The obviously hot coffee, all over again...

[VeeKaChu]

On July 9, U.S. District Court Judge Richard W. Roberts awarded the POWs $959 million in damages for their suffering, denouncing what the judge termed “unrestrained savagery” on the part of the Iraqis. The POWs stand to collect between $16 million and $35 million each, while 37 family members could receive damage awards of $5 million to $10 million a piece.
(http://www.msnbc.com/news/940846.asp?vts=072220030440)
I'm seriously reconsidering my stance on tort reform. Heroes my ass... fucking opportunists, just like the rest of 'em...

[Peltito]

I agree with VeeKaChu. This is blatant opportunism and the case should have been thrown out of court by the first judge who heard it. Completely ridiculous.

[Tone-Loc]

Former POW's can sue their former captive governments now?? Wtf?

When's Johnny McCain going to get his from Charlie? The guy can't even raise his arms for Pete's sake, and these guys won 1 billion dollars??

[Willy Wonka]

I have no clue what coffee has to do with this. If you are talking about the McDonalds coffee burn law suit, you are off the mark. That was a completely legit case of a company being careless, callous and the court system catching them. Look up the real facts on that one, you may end up saying "wow that is the legal system doing the right thing" instead of it cosntantly brought up as an abuse. :)

This Law Suit is interesting in that the Money is not US money, but money taken from Iraq to be used in their rebuilding. That money is only available because we took it from Iraq.

Many of you/us believe the war in Iraq is unjust or even illegal.

[VeeKaChu]

They're two different wars- but anyway, unjust, illegal or whatever the conflict may be, the thought that a person who is "proudly serving, fighting and dieing" for our rights should even consider asking to be exorbitantly compensated for what is a natural hazard of combat is just beyond ridiculous. Doesn't make a bit of difference where the money comes from.

But now that these poor put upon "heroes" are considering legal action against their own government to get their cheese makes it all the more ludicrous.

And compensation for the "victims" families? If they get this, then every blood relative of every US serviceman who died since GW1 should get a million dollars too...

Shame on these swindlers.

[Willy Wonka]

Originally posted by VeeKaChu
They're two different wars- but anyway, unjust, illegal or whatever the conflict may be, the thought that a person who is "proudly serving, fighting and dieing" for our rights should even consider asking to be exorbitantly compensated for what is a natural hazard of combat is just beyond ridiculous. Doesn't make a bit of difference where the money comes from.

But now that these poor put upon "heroes" are considering legal action against their own government to get their cheese makes it all the more ludicrous.

And compensation for the "victims" families? If they get this, then every blood relative of every US serviceman who died since GW1 should get a million dollars too...

Shame on these swindlers.
V I almost always agree with you 100%. I think you are off the mark here.

Their motives seem interesting. They are not suing for US money, they are suing for Iraq money that we siezed and they feel should be paid to them for the way they are treated.

The holder of the money happens to be the US.

There is also some comments in it about the improper use of this money which they feel gives them more justification. They say Iraq did this, so we are going to sieze their illegal money and give it right back to them instead of their victims.

Your swindler line, like your McDonalds line was off target as well. If they were swindlers, the case would be thrown out of court, instead they are winning their case. The US Govt agrees enough with their case to stop themeselves from giving the money to Iraq.

Perhaps every single us servicemen who died since GW1 should be compensated? Sure why not. Unjust war = unjust death.

My thoughts :)

[Peltito]

Originally posted by Willy Wonka
Their motives seem interesting. They are not suing for US money, they are suing for Iraq money that we siezed and they feel should be paid to them for the way they are treated.
Whose money it is, is irrelevant. The point being made is that the case itself is a joke and should never have been heard. Getting compensation for this is wrong and can be considered an insult to what many previous POW's had to suffer.

Originally posted by Willy Wonka
There is also some comments in it about the improper use of this money which they feel gives them more justification. They say Iraq did this, so we are going to sieze their illegal money and give it right back to them instead of their victims.
Correct me if I've misunderstood what you're saying. When I read the article it said nothing about how they would be spending that money. Only that they would rather receive it than allow Iraq to have it.

Originally posetd by Willy Wonka
Your swindler line, like your McDonalds line was off target as well. If they were swindlers, the case would be thrown out of court, instead they are winning their case. The US Govt agrees enough with their case to stop themeselves from giving the money to Iraq.
It also didn't say that the reason the US Gov't kept that money frozen was because of this case. In fact, at the very beginning it says that they (The POW's) won a temporary restraining order preventing the Gov't from utilizing that money. What that means is that a Judge somewhere decided their case had merit enough to warrant further investigation/what have you.

Originally posetd by Willy Wonka
Perhaps every single us servicemen who died since GW1 should be compensated? Sure why not. Unjust war = unjust death.
If it's an unjust war, why are we taking the money of the people upon whom we MADE the unjust war.

I think the point that VeeKaChu was trying to make was that this is another shallow attempt by a group of money grubbing lazy bastards to capitalize on what they see as their chance for an easy life.

[Kermit]

And I hope you all would also be against slavery reparations following the same logic i've seen used here.


Please correct me if I'm wrong but the ex-pows sued the Iraqi government because they were tortured while in captivity. They won their lawsuit and the issue at hand is that the U.S. government is in charge of the Iraqi funds from which this settlement would be paid. That's why there is a lawsuit against the U.S. government.

I believe in times past that the loser country in a battle would have to pay reparations to the countries that had been injured or involved in the fighting. How is this any different? Except on a smaller scale.

Kermit

[VeeKaChu]

Originally posted by Kermit
I believe in times past that the loser country in a battle would have to pay reparations to the countries that had been injured or involved in the fighting. How is this any different? Except on a smaller scale. I think it's different in that being a POW and suffering at the hands of your captors all falls within the normal "hazards" of military service.

If there was torture, then punish the torturers, by all means. But to make what is a common component of warfare into a freakin lottery because we live in a world that seems to need to assuage suffering with piles of dough just strikes me as ridiculous and grasping.

[Kermit]

I do believe that a lot of the American society is fixated on money. It permeates our politics, our tv, and our judicial system (via frivolous lawsuits and outrageous awards). While I am against, generally, the kind of lawsuit brought by these ex-pows against the government of Iraq, I see little or no push for reform of the taxation system in America which affects MILLIONS of people (or for reform of the TORT system). If these few ex-pows can get money out of Iraq then more power to them.

I'd be more willing to not support this suit if I saw a consistent approach to limiting the influence of money in this world. Unfortunately, I don't see such a thing.

I guess I'm pretty pessimistic on this subject.

Kermit

[Peltito]

If you are stating that because there is no 'apparent' push for taxation reform then these people are justified in doing this then that's a non-sequitor. It doesn't constitute a valid reason why these people should be given this money. Not only is this case a monumental waste of time and tax payer money but it is horrifying to even think of the possible precedent that this may set.

[Peltito]

Originally posted by Kermit
And I hope you all would also be against slavery reparations following the same logic i've seen used here.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the ex-pows sued the Iraqi government because they were tortured while in captivity. They won their lawsuit and the issue at hand is that the U.S. government is in charge of the Iraqi funds from which this settlement would be paid. That's why there is a lawsuit against the U.S. government.

I believe in times past that the loser country in a battle would have to pay reparations to the countries that had been injured or involved in the fighting. How is this any different? Except on a smaller scale.

Kermit
To be very specific, reparations were paid only by countries that essentially had a surviving government because the government was the 'guilty' party. In this case, Iraq has no government and you would only be punishing the regular joe schmoe of Iraq. And just on an aside... America has been exempt from trial in the world courts for how long now? Frivolous law suits aside, things could/would be very different if that were to change (As it is, we want to extend our exemption indefinitely).

[crz]

Originally posted by Willy Wonka
I have no clue what coffee has to do with this. If you are talking about the McDonalds coffee burn law suit, you are off the mark. That was a completely legit case of a company being careless, callous and the court system catching them. Look up the real facts on that one, you may end up saying "wow that is the legal system doing the right thing" instead of it cosntantly brought up as an abuse. :)

wonka = correct!

and this is stupid, if the US court system can enforce that, then what about all the Guantanamo Bay captives they have? are they allowed to sue the US?

[Willy Wonka]

I do not have a particularly strong opinion on either side of this issue and actually all of you make good points. :)

I am aware that these are 2 wars, but if I understand it, they are suing for the money that we seized during the latest war. They want compensation for the first war.

The US is being sued as they have the money.

My other issue is more generic.

I find it inconsistent to say the war is unjust, (many of you and I do say this) then say that there should be no compensation for anybody who lost a family/friend in this unjust war.

I wonder if they would sue if they were treated like Jessica Lynch has been treated.

[Willy Wonka]

Originally posted by crz
wonka = correct!

and this is stupid, if the US court system can enforce that, then what about all the Guantanamo Bay captives they have? are they allowed to sue the US?

Thank you crz. Couldn't you have fixed my spelling errors in the quote though? :D

[Sponge]

Jeffrey Fox remembers vividly the moment he heard that he and 16 others held and tortured during the first Gulf War had won a $1 billion judgement against Iraq. “I was, well, wow!” the retired Air Force pilot told MSNBC.com Monday. But wow soon turned to “whoa” when he realized the only way to collect that money would be to sue the Bush administration to prevent it from spending frozen Iraqi assets on postwar reconstruction.

When I take over the world, I'm going to create a "Common Sense" Police force, made specifically to find creative ways to punish people like these POWs. Getting caught and tortured is an occupational hazard for soldiers, and they shouldn't be rewarded for it in the first place (that's like a football player suing when he breaks a bone). But to give them money that could go to a far better and far more important cause is just sick.

[Peltito]

Originally posted by Willy Wonka
I find it inconsistent to say the war is unjust, (many of you and I do say this) then say that there should be no compensation for anybody who lost a family/friend in this unjust war.
Compensation is all well and good but you have to be clear. If the war is unjust the soldiers should seek reparations from their country's gov't. Not by taking the money of the government that they made war upon.

And just because it's so rare. Many people would have become incensed at this point and this discussion could have degenerated fairly quickly. I'm glad to find out that it hasn't and tip my hat to Wonka for having an open mind and level head.

[Tone-Loc]

The only thing any of this has to do with the latest war in Iraq, is tht the money has been bookmarked for postwar construction since Gulf I, and would still be used for reconstruction now after Gulf II.

But over the weekend, attorneys for the 17 POWs won a temporary restraining order against the government’s plan to use $1.7 billion in Iraqi assets frozen before the 1991 war to pay for reconstruction.

And yes this is ridiculous. A soldier has no right to directly sue an enemy country for reparations, due to mistreatment as a POW. I mean who can put a dollar amount on suffering of that nature? I notice they have casually not mentioned the type of mistreatment they received while in captivity, I suspect to keep people from comparing them to the horrors faced by our POW's in previous wars. Do you think they had bamboo shoved under their fingernails, or electrified, or left hanging in pit/pools of human/animal waste, or locked in a tiny cage for yearson end... like those types of things historically associated with our soldiers treatment in just Vietnam alone?

Their own goverment can take care of them, gain monetary reparations from an enemy country on behalf of all it's soldiers. But soldiers individually suing another country for this? Come on...

And how the hell can getting burned with hot coffee (that you expect to be hot) be the fault of the person you bought the coffee from, unless they poured in on you themselves? I'd like a link to how McDonald's was so careless in their handing out of coffee in their drive thru, which they do countless times a day. EVEN if the lid wasn't on tightly, I still wouldn't blame the store. My god is there no personal responsibility in this country anymore at all? And the judges seeing and hearing half these cases are as much to blame as the freaking trial lawyers that push them on the system.

[Willy Wonka]

Originally posted by Tone-Loc

And how the hell can getting burned with hot coffee (that you expect to be hot) be the fault of the person you bought the coffee from, unless they poured in on you themselves? I'd like a link to how McDonald's was so careless in their handing out of coffee in their drive thru, which they do countless times a day. EVEN if the lid wasn't on tightly, I still wouldn't blame the store. My god is there no personal responsibility in this country anymore at all? And the judges seeing and hearing half these cases are as much to blame as the freaking trial lawyers that push them on the system.
I researched it myself. I guess I will do it for you. Please don't sue me if you don't like my links :)

try google: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=mcdonalds+coffee+law+suit

Google cache: http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cache:ZecpQCgKk4oJ:articles.corporate.fin dlaw.com/articles/file/00369/005150/title/Subject/topic/Consumer%2520Law_Consumer%2520Protection/filename/consumerlaw_1_392+mcdonalds+coffee+law+suit&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Another link that may work: http://www.8bitjoystick.com/archives/jake_misinformation_about_the_mcdonalds_coffee_law suit.php

I can't get the links to work correctly. Try to Google for it "mcdonalds coffee lawsuit"

[Willy Wonka]

Originally posted by Peltito
And just because it's so rare. Many people would have become incensed at this point and this discussion could have degenerated fairly quickly. I'm glad to find out that it hasn't and tip my hat to Wonka for having an open mind and level head.

LOL. I don't really disagree with you, or anyone. No reason for anyone to get mad.

This whole topic is the opinion of individuals only. The actual artcle reads more like a human interst story then true news.

Suing your government to gain the money you have been rewarded is fine to me. Especially if you think the government is going to take the money you are owed and invest it back where you were "abused".

I trust very little in this world. One of the few things I think still works pretty well is our court system. I think many of you jump when you see these (and the McDonalds Coffee suit) and over react and cry for reform.

One of the things that you guys forget it that these POW's didn't issue any restraining order. A judge did. The McDonalds lady did not sue for $2.7 million, a jury gave it to her.

[crz]

Originally posted by Willy Wonka
I researched it myself. I guess I will do it for you. Please don't sue me if you don't like my links :)

try google: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=mcdonalds+coffee+law+suit

Google cache: http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cache:ZecpQCgKk4oJ:articles.corporate.fin dlaw.com/articles/file/00369/005150/title/Subject/topic/Consumer%2520Law_Consumer%2520Protection/filename/consumerlaw_1_392+mcdonalds+coffee+law+suit&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Another link that may work: http://www.8bitjoystick.com/archives/jake_misinformation_about_the_mcdonalds_coffee_law suit.php

I can't get the links to work correctly. Try to Google for it "mcdonalds coffee lawsuit"

to put an explanation here-

1) if the mcdonalds the coffee came from had lowered the temperature of the coffee by i believe 10-20 degrees (it was around 180), the lady would only have suffered 2nd degree burns instead of 3rd.
2) mcdonals had had thousands and thousands of complaints about the temperature of the coffee, and completely ignored them all, keeping the coffee at that same temperature.
3) a few thousand dollars for medical bills will NOT convince a large corporation to lower the temperature of its coffee.
4) the jury decided that the plaintiff would be awarded the equivalent of one days coffee sales (which was i forgot how many million) so that they WOULD change the temperature.

and i believe it worked. the settlement was completely justified, she just happened to be the "lucky" person to win the battle.

to disspell additional rumors, she was NOT driving the car at the time it happened.

[brett]

a guy at starbucks was peeing in the toilet with the seat up and the seat fell on his dink and severly hurt his penis. he sued starbucks and won a multi-million doller sum.

if that isn't worse than sueing because hot coffee burned you, then what is?


1) if the mcdonalds the coffee came from had lowered the temperature of the coffee by i believe 10-20 degrees (it was around 180), the lady would only have suffered 2nd degree burns instead of 3rd.

If she's too retarded to learn how to keep liquid in a cup, she shouldn't be allowed to continue to live. I'm sorry, it's true.

2) mcdonals had had thousands and thousands of complaints about the temperature of the coffee, and completely ignored them all, keeping the coffee at that same temperature.

I'm sure they also received thousands and thousands of complaints about the temperature of the coffee being too cold too. It's personal fucking preference.

3) a few thousand dollars for medical bills will NOT convince a large corporation to lower the temperature of its coffee.

Why should they have to lower the temperature of the coffee anyway? If it's too hot for you, go somewhere else. Or buy their coffee and let it sit for 5 minutes. It shouldn't be up to the producer of the coffee to make sure no one gets hurt by it.

In short, it's not McDonalds responsibility to ensure their patrons can spill freshly poured coffee on yourself and not receive 3rd degree burns. It's not their responsibility to ensure that they only serve coffee to people competent enough to drink responsibly, meaning not spilling it all over yourself like a drunk whore.

If you honestly believe that the lawsuit was filed in an attempt to ensure that no one else suffered the horrible fate of SPILLING COFFEE ON THEMSELVES.. sigh. "Let's sue the maker of your automobile because the seat gives you a bad back, or sue the people who made the glasses you drink out of, because you dropped it and it broke and the glass cut you."

Recently a woman was walking out of a store with a baby carriage she had just purchased. The cashier forgot to remove the security tags, and as she walked outside, the alarms went off. The manager hurried over and said "Excuse me miss, it appears we forgot to remove the security tags. Please step back over here for a minute and we'll remove them for you." She said no and walked away. The next day she talked to her dad who was a lawyer, and the day after that she sued the store for false arrest.

Thank god, the judge threw the case out, and charged the lady with all the court costs and store defense costs, etc. stating "you're just trying to abuse the system of law, and your making a mockery of this court is completely unappreciated", or something very similar. I really wish we had more judges like that.

[stas]

the safety of customers is first in this case, and mcdonalds is just as liable for that as any other company. perhaps you dont understand how hot 180 degrees farenheit is, or how severe 3rd degree burns are. when you do, i highly doubt youll reply the same way.

[Moniker]

Wait okay if we're spending all this money to start Iraq up again, and they're suing what's left in the Iraq treasury, which I can only assume will all be used towards starting up Iraq again, then doesn't the U.S. really get the short end of the stick here?

All and all this lawsuit is bullshit and that money has much better uses. Give the POW's a pension or something.

Oh, and Jessica Lynch is a tool.

[brett]

lynch = tool correct


the safety of customers is first in this case, and mcdonalds is just as liable for that as any other company. perhaps you dont understand how hot 180 degrees farenheit is, or how severe 3rd degree burns are. when you do, i highly doubt youll reply the same way.

I work with liquid aluminum and zinc, which we keep at about 1400 and 900 degrees farenheit respectively. I know how hot 180 is, and yes, I know how severe a 3rd degree burn is, because I've been hit in the neck, arm, and chest from a spitting die. Do you know how hot 1400 degrees is?

Safety of customers is first, I agree.. But to sue because YOU spilled your coffee? Take some responsibility for your actions, for fucks sake. I repeat my point: If the coffee is too hot for you, let it sit or buy coffee somewhere else. If you're too dumb to keep hot coffee out of your pants, you shouldn't be buying it in the first place. I agree, there should be a warning on the cups, perhaps, or a disclaimer on the menu board that "Coffee and other hot beverages are just that: hot". But stupidity seems to be winning more and more of these retarded lawsuits.

[BluRRPy]

I agree with brett. It's not like there is an incredibly hazardous environment that McDonalds is creating for its customers. Yes the coffee is way too hot. So don't fucking go there or don't spill it on yourself. It's really not that hard.

Anyway, get the conversation back on track, because this discussion is stupid.

[stas]

Originally posted by brett
Safety of customers is first, I agree.. But to sue because YOU spilled your coffee? Take some responsibility for your actions, for fucks sake. I repeat my point: If the coffee is too hot for you, let it sit or buy coffee somewhere else. If you're too dumb to keep hot coffee out of your pants, you shouldn't be buying it in the first place. I agree, there should be a warning on the cups, perhaps, or a disclaimer on the menu board that "Coffee and other hot beverages are just that: hot". But stupidity seems to be winning more and more of these retarded lawsuits.

its not a matter of she spilled, its a matter of if theyd lowered the coffe 10-20 degrees it would have reduced the burns. thats TOO hot is the point they were making. theres no need to have coffee that hot, you cant justify it.

[BluRRPy]

What if you tripped (your fault) and your head hit the corner of the cash register? It would cause very serious injury to you. So why doesn't McDonalds have the corners of their cash registeres rounded, as well as all other corners or sharp objects in the place? Certainly you would incur a lot less severe injury if you tripped again.

There's no need to have corners that sharp, you can't justify it.