with their coffee to a Starbucks or some other local coffee shop.
Different customer base, drinking different coffee for different reasons

And there were hundreds of complaints about the coffee right? But that was over a time period of years.
How many cups of coffee does McDonalds sell a day?  A few million? 

Im not trying to prove that im right, or that you are wrong here. 
So yea, agree to disagree and all that jazz

[hiphopopotamus]

Doesn't McDs coffee have a warning on the lid? From memory something along the lines of "contents hot".

And come on, surely you could tell it was hot from the cup, never in a million years would I stick a hot coffee between my legs and try and pry the lid off. Even if it was the recommended temperature, hot coffee is hot coffee.

I seem to think this warning came about as a result of the lawsuit that's being discussed.

I'm reminded of a more localized lawsuit in my hometown of Denver, Colorado, USA, where a plane aborted its take off from Denver International Airport due to sudden high winds. The pilot brought the plane down. No deaths or major injuries, but some sore necks. Some of those people sued the airline for the pilot "negligently aborting the flight". *slaps head*

Might as well sue mother-nature!

[Jrong]

Ha ha! OK, I went to an extreme by writing what I did, but, honestly, I don't think all big corporations are equally evil. I do demonize some CEO's but not all. I love Bill Gates. I've actually participated in a program that was sponsored by him (HIV AIDS prevention), it was incredible. I don't like capitalism but pragmatically working within the framework of capitalism (b/c we all know the Utopian dream just ain't gonna happen next week), I like Bill Gates a lot.

There are certain corporations which I hate all of the time. They tend to fall into the category of "selling sh@# to poor people and getting rich off of it". Walmart, McD's, and Family Dollar fall into that category for me. Their main customers are poor people. The top execs get rich by selling stuff to poor people. The idea of getting rich off of poor people doesn't sit well with me at all and that's exactly what the execs of Family Dollar and Walmart do. It's probably cool with some people, just not me. Ever.

I don't have a problem with corporations that market to high-end consumers selling luxury products. Knowing that the CEO of those corporations makes about the same as his customers is appealing to me.

[orangeman]

I didn't read all these comments in depth, so sorry if I'm repeating anything. 

Basically, everyone just needs to watch the documentary HOT COFFEE.  Obviously they get into the McDonald's case everyone is talking about here.  They show pictures of the woman's crotch area that was burned.  It was disgusting.  3rd degree burns.  Years of medical treatments.  She wasn't driving, she was in the passenger seat in a parked car.  Further, McDonalds had been warned several DOZEN times in the recent past that they were using water above the legal safety limits.  The doc shows a list of other severely injured people from just that one McD's in the previous year or so.  They acted neglectfully and illegally, hence the legal action.  And regarding the legal action, it was widely reported that the woman in question got all kinds of millions of dollars.  In fact, after appeals she got somewhere around $400,000 which barely covered her basic medical costs (which is less that McD's makes in coffee sales alone IN ONE DAY).  There is tons of misinformation on this case in particular, so I would urge everyone to watch this documentary and get the facts before forming any opinions.

The documentary does a good job at questioning just why this case, and others, are blown out of proportion and mocked by business and media in the US.  Basically, it comes down to tort reform.  Corporations do not want to be held liable for any wrong doing.  Hot Coffee also tells the story of a young woman who was assaulted and gang raped while working for Halliburton (the situation was created by the corporation, there had been similar incidents in the past and when she tried to report it, she was held prisoner until she convinced one of her guards to call her dad for help) but has no legal recourse due to this tort reform and tricky legal wordings in contracts. 

So to the OP who questions what the world has come to due to silly warnings, I would ask what the world has come to swinging the other way.  Do we want to live in a world where corporations aren't held accountable for their actions?  Where they can blatantly ignore and break the law for profit without fear of punishment?  And in a country like the US, without universal health care, why should we be surprised that corporations are penalized so much for their actions?  Maybe if they supported universal health care, the settlements wouldn't be in the millions, just like in Canada and Europe. 

Another poster on here on page one (I'll address it directly in a moment) listed all those crazy lawsuits that clearly indicate the world is going to hell.  The fact is, those are all fake.  None of them are real.  It took me about 3.6 seconds to figure that out by typing in one of the names he listed and clicking on Snopes.  So we ask ourselves, why are all these crazy fake stories out there?  Why are the true ones so exaggerated and mocked?  Why are key facts omitted or ignored?  Because the corporations are playing us.  Many of us love thinking we're so much smarter than others and these stories help us stroke our egos.  But it also furthers the corporation's cause against us common folk.  One has to question why these silly warnings are even on the packaging.  Is it really to avoid lawsuits, or is it to create the sentiment the OP opened here with, again helping the corporations' cause.  The fact is, even with a warning the woman would have won her lawsuit against McD's because it wasn't about her not knowing coffee was hot, it was about McD's serving coffee that was illegally hot and they had been warned before.

So basically, the warnings really are there for dumb people.  But not the dumb people you're thinking about. 

[orangeman]

But when you have a system that allows people to sue for a lack common sense, well stupid people need stupid warnings.

http://listverse.com/2009/01/28/top-10-bizarre-or-frivolous-lawsuits/

But then if your lucky you'll get a stupid judge and make some money

http://www.all-top-10-lists.com/7-top-stupid-lawsuits-that-won-big-money/2009/07/

It’s time again for the annual “Stella Awards”! For those unfamiliar with these awards, they are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued the McDonald’s in New Mexico where she purchased the coffee. You remember, s he took the lid off the coffee and put it between her knees while she was driving. Who would ever think one could get burned doing that, right?
That’s right; these are awards for the most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S. You know, the kinds of cases that make you scratch your head. So keep your head scratcher handy.

Here are the Stella’s lawsuits for the year of 2007:

7TH PLACE:
Kathleen Robertson of Austin,Texas was awa rded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The store owners were u nderstandably surprised by the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son.

6TH PLACE:
Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles, California won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Truman apparently didn’t notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor’s hubcaps.

Go ahead, grab your head scratcher.

5 TH PLACE:
Terrence Dickson, of Bristol,Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn’t re-enter the house because the door co nnecting the garage to the house locked when Dicks on pulled it shut. Forced to sit for eight, count ‘em, EIGHT, days on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner’s insurance company claiming undue mental Anguish. Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish. We should all have this kind of anguish.

Keep scratching. There are more…

4TH PLACE:
Jerry Williams, of Little Rock , Arkansas , garnered 4th Place in the Stella’s when he was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt by his next door neighbor’s beagle – even though the beagle was on a chain in its owner’s fenced yard Williams did not get as m uch as he asked for because the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked at the time of the butt bite because Williams had climbed over the fence into the yar d and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun.

Grrrrr … Scratch, scratch .

3RD PLACE:
Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania because a jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay her $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. What ever happened to people being responsible for their own actions?

Scratch, scratch, scratch. Hang in there; there are only two more Stella’s to go…

2ND PLACE:
Kara Walton, of Claymont,Delaware sued the owner of a night club in a nearby city because she fell from the ba throom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth. Even though Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge, the jury said the night club had to pay her $12,000….oh, yeah, plus dental expenses. Go figure.

1ST PLACE: (May I have a fanfare played on 50 kazoos please)
This year’s runaway First Place Stella Award winner was Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City,Oklahoma, who purchased a new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver’s seat to go to the back of th e Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winneba go for not putting in the owner’s manual that she couldn’t actually leave the driver’s seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahomajury awarded her, are you sitting down, $1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home.

See you you see why people might think, why state the obvious but when a system allows stupidity to be rewarded you need signs like these,

http://www.rinkworks.com/said/warnings.shtml

"Do not use if you cannot see clearly to read the information in the information booklet." -- In the information booklet.
"Caution: The contents of this bottle should not be fed to fish." -- On a bottle of shampoo for dogs.
"For external use only!" -- On a curling iron.
"Warning: This product can burn eyes." -- On a curling iron.
"Do not use in shower." -- On a hair dryer.
"Do not use while sleeping." -- On a hair dryer.
"Do not use while sleeping or unconscious." -- On a hand-held massaging device.
"Do not place this product into any electronic equipment." -- On the case of a chocolate CD in a gift basket.
"Recycled flush water unsafe for drinking." -- On a toilet at a public sports facility in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
"Shin pads cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover." -- On a pair of shin guards made for bicyclists.
"This product not intended for use as a dental drill." -- On an electric rotary tool.
"Caution: Do not spray in eyes." -- On a container of underarm deodorant.
"Do not drive with sunshield in place." -- On a cardboard sunshield that keeps the sun off the dashboard.
"Caution: This is not a safety protective device." -- On a plastic toy helmet used as a container for popcorn.
"Do not use near fire, flame, or sparks." -- On an "Aim-n-Flame" fireplace lighter.
"Battery may explore or leak." -- On a battery. See a scanned image.
"Do not eat toner." -- On a toner cartridge for a laser printer.
"Not intended for highway use." -- On a 13-inch wheel on a wheelbarrow.
"This product is not to be used in bathrooms." -- On a Holmes bathroom heater.
"May irritate eyes." -- On a can of self-defense pepper spray.
"Eating rocks may lead to broken teeth." -- On a novelty rock garden set called "Popcorn Rock."
"Caution! Contents hot!" -- On a Domino's Pizza box.
"Caution: Hot beverages are hot!" -- On a coffee cup.
"Caution: Shoots rubber bands." -- On a product called "Rubber Band Shooter."
"Warning: May contain small parts." -- On a frisbee.
"Do not use orally." -- On a toilet bowl cleaning brush.
"Please keep out of children." -- On a butcher knife.
"Not suitable for children aged 36 months or less." -- On a birthday card for a 1 year old.
"Do not recharge, put in backwards, or use." -- On a battery.
"Warning: Do not use on eyes." -- In the manual for a heated seat cushion.
"Do not look into laser with remaining eye." -- On a laser pointer.
"Do not use for drying pets." -- In the manual for a microwave oven.
"For use on animals only." -- On an electric cattle prod.
"For use by trained personnel only." -- On a can of air freshener.
"Keep out of reach of children and teenagers." -- On a can of air freshener.
"Remember, objects in the mirror are actually behind you." -- On a motorcycle helmet-mounted rear-view mirror.
"Warning: Riders of personal watercraft may suffer injury due to the forceful injection of water into body cavities either by falling into the water or while mounting the craft." -- In the manual for a jetski.
"Warning: Do not climb inside this bag and zip it up. Doing so will cause injury and death." -- A label inside a protective bag (for fragile objects), which measures 15cm by 15cm by 12cm.
"Do not use as ear plugs." -- On a package of silly putty.
"Please store in the cold section of the refrigerator." -- On a bag of fresh grapes in Australia.
"Warning: knives are sharp!" -- On the packaging of a sharpening stone.
"Not for weight control." -- On a pack of Breath Savers.
"Twist top off with hands. Throw top away. Do not put top in mouth." -- On the label of a bottled drink.
"Theft of this container is a crime." -- On a milk crate.
"Do not use intimately." -- On a tube of deodorant.
"Warning: has been found to cause cancer in laboratory mice." -- On a box of rat poison.
"Fragile. Do not drop." -- Posted on a Boeing 757.
"Cannot be made non-poisonous." -- On the back of a can of de-icing windshield fluid.
"Caution: Remove infant before folding for storage." -- On a portable stroller.
"Excessive dust may be irritating to shin and eyes." -- On a tube of agarose powder, used to make gels.
"Look before driving." -- On the dash board of a mail truck.
"Do not iron clothes on body." -- On packaging for a Rowenta iron.
"Do not drive car or operate machinery." -- On Boot's children's cough medicine.
"For indoor or outdoor use only." -- On a string of Christmas lights.
"Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly." -- On a child sized Superman costume.
"This door is alarmed from 7:00pm - 7:00am." -- On a hospital's outside access door.
"Beware! To touch these wires is instant death. Anyone found doing so will be prosecuted." -- On a sign at a railroad station.
"Warning: do not use if you have prostate problems." -- On a box of Midol PMS relief tablets.
"Product will be hot after heating." -- On a supermarket dessert box.
"Do not turn upside down." -- On the bottom of a supermarket dessert box.
"Do not light in face. Do not expose to flame." -- On a lighter.
"Choking hazard: This toy is a small ball." -- On the label for a cheap rubber ball toy.
"Not for human consumption." -- On a package of dice.
"May be harmful if swallowed." -- On a shipment of hammers.
"Using Ingenio cookware to destroy your old pots may void your warranty." -- A printed message that appears in a television advertisement when the presenter demonstrates how strong the cookware is by using it to beat up and destroy a regular frying pan.
"Do not attempt to stop the blade with your hand." -- In the manual for a Swedish chainsaw.
"Do not dangle the mouse by its cable or throw the mouse at co-workers." -- From a manual for an SGI computer.
"Warning: May contain nuts." -- On a package of peanuts.
"Do not eat." -- On a slip of paper in a stereo box, referring to the styrofoam packing.
"Do not eat if seal is missing." -- On said seal.
"Remove occupants from the stroller before folding it."
"Access hole only -- not intended for use in lifting box." -- On the sides of a shipping carton, just above cut-out openings which one would assume were handholds.
"Warning: May cause drowsiness." -- On a bottle of Nytol, a brand of sleeping pills.
"Warning: Misuse may cause injury or death." -- Stamped on the metal barrel of a .22 calibre rifle.
"Do not use orally after using rectally." -- In the instructions for an electric thermometer.
"Turn off motor before using this product." -- On the packaging for a chain saw file, used to sharpen the cutting teeth on the chain.
"Not to be used as a personal flotation device." -- On a 6x10 inch inflatable picture frame.
"Do not put in mouth." -- On a box of bottle rockets.
"Remove plastic before eating." -- On the wrapper of a Fruit Roll-Up snack.
"Not dishwasher safe." -- On a remote control for a TV.
"For lifting purposes only." -- On the box for a car jack.
"Do not put lit candles on phone." -- On the instructions for a cordless phone.
"Warning! This is not underwear! Do not attempt to put in pants." -- On the packaging for a wristwatch.
"Do not wear for sumo wrestling." -- From a set of washing instructions. See a scanned image.

Not a one of these is true. 

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

[flasyb]

Not a one of these is true. 

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

That's what I've been saying, man. Total urban myths. It's shocking that so many thinking people are so ready to believe this horse manure from a blog or a tabloid article. I thought most people were interested in hearing the whole story. Not the case, sadly. Keep eating the crap that corporations spoon feed you and the tabloids churn through to get their ridiculous stories that help sell papers. Critical thinking has gone out of the window when people so readily believe this rubbish. Bah, society really is going to the dogs! Not for so-called frivolous lawsuits though - most of which are totally misrepresented.

[woman-king]

I didn't read all these comments in depth, so sorry if I'm repeating anything. 

Basically, everyone just needs to watch the documentary HOT COFFEE.  Obviously they get into the McDonald's case everyone is talking about here.  They show pictures of the woman's crotch area that was burned.  It was disgusting.  3rd degree burns.  Years of medical treatments.  She wasn't driving, she was in the passenger seat in a parked car.  Further, McDonalds had been warned several DOZEN times in the recent past that they were using water above the legal safety limits.  The doc shows a list of other severely injured people from just that one McD's in the previous year or so.  They acted neglectfully and illegally, hence the legal action.  And regarding the legal action, it was widely reported that the woman in question got all kinds of millions of dollars.  In fact, after appeals she got somewhere around $400,000 which barely covered her basic medical costs (which is less that McD's makes in coffee sales alone IN ONE DAY).  There is tons of misinformation on this case in particular, so I would urge everyone to watch this documentary and get the facts before forming any opinions.

The documentary does a good job at questioning just why this case, and others, are blown out of proportion and mocked by business and media in the US.  Basically, it comes down to tort reform.  Corporations do not want to be held liable for any wrong doing.  Hot Coffee also tells the story of a young woman who was assaulted and gang raped while working for Halliburton (the situation was created by the corporation, there had been similar incidents in the past and when she tried to report it, she was held prisoner until she convinced one of her guards to call her dad for help) but has no legal recourse due to this tort reform and tricky legal wordings in contracts. 

So to the OP who questions what the world has come to due to silly warnings, I would ask what the world has come to swinging the other way.  Do we want to live in a world where corporations aren't held accountable for their actions?  Where they can blatantly ignore and break the law for profit without fear of punishment?  And in a country like the US, without universal health care, why should we be surprised that corporations are penalized so much for their actions?  Maybe if they supported universal health care, the settlements wouldn't be in the millions, just like in Canada and Europe. 

Another poster on here on page one (I'll address it directly in a moment) listed all those crazy lawsuits that clearly indicate the world is going to hell.  The fact is, those are all fake.  None of them are real.  It took me about 3.6 seconds to figure that out by typing in one of the names he listed and clicking on Snopes.  So we ask ourselves, why are all these crazy fake stories out there?  Why are the true ones so exaggerated and mocked?  Why are key facts omitted or ignored?  Because the corporations are playing us.  Many of us love thinking we're so much smarter than others and these stories help us stroke our egos.  But it also furthers the corporation's cause against us common folk.  One has to question why these silly warnings are even on the packaging.  Is it really to avoid lawsuits, or is it to create the sentiment the OP opened here with, again helping the corporations' cause.  The fact is, even with a warning the woman would have won her lawsuit against McD's because it wasn't about her not knowing coffee was hot, it was about McD's serving coffee that was illegally hot and they had been warned before.

So basically, the warnings really are there for dumb people.  But not the dumb people you're thinking about.

I mean, if the coffee was being served at temperatures above FDA-approved legal limits, there was definitely obvious legal liability on McDonald's part.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/24/hot-coffee-documentary-skewers-tort-reformers.html

Just one of many articles--I found another one in The Atlantic but it was a serious hefty read on tort reform itself, less so on the documentary.

To be devil's advocate here . . . I completely think McDonald's should have paid for Liebeck's injuries.  Her entire injuries.  However, as much as everyone might hate corporations, isn't it reasonable to have some kind of limits on what they can be sued for?  Opportunistic people do exist, after all.

But also, if we're talking about corporations that are or are not evil, I'mma say Haliburton definitely belongs in the "bad" category.  On a completely different level of unethical than Mickey D's or Walmart.  Ugh. 

[Jrong]

Nice job orangeman!

I'm too lazy to research all of this stuff. Saw the ad for HOT COFFEE but never watched, will do now.

You are right, though, corporations are playing us, especially the low-middle class who come out swinging on their behalf. That's what I've been saying the whole time.

[gtrain83]

You can have an opinion on whatever you want. You feel it was her fault it's ok by me. I'm just trying to give you the facts as to why McD was wrong. If you felt slighted or anything, please accept my apologies.

And as for tort reform, it will be hard to do. Think about this....a long time ago Ford figured out it would cost them LESS money to keep producing the crappy pinto ( I think it was the pinto) and PAY off people who were injured and killed in it (or their families....killed b/c of the faulty gas tank that ford knowingly used in it that would explode or catch fire when impacted in a crash). So if tort reform were enacted then they would have had to pay even less money to those hurt by their wrongs. Things they KNEW about and purposely allowed to continue.

Also, imagine a doctor who knows they will only be out 100,000 dollars if they mess up. Do you want that guy doing your surgery or the guy who knows if they mess up they could be out millions of dollars. Who will most likely be more careful and competent while preforming said surgery. Thus, enacting any major tort reform will be tricky.

I think instead of tort reform we need more regulations (or less stupid people) who can clearly know when someone falling through a skylight while trying to burglarize a dwelling should not be allowed to sue in the first place. If someone dies in the commission of a felony then you are pretty much being charged with murder. Thus, why not if someone is injured breaking the law or attempting to do so......or purposely injuring themselves in a store/business....then do not allow them to sue. Seems simple. But that shows another problem with America's legal system... legalese. The law needs to be written in such a manner that ANY person can read and understand it. It is too complex and allows for this foolishness with so many things open to interpretation.   

As an aside, awesome general discussion thread with some good debating. 

[bobrocket]

Maybe to fuel the the debate...

The first links I posted (page 1) were the first of many on a quick google search, maybe their true, maybe not. They were meant for a laugh.
Other posters also seem to have done the same, find the first site that says the claims are fake.
Well here's the first of many that say "snopes" is just as full poo as the link I posted.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm

Forwarded email alleges that the urban legend debunking site Snopes.com is 'owned by a flaming liberal' who is 'in the tank for Obama' and can't be trusted to provide reliable information.

The point of the first links was for a laugh, people do stupid stuff, people even post here about dumb stuff they've done, it's all fair game for a chuckle.
I'm sure if I had searched a little further I could of found something more substantial but like most media, stories are sometimes twisted to make them interesting.

People can say the tort system is good or bad, i dont know ( or really care )we had lots of opportunity to do projects in the US but anyone with any responsibility wouldn't touch them, to much legal hassle for a simple job. Good to make big business accountable but hurts the little guys in the process.

[ajosshi]

Nothing can top how back home packets of roasted peanuts have to have a nut allergy warning.

Peanuts only contain nuts if they are processed with same the equipment as tree nuts. Peanuts are legumes, not nuts.

edit: http://whfoods.org/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=101