Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Expain To Me How This Could Happen.
RV Park Reviews Campground Discussion Forum > RV Park and Campground Discussions > General Chat
Skymessenger
I know she was drunk and open the wrong door but how could she fall out with her seat belt on?

I just don't get it... ohmy.gif



http://www.rickeystokesnews.com/article.ph...e-on-i-10-13896



fpullanosr
QUOTE(Skymessenger @ Oct 23 2010, 10:21 AM) *

I know she was drunk and open the wrong door but how could she fall out with her seat belt on?

I just don't get it... ohmy.gif
http://www.rickeystokesnews.com/article.ph...e-on-i-10-13896


The passanger was probably avoiding using the holding tank and choose just to answer natures call in the outdoors. Pets and animals do that a lot, dont they?

As for the seat belt thing. havent you heard of seat belt extenders?

LMAO
John Blue
No seat belts in that older model MH and you do not have one on walking around in rear. Information is all wrong.
Skymessenger
QUOTE(John Blue @ Oct 23 2010, 09:14 PM) *

No seat belts in that older model MH and you do not have one on walking around in rear. Information is all wrong.


That is what I was thinking John. I knew the report was wrong or she was lying about it. rolleyes.gif
Fitzjohnfan
More stupid RV news:

http://www.rvbusiness.com/2010/08/rv-owner...-2006-shooting/

Be prepared to not be able to park at Walmarts any more when this is all done.

Reading the article makes them look really stupid. The guy had been loitering around in the parking lot most of the day and displaying questionable behavior already. Why open the door to him?

Also, notice it took them 4 years to file the lawsuit. Why?
John Blue
This one is right in line with the first post. I doubt this happen as well. We have been in this Wal-Mart store and you have a person that drives around all the time looking for problems. This store like others has cameras all over the place and if they see a problem the cops would be over in short order. We found this store parking lot full of RV units on our visit.
Texasrvers
Here's another good one:

"Stella Awards
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 coffee. You remember, she 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.

This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was: Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , who purchased 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 the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago 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 Oklahoma jury 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."
Skymessenger
[/quote]
This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was: Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , who purchased 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 the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago 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 Oklahoma jury 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.
[/quote]

wow ohmy.gif
HappiestCamper
The worst thing is she got a new Winnie - SO SHE IS STILL OUT THERE ON THE ROAD!! BEWARE!!!!
Tom
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Oct 25 2010, 07:21 PM) *

Here's another good one:

Stella Awards


I thought that sounded familiar... it is funny, but that has been making the rounds of the internet for decades:

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp
nedmtnman
Back in 1972 I worked for a RV OEM supplier and a similar story was going around then about a guy from Woodward Oklahoma that set the cruise control and went back to help his girl friend look for a bottle of wine in the fridge thinking it was auto pilot.
Texasrvers
I don't care what you say!!! I got that story from the internet so it must be true!! Haven't you seen the TV commercial where a mom makes popcorn (I think) for a family traveling in a motorhome? The dad leaves the driver's seat and joins them in the back to eat the popcorn. So these things really do happen. laugh.gif laugh.gif

Seriously though, I think there is a real "Stella Award," but I didn't check out that particular story. It is good to know that there really isn't someone driving a motorhome who is that stupid. Oh wait, I drive a motorhome. . . . .
jan-n-john
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Oct 26 2010, 12:30 PM) *



Seriously though, I think there is a real "Stella Award," but I didn't check out that particular story. It is good to know that there really isn't someone driving a motorhome who is that stupid. Oh wait, I drive a motorhome. . . . .

Not to beat a dead horse, but it's worth noting that the actual facts in the McDonald's Coffee case are somewhat different from the popular myth that is all over the internet and you quoted. Stella actually did have a pretty good case, and has been unfairly besmirched. For example, contrary to the "facts" as typically quoted, she was not herself driving (her grandson was), and the car was not moving when it happened. She didn't take the lid off and then put the coffee between her legs, but put it between her legs while she tried to get the top off so she could add cream and sugar, and in so doing spilled it. And liquid at that temperature will cause 3rd degree burns in a few seconds. Anybody who really wants to know about it can start with the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._Mc...27s_Restaurants

Once again it shows how things are (1) seldom what you heard (or read on the internet), and (2) more complex than you thought.
Tom
Interestingly, in that Wikipedia article, it describes how almost all coffee makers produce coffee as hot as McDonald's. Also how at least one coffee "organization" actually suggests making coffee a little hotter to get the best flavor.

jan-n-john
QUOTE(Tom @ Oct 29 2010, 08:02 AM) *

Interestingly, in that Wikipedia article, it describes how almost all coffee makers produce coffee as hot as McDonald's. Also how at least one coffee "organization" actually suggests making coffee a little hotter to get the best flavor.

It's true that you have to make coffee at just below boiling to get the best flavor from the ground coffee beans. Never any dispute about that. But you don't have to SERVE it at that temperature. And a responsible business should really think hard about handing members of the general public a nearly-boiling liquid in a flimsy paper or foam cup, with a hard-to-remove lid, while they are seated in their cars rather than at a table. That's an open invitation to spills, burns and lawsuits, which is exactly what happened. There had already been 700 reported cases of the same thing. Hellooo. How many times do you suppose others had similarly been burned and it was never heard about. 100x maybe? 1000x? Who knows. This IMHO is not an example of a frivolous lawsuit, but rather corporate stupidity at a high level, and McDonalds deserved what they got.

Note that the optimal temperature to consume coffee for most people is about 160, far lower than the 195-205 optimal brewing temperature. Water at 160 will still scald, but nothing like at the 180-190 temp that McDonalds required their franchisees to serve it.
EMDQueen
QUOTE(jan-n-john @ Oct 29 2010, 10:49 AM) *

It's true that you have to make coffee at just below boiling to get the best flavor from the ground coffee beans. Never any dispute about that. But you don't have to SERVE it at that temperature. And a responsible business should really think hard about handing members of the general public a nearly-boiling liquid in a flimsy paper or foam cup, with a hard-to-remove lid, while they are seated in their cars rather than at a table. That's an open invitation to spills, burns and lawsuits, which is exactly what happened. There had already been 700 reported cases of the same thing. Hellooo. How many times do you suppose others had similarly been burned and it was never heard about. 100x maybe? 1000x? Who knows. This IMHO is not an example of a frivolous lawsuit, but rather corporate stupidity at a high level, and McDonalds deserved what they got.

Note that the optimal temperature to consume coffee for most people is about 160, far lower than the 195-205 optimal brewing temperature. Water at 160 will still scald, but nothing like at the 180-190 temp that McDonalds required their franchisees to serve it.


You are all missing the point. An adult should be smart enough to know that coffee is hot and to handle it accordingly and not try to pry a lid off while sitting in a car. Be accountable for yourself and stop trying to blame everything on someone else. I have done some supremely boneheaded stunts in my time but I have taken responsiblity for them, not tried to sue a manufacturer or a retailer to make a buck. I earn my money the honest way! I also hate the lawsuits that are running rampant for taking a medication then suffering the advertised side effects and suing. You should know the side effects and make a choice to take the drug. If you have the side effect, oh well. You rolled the dice, you came up craps. It happens. Deal. I have several chronic conditions, one I choose not to treat at this time because the side effects are not worth it. My choice. My responsibility as a consumer to become educated on these things.
jan-n-john
QUOTE(EMDQueen @ Dec 3 2010, 12:13 AM) *

You are all missing the point. An adult should be smart enough to know that coffee is hot and to handle it accordingly and not try to pry a lid off while sitting in a car.

Excuse me. McDonalds sells coffee to people at its drive thru window in cups with lid on, and hands them the sugar and "cream" in little packets for them to put in themselves. Please explain how a "smart adult" is supposed to put in the cream and sugar without prying off the lid while sitting in the car. Are you suggesting he should park the car, take the coffee inside the restaurant, and remove the lid there? Is that why there are drive thru windows?

Everyone agrees that there are frivolous lawsuits out there. But it is also true that major corporations are supposed to know and anticipate the dangers associated with products they sell that ordinary people can't be expected to know. The customer cannot be expected to know the temperature of the coffee, nor the temperature of water that will cause third degree burns. The corporation, by selling the product, has implicitly represented the product is safe, and they are the ones who are supposed to know those things. Furthermore, they knew this had already happened at least 700 times. Sorry, but at that point it has become negligence on the part of the seller, not the fault of the ordinary customer. McDonalds deserved what it got, and the tort law system, in that case, worked perfectly well.
Fitzjohnfan
QUOTE(jan-n-john @ Dec 5 2010, 03:12 PM) *

The corporation, by selling the product, has implicitly represented the product is safe, and they are the ones who are supposed to know those things. Furthermore, they knew this had already happened at least 700 times. Sorry, but at that point it has become negligence on the part of the seller, not the fault of the ordinary customer. McDonalds deserved what it got, and the tort law system, in that case, worked perfectly well.


So every time there is an accedential shooting of a gun or someone has an accident with a car that hurts or kills someone, the company that manufactures that product should be held liable? I don't think so. Whatever happend to common sence, and taking responsibility for being stupid?

These products and many others are dangerous, just like a hot cup of coffee. They requre special handling by a trained person.
DXSMac
QUOTE(Fitzjohnfan @ Dec 5 2010, 03:43 PM) *

These products and many others are dangerous, just like a hot cup of coffee. They requre special handling by a trained person.


I'm camp hosting right now, and it's so ridiculous I had to have "training" to use AJAX cleanser!

JJ laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
dalsgal
QUOTE(jan-n-john @ Dec 5 2010, 06:12 PM) *



Everyone agrees that there are frivolous lawsuits out there. But it is also true that major corporations are supposed to know and anticipate the dangers associated with products they sell that ordinary people can't be expected to know. The customer cannot be expected to know the temperature of the coffee, nor the temperature of water that will cause third degree burns. The corporation, by selling the product, has implicitly represented the product is safe, and they are the ones who are supposed to know those things. Furthermore, they knew this had already happened at least 700 times. Sorry, but at that point it has become negligence on the part of the seller, not the fault of the ordinary customer. McDonalds deserved what it got, and the tort law system, in that case, worked perfectly well.


I think the woman, if there was intelligence there, should have known not to put the coffee between her legs. People should use their brains when using any products, especially something that is, and should be, very hot. I don't think the system worked at all. Should they be required to put a label on the cup that says "Warning: This product can burn your mouth or your legs if you should put the cup between your legs. The product you have just purchased has been known to cause pain, stunt your growth and keep you awake". People should use common sense in using any product. Maybe I should sue McDonalds or Maxwell House because I drank coffee and am short.
Texasrvers
A few years back I served on a jury involving a law suit where an elderly man was riding his bicycle on a city street, hit a pot hole, was thrown from his bike, and sadly, died from his injuries. His family was suing the city because the pot hole had not been repaired and caused the accident which resulted in his death. Our charge was to decide if the city was responsible for the accident, and if so, to what extent (percent) they were responsible.

We believed the city had some responsibility for keeping its streets in good repair, but we also thought that anyone using those streets assumed a great responsibility for their own personal safety. While we felt extremely sorry for the man’s family, we believed that the man himself was very negligent of his own safety. It was dark; he was on an unfamiliar street; and he did not have a headlight on his bicycle. Ultimately we decided that all of these factors played a significant role in causing the accident and that the pothole was not the single cause. We further determined that due to his actions the man bore the larger responsibility for the accident. We placed only 20% of the responsibility on the city, but we did have them pay for all the man’s medical bills. The 20% responsibility also gave the widow a little compensation even though we believed the man was mostly responsible for his own death.

I think the McDonald’s coffee incident is similar. The lady chose to buy a beverage that she knew would be hot. In doing so she assumed the responsibility for taking care of that beverage in a manner that would not jeopardize her safety. While McDonald’s MAY have served the coffee too hot, it was her actions that caused the accident. As with the case above I think it would have been reasonable for McD’s to pay all of the medical bills and perhaps something for pain and suffering, but that should not have been in the millions—their responsibility was just not that great.
willranless
For what it's worth, where I live, the McDonalds have now started adding the cream and sugar to the coffee before they serve it to us. We just tell them how many cream and/or sugars we want and they do the rest. No doubt this was a direct result of this case. Interestingly though, as far as I know, other fast-food places have not adopted this practice. Since I don't want to have the task of adding these items after I leave the window, I would choose McD's over a competitor when I want coffee.
I guess the lesson for all of us business owners is to try our best to stay attuned to what our customers need and want and try to provide that BEFORE a major incident of dissatisfaction occurs.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.