Common Sense

[mcdavictim]

I am 76 years old.My parents told me about Mr. Common Sense early in my life and told me I would do well to call on him when making decisions. It seems he was always around in my early years but less and less as time passed until today I read his obituary;

Obituary-Common sense

"Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as "knowing when to come in out of the rain," "why the early bird gets the worm," "life isn"t always fair," and "maybe it was my fault." Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (as don't spend more that you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children are in charge.)
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual haassment for kissing a classmate, teens suspended from school for using mouth wash after lunch, and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Aspirin, sun lotion or a band-aid to a student, but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the TEN COMMANDMENTS became contraband, churches became businesses, and criminals recieved better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife, Discretion, his daughter, Responsibility, and his son, Reason.
He is survived by three stepbrothers, I Know MY Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm a Victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone"

If you still remember him, tell others of his passing, If not, join the majority and do nothing.

[beautiful_mess38]

Well amen to that

[Kat]

Well that said it ALL!!!!!
I hope Common Sense returns to Earth

[cak]

Well said except ...

... the McDonald's reference is always irksome when it misrepresents the facts of the case. The woman didn't just spill a little coffee in her lap and get a huge settlement. She got 3rd degree burns on the groin, needed skin grafts and spent 7 days in the hospital ... and she only sued because McDonald's refused to pay her medical bills.

[Kim]

Originally posted by cak:
Well said except ...

... the McDonald's reference is always irksome when it misrepresents the facts of the case. The woman didn't just spill a little coffee in her lap and get a huge settlement. She got 3rd degree burns on the groin, needed skin grafts and spent 7 days in the hospital ... and she only sued because McDonald's refused to pay her medical bills.
Thank you...finally someone else who knows this besides me. Coffee has never needed to be hot enough to give someone third degree burns.
From Wikipedia....

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] a.k.a. the "McDonald's coffee case", is a well-known product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform. The case is often cited as an example of frivolous litigation; supposedly a lawsuit which won $2.9 million for a woman who burned herself with hot coffee.[2]

Others, especially opponents of tort reform, argue that Liebeck's recovery was just. They argue that the popular understanding of the case omits significant and relevant information. Liebeck's attorneys argued that McDonald's coffee was "defective", claiming that it was hotter and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served elsewhere. Moreover, McDonalds had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than the $640,000 ultimately awarded.[3] Reformers defend the popular understanding of the case as materially accurate; note that the vast majority of judges to consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury; and argue that McDonald's refusal to offer more than a nuisance settlement reflects the meritless nature of the suit rather than any wrongdoing.[4]

Contents [hide]
1 Background of the case
1.1 Attempts to settle
1.2 Evidence presented to the jury
1.3 Verdict and settlement
2 Other coffee burn cases
3 In popular culture
4 See also
5 References
6 External links



[edit] Background of the case
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-thru of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[5]

Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[6] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[7] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed.


[edit] Attempts to settle
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US$20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck obtained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in a New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured." McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000.[3]

Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.[3]

McDonald's refused to settle perhaps because, though there had been numerous lawsuits alleging that hot coffee was "defectively manufactured," courts had consistently dismissed the cases before trial on the grounds that coffee burns were an open and obvious danger.


[edit] Evidence presented to the jury
During the case, Liebeck's attorney's discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's.

Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 degree coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds (as a reference, the boiling point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit). Lowering the temperature to 160 degrees Fahrenheit would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false.[8]) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that, because those who purchased the coffee typically wanted to drive a distance with the coffee, the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[3]

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burnt by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[3] This represents about one complaint per 24 million cups of coffee sold by McDonald's.[4]

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 degrees constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[9]


[edit] Verdict and settlement
Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[3]

The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[10]

[Kat]

I am so glad to read that Common Sense did prevail in the McDonalds coffee case.
But don't miss the point of the Common Sense Obituary... Sorry, it is just one of my pet peeves.

[EdBailey]

Common Sense has been defined by sociologists as "shared prejudice" Is common sense common?
Shared prejudice is.

[Chevycowboy250x]

Well that says it all! I'm glad a few people still have some common sense. I am an inspector and deal with many many people every day. It is absolutely amazing how common sense is, and has been bread out of people. If you haven't seen the movie "Idiocracy" You should see it. It's a pretty dumb movie but the point that the movie is trying to show everyone is very true. The world will never end up as bad as that movie tuens out but it sure is heading in that direction.

[Kat]

I prefer the general usage as defined by an average dictionary (me being very average and sometimes common). The term prejudice could be used if you are contrasting cultures, as do sociologists. That is not what the obituary is saying, in my humble opinion.

common sense: good sense and sound judgement in practical matters


Originally posted by Ed Bailey:
Common Sense has been defined by sociologists as "shared prejudice" Is common sense common?
Shared prejudice is.