Scarification and branding - is it illegal?
Demetrius Zeluff
making cuts into skin, and then aggravating the healing process so that a
scar forms.
Would it be illegal to perform this on another person (obviously with their
consent)? Would it be assault?
I'm asking because it was mentioned in another uk newsgroup, talking about
bodyart and I'd be interested in an accurate legal view.
Thanks.
(If people are interested in more details they could search for the Body
Modification Extreme Web site, BME. But it's not for the squeamish.)
bigbrian
<2876...@tmicha.net> wrote:
>There is a type of body modification called "Scarification". This involves
>making cuts into skin, and then aggravating the healing process so that a
>scar forms.
>
>Would it be illegal to perform this on another person (obviously with their
>consent)? Would it be assault?
>
>I'm asking because it was mentioned in another uk newsgroup, talking about
>bodyart and I'd be interested in an accurate legal view.
It seems to depend who's doing it and why, and maybe a bunch of other
factors.
There's a notorious case in UK law known as the "Spanner" case,
although officially its R v Brown. You can Google for the details, but
the nuts and bolts <ahem> of it were to do with a number of
sado-masochistic adult males engaging in mutually consenting acts,
involving electrocution and nailing someone's scrotum to a plank,
amongst other things. They were charged with varying degrees of
assault and were convicted. They appealed, had their sentences reduced
but their convictions upheld. They appealed again to the ECHR, with
the same result. IIUC, the basic tenet of the law that was upheld was
that you can't consent to a serious assault on yourself (in the same
way that consenting to be murdered doesn't absolve the perpetrator of
liability to a murder charge). This was held to be different to
consenting to piercing, tattooing, boxing, surgery, or a number of
other physical assaults that people more routinely consent to. As I
understand it, one of them was actually convicted of an assault on
himself.
Following that, there was a case - I don't have the details to hand -
of a woman visiting her doctor for a routine examination, during which
the doctor established that she had been branded (or scarred I don't
remember which) on her buttocks, with her husband's initials. This was
part of an S&M playtime thing they had going and was again, entirely
consensual. The doctor reported his findings to the police, who, in
spite of the assertions by the wife that it was entirely consensual,
and, presumably buoyed by the details of the Spanner case, proceeded
with a charge. The judge threw the case out, slamming the prosecution
as a waste of time and money, and made a statement to the effect that
the courts shouldn't be getting involved in what a consenting husband
and wife get up to in the privacy of the marital bedroom
Brian
Mike
Demetrius Zeluff <2876...@tmicha.net> writes
>There is a type of body modification called "Scarification". This involves
>making cuts into skin, and then aggravating the healing process so that a
>scar forms.
>
>Would it be illegal to perform this on another person (obviously with their
>consent)? Would it be assault?
>
consent to an assault but, as an assault is simply an act which causes
you to fear for your safety, a consensual assault can't happen - if you
consented to being put in fear you wouldn't really be in fear. If
another person strikes you, that's a "battery" but it seems perfectly OK
for people engaging in contact sports (such as boxing) to consent to
battery. Consent to some body piercing (Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)) is
also OK and, it seems, parents can even consent to their (often very
young) children having their ears pierced. Scrotum piercing (as
Bigbrian mentioned re the "Spanner" case) isn't acceptable. Surgery is
another form of ABH which seems to be (rightly IMHO) acceptable - but
only if you sign the consent form (which should be invalid if you can't
consent to an assault).
>I'm asking because it was mentioned in another uk newsgroup, talking about
>bodyart and I'd be interested in an accurate legal view.
>
I'm not sure there is one.
>Thanks.
>
>(If people are interested in more details they could search for the Body
>Modification Extreme Web site, BME. But it's not for the squeamish.)
--
Mike
dave @ stejonda
<spam...@fensoft.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>This is an aspect of law which really confuses me. AIUI you cannot
>consent to an assault but, as an assault is simply an act which causes
>you to fear for your safety, a consensual assault can't happen - if you
>consented to being put in fear you wouldn't really be in fear.
Going off at a tangent perhaps but when you view a scary film what else
are you doing but consenting to be put in fear? Perhaps there should be
consent forms at the entrances to cinemas.
> If
>another person strikes you, that's a "battery" but it seems perfectly OK
>for people engaging in contact sports (such as boxing) to consent to
>battery. Consent to some body piercing (Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)) is
>also OK and, it seems, parents can even consent to their (often very
>young) children having their ears pierced. Scrotum piercing (as
>Bigbrian mentioned re the "Spanner" case) isn't acceptable. Surgery is
>another form of ABH which seems to be (rightly IMHO) acceptable - but
>only if you sign the consent form (which should be invalid if you can't
>consent to an assault).
--
dave @ stejonda
Bring culture back to NTL.
http://www.performance-channel.com/
Ring 0800 052 2000
Mike
<stejonda...@privacy.net> writes
>In message <Oc+ZRfYc...@fensoft.co.uk>, Mike
><spam...@fensoft.co.uk> writes
><snip>
>
>>This is an aspect of law which really confuses me. AIUI you cannot
>>consent to an assault but, as an assault is simply an act which causes
>>you to fear for your safety, a consensual assault can't happen - if you
>>consented to being put in fear you wouldn't really be in fear.
>
>Going off at a tangent perhaps but when you view a scary film what else
>are you doing but consenting to be put in fear? Perhaps there should be
>consent forms at the entrances to cinemas.
>
a cinema proprietor, or any other entertainment provider, be liable if a
customer suffered as a result of watching a scary film? I know it seems
ridiculous but so do quite a few judgments.
--
Mike
^Thunder^
uk.legal.moderated , "dave @ stejonda" <stejonda...@privacy.net>
wrote :-
>In message <Oc+ZRfYc...@fensoft.co.uk>, Mike
><spam...@fensoft.co.uk> writes
><snip>
>
>>This is an aspect of law which really confuses me. AIUI you cannot
>>consent to an assault but, as an assault is simply an act which causes
>>you to fear for your safety, a consensual assault can't happen - if you
>>consented to being put in fear you wouldn't really be in fear.
>
>Going off at a tangent perhaps but when you view a scary film what else
>are you doing but consenting to be put in fear? Perhaps there should be
>consent forms at the entrances to cinemas.
One aspect of BDSM is a "mind fuck" - the thrill of being afraid -
requires a lot of trust by the recipient.
BTW a couple of aspects of the Spanner case. The "nailing" in fact was
through a prior piercing and how it came to light was that the
participants had videoed themselves and at first the police thought they
were watching a "snuff" movie. Another aspect was a number of people
felt that the police prosecuted because all the participants were gay
--
^Thunder^ - UK Essex BDSM
Cynic
> If you can't consent to the "assault", the form would be invalid. Would
> a cinema proprietor, or any other entertainment provider, be liable if a
> customer suffered as a result of watching a scary film? I know it seems
> ridiculous but so do quite a few judgments.
If a person were to suffer a heart attack and die during such a film, I
don't think it is beyond the realms of possibility these days that the
relatives might sue the cinema or film maker for failing to provide
sufficient warnings or similar.
A friend of mine recently suffered a torn muscle from laughing too hard at a
comedy film. I wonder if he could sue?
--
Cynic
bigbrian
wrote:
I think the police prosecuted because they'd backed themselves into a
corner over it. IIRC, they came across the video in a raid on a place
where they suspected child abuse was happening. They were wrong. Then,
having seen the video and decided it was a snuff movie, they
investigated the source, tracked down the participants and only
discovered that it was all consensual. So they were wrong again. I
suspect the prosecution went forward because they felt they had to
justify their own efforts and not look silly again, which, as it
happens, is exactly what did happen, notwithstanding the convictions.
Brian
Bryan Morris
<cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>"Mike" <spam...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote
>
>> If you can't consent to the "assault", the form would be invalid. Would
>> a cinema proprietor, or any other entertainment provider, be liable if a
>> customer suffered as a result of watching a scary film? I know it seems
>> ridiculous but so do quite a few judgments.
>
>If a person were to suffer a heart attack and die during such a film, I
>don't think it is beyond the realms of possibility these days that the
>relatives might sue the cinema or film maker for failing to provide
>sufficient warnings or similar.
Whilst one may assume that the person would have been aware of the
nature of the film - after the case in the US when a person carelessly
dropped hot coffee on herself and won a case against MacDonalds for
supplying hot coffee that scalded her - I wouldn't be surprised.
--
Bryan Morris
Public Key http://www.pgp.uk.demon.net - 0xCC6237E9
Scott
"Bryan Morris" <Br...@brymor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Va7asUAGUXyAFwY$@brymor.freeserve.co.uk...
Ah the mythical MacDondonalds coffee case. (It's actually an example of the
legal system working exactly as it should). The spilled coffee caused third
degree burns, $10,000 in medical costs, agonizing skin grafts during an
eight-day stay in a hospital, and permanent scarring. The victim offered to
settle the case for $20,000 before trial, but McDonald's refused to settle.
You can read the rest here:
http://www.mattenlaw.com/FSL5CS/articles/articles6.asp
David Keates
"Mike" <spam...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Oc+ZRfYc...@fensoft.co.uk...
> In message <Xns9504EE418FF00...@news-60.giganews.com>,
> Demetrius Zeluff <2876...@tmicha.net> writes
> >There is a type of body modification called "Scarification". This
involves
> >making cuts into skin, and then aggravating the healing process so that a
> >scar forms.
> >
> >Would it be illegal to perform this on another person (obviously with
their
> >consent)? Would it be assault?
> >
> This is an aspect of law which really confuses me. AIUI you cannot
> consent to an assault but, as an assault is simply an act which causes
> you to fear for your safety, a consensual assault can't happen - if you
> consented to being put in fear you wouldn't really be in fear. If
> another person strikes you, that's a "battery" but it seems perfectly OK
> for people engaging in contact sports (such as boxing) to consent to
> battery. Consent to some body piercing (Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)) is
Body piercing, where the continuous nature of the skin is broken would be a
wound and not ABH.
Demetrius Zeluff
news:cabrc4$itk$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk:
[snip]
> A friend of mine recently suffered a torn muscle from laughing too
> hard at a comedy film. I wonder if he could sue?
He could perhaps have charged for the story. Don't some newspapers love
'fillers' like this?
IanAl
<som...@spamtrap.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Bryan Morris" <Br...@brymor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:Va7asUAGUXyAFwY$@brymor.freeserve.co.uk...
>> Whilst one may assume that the person would have been aware of the
>> nature of the film - after the case in the US when a person carelessly
>> dropped hot coffee on herself and won a case against MacDonalds for
>> supplying hot coffee that scalded her - I wouldn't be surprised.
>Ah the mythical MacDondonalds coffee case.
I think you mean 'legendary', not 'mythical'.
> (It's actually an example of the
>legal system working exactly as it should). The spilled coffee caused third
>degree burns, $10,000 in medical costs, agonizing skin grafts during an
>eight-day stay in a hospital, and permanent scarring. The victim offered to
>settle the case for $20,000 before trial, but McDonald's refused to settle.
I don't doubt the injuries were as you state but the responsibility
was entirely the customer's as any sensible person should know (and
expect) coffee to be hot. A case of theft by the legal system, not
"working exactly as it should".
Scott
"IanAl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:a6ljc01b3qgekdc9u...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:00:11 +0100, "Scott"
> <som...@spamtrap.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Bryan Morris" <Br...@brymor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:Va7asUAGUXyAFwY$@brymor.freeserve.co.uk...
>
> >> Whilst one may assume that the person would have been aware of the
> >> nature of the film - after the case in the US when a person carelessly
> >> dropped hot coffee on herself and won a case against MacDonalds for
> >> supplying hot coffee that scalded her - I wouldn't be surprised.
>
> >Ah the mythical MacDondonalds coffee case.
>
> I think you mean 'legendary', not 'mythical'.
>
Agreed.
> > (It's actually an example of the
> >legal system working exactly as it should). The spilled coffee caused
third
> >degree burns, $10,000 in medical costs, agonizing skin grafts during an
> >eight-day stay in a hospital, and permanent scarring. The victim offered
to
> >settle the case for $20,000 before trial, but McDonald's refused to
settle.
>
> I don't doubt the injuries were as you state but the responsibility
> was entirely the customer's as any sensible person should know (and
> expect) coffee to be hot. A case of theft by the legal system, not
> "working exactly as it should".
http://www.mattenlaw.com/FSL5CS/articles/articles6.asp
I suggest you read the link the jury decided the customer was 20%
responsible. I suspect that the coffee had actually been microwaved to get
it that hot. It was therefore not fit for purpose.
Demetrius Zeluff
news:cacagl$n4c$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
> Body piercing, where the continuous nature of the skin is broken would
> be a wound and not ABH.
What, in law, is the difference? Why can someone consent to various body
piercings but not a small scarification?
Demetrius Zeluff
news:a6ljc01b3qgekdc9u...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:00:11 +0100, "Scott"
> <som...@spamtrap.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>> (It's actually an example of the
>>legal system working exactly as it should). The spilled coffee caused
>>third degree burns, $10,000 in medical costs, agonizing skin grafts
>>during an eight-day stay in a hospital, and permanent scarring. The
>>victim offered to settle the case for $20,000 before trial, but
>>McDonald's refused to settle.
>
> I don't doubt the injuries were as you state but the responsibility
> was entirely the customer's as any sensible person should know (and
> expect) coffee to be hot.
But the COMPANYX[1] coffee was *much* hotter than other coffee. Most
companies serve coffee at or near a drinkable temperature. COMPANYX[1]
served coffee near to boiling point (nearly 190 degrees farenheit). A US
burns centre advised companies not to serve coffee over 135 degrees
Farenheit.
[1] Name changed to avoid potential defamation.
Here are some more details, because it's worth noting the real facts:
---cut here---
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her
grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car
stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while
removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot
coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her
body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment
for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability
for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994.
Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s
for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded
Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because
the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive
damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective,
McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a
day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000.
Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. According to
Stella Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following
evidence in the case:
By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190
degrees Fahrenheit;
Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the
skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to
seven seconds;
Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and
whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in
permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for
many months, and in some cases, years;
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-
mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this
risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns,
the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the
specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns
from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was
brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no
avail;
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many
receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and
buttocks;
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned
by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent
spillage by McDonald's employees;
At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service
window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other
sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;
Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of
the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at
McDonald's required temperature;
McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and
extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the
heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change
the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”
McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when
sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the
worst scald burns he had ever seen.
Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn
Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food
industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns
by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.
In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called
McDonald's behavior “callous.” Moreover, “the day after the verdict, the
news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where
Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-
degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so
that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of
this verdict.” Id.
Cynic
> I don't doubt the injuries were as you state but the responsibility
> was entirely the customer's as any sensible person should know (and
> expect) coffee to be hot. A case of theft by the legal system, not
> "working exactly as it should".
I agree entirely. Lots of things are dangerous, but we are expected to
realise the danger and be careful. Hot drinks are dangerous - a fact that
my parents taught me when I was very young. Cars are even more dangerous
and have cause far more injuries than spilt coffee, but I somehow doubt that
you would win compensation from Ford if you stepped into the road in front
of one of their products and were maimed for life.
--
Cynic
IanAl
<2876...@tmicha.net> wrote:
>IanAl <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
>news:a6ljc01b3qgekdc9u...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:00:11 +0100, "Scott"
>> <som...@spamtrap.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>> (It's actually an example of the
>>>legal system working exactly as it should). The spilled coffee caused
>>>third degree burns, $10,000 in medical costs, agonizing skin grafts
>>>during an eight-day stay in a hospital, and permanent scarring. The
>>>victim offered to settle the case for $20,000 before trial, but
>>>McDonald's refused to settle.
>>
>> I don't doubt the injuries were as you state but the responsibility
>> was entirely the customer's as any sensible person should know (and
>> expect) coffee to be hot.
>
>But the COMPANYX[1] coffee was *much* hotter than other coffee. Most
>companies serve coffee at or near a drinkable temperature. COMPANYX[1]
>served coffee near to boiling point (nearly 190 degrees farenheit). A US
>burns centre advised companies not to serve coffee over 135 degrees
>Farenheit.
That's lukewarm. Freshly made coffee can be almost boiling.
>[1] Name changed to avoid potential defamation.
>
>Here are some more details, because it's worth noting the real facts:
>
>---cut here---
>http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
>
>Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her
>grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car
>stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while
>removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot
>coffee onto her.
What a stupid thing to do. 100% responsible.
>She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her
>body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment
>for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability
>for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994.
>Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s
>for $20,000.
Greedy cow.
> However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded
>Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because
>the jury found her 20 percent at fault
This level of damages deprives the plaintiff of any sympathy she might
otherwise receive.
> and $2.7 million in punitive
>damages for McDonald’s callous conduct.
The concept of punitive damages is profoundly flawed. If a company
does wrong and deserves punishment they should be *fined* and the
money go to the Exchequer. The plaintiff only deserves *compensation*
and at a reasonable level, not the silly levels awarded in America
which just feed the greedy lawyers. In the UK compensation levels are
10x they should be, in the US 100x.
> (To put this in perspective,
>McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a
>day.)
Irrelevant.
>Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned
>by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent
>spillage by McDonald's employees;
>At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service
>window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other
>sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;
In this case McD have some responsibility.
>Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of
>the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at
>McDonald's required temperature;
That doesn't say much for the general intelligence of their customers.
>McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and
>extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
They didn't realise people could be so stupid?
>McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the
>heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change
>the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”
Quite right. Who wants lukewarm coffee?
>McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when
>sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
>Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the
>worst scald burns he had ever seen.
>Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn
>Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food
>industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns
>by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.
>
>In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called
>McDonald's behavior “callous.” Moreover, “the day after the verdict, the
>news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where
>Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-
>degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so
>that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of
>this verdict.” Id.
They obviously succumbed to the US's idiotic legal system for
commercial reasons.
Demetrius Zeluff
news:cad4qp$icg$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk:
> "IanAl" <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>
>> I don't doubt the injuries were as you state but the responsibility
>> was entirely the customer's as any sensible person should know (and
>> expect) coffee to be hot. A case of theft by the legal system, not
>> "working exactly as it should".
>
> I agree entirely. Lots of things are dangerous, but we are expected
> to realise the danger and be careful. Hot drinks are dangerous
But some hot drinks are more dangerous than others, because they are
hotter than others.
That company was selling drinks at 180 degrees F (near boiling, 212
degrees F) even though they knew the risks.
At that temperature it takes just a few seconds for spilt coffee to cause
3rd degree burns.
Between 1982 and 1992 COMPANYX[1] had 700 claims from people burnt by
coffee.
This link contains factual NON DEFAMATORY information about the case, and
explains some of the mistakes in the report at the time:-
<http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm>
> a fact that my parents taught me when I was very young.
COMPANYX[1] "also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard."
> Cars are even
> more dangerous and have cause far more injuries than spilt coffee, but
> I somehow doubt that you would win compensation from Ford if you
> stepped into the road in front of one of their products and were
> maimed for life.
If CAR-COMPANY-X[1] used a hood ornament that was shown to cause lots of
extra wounding in accidents then actually I think victims might be in
with a chance of a claim.
I think this would be weaker than the coffee case.
[1] Names changed to avoid potential defamation.
Demetrius Zeluff
news:Oc+ZRfYc...@fensoft.co.uk:
> In message <Xns9504EE418FF00...@news-60.giganews.com>,
> Demetrius Zeluff <2876...@tmicha.net> writes
>>There is a type of body modification called "Scarification". This
>>involves making cuts into skin, and then aggravating the healing
>>process so that a scar forms.
>>
>>Would it be illegal to perform this on another person (obviously with
>>their consent)? Would it be assault?
>>
> This is an aspect of law which really confuses me. AIUI you cannot
> consent to an assault but,
The Health and Safety Executive have got this Web site
<http://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/76-2.htm>
(Fingers crossed, it's a real government site)
Specifically Annex 2 which deals with the law.
I'd like to thank all contributors to this thread.
[snip]
The Todal
"Demetrius Zeluff" <2876...@tmicha.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9505C93B04E69...@news-60.giganews.com...
>
> Here are some more details, because it's worth noting the real facts:
>
> ---cut here---
> http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
>
> Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her
> grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee.
snipped
Well, at least the courts in the UK are more sensible. Similar issues, but
judgment for McDonalds:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html
bigbrian
>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:50:06 +0100, Demetrius Zeluff
><2876...@tmicha.net> wrote:
>
>>IanAl <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
>>news:a6ljc01b3qgekdc9u...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:00:11 +0100, "Scott"
>>> <som...@spamtrap.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>> (It's actually an example of the
>>>>legal system working exactly as it should). The spilled coffee caused
>>>>third degree burns, $10,000 in medical costs, agonizing skin grafts
>>>>during an eight-day stay in a hospital, and permanent scarring. The
>>>>victim offered to settle the case for $20,000 before trial, but
>>>>McDonald's refused to settle.
>>>
>>> I don't doubt the injuries were as you state but the responsibility
>>> was entirely the customer's as any sensible person should know (and
>>> expect) coffee to be hot.
>>
>>But the COMPANYX[1] coffee was *much* hotter than other coffee. Most
>>companies serve coffee at or near a drinkable temperature. COMPANYX[1]
>>served coffee near to boiling point (nearly 190 degrees farenheit). A US
>>burns centre advised companies not to serve coffee over 135 degrees
>>Farenheit.
>
>That's lukewarm. Freshly made coffee can be almost boiling.
"Coffee boiled is coffee spoiled", as they say. Of course, if it
wasn't hot enough, someone would complain about that too. But as long
as someone else is going to foot the bill, who cares, I guess....
>>Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her
>>grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car
>>stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while
>>removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot
>>coffee onto her.
>
>What a stupid thing to do. 100% responsible.
Have to agree. Also, IIRC, she was wearing shorts at the time. Leaving
aside the aesthetic implications of a 79 year old woman in shorts, you
don't have to be Einstein to figure out that placing a cup of what you
hope is a hot liquid between your legs in a moving car isn't a smart
idea. But as long as someone else is going to foot the bill, who
cares, I guess....
IMO, the idea that companies should be held liable for the stupidity
of their customers is laughable,
>>She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her
>>body,
I don't believe this for a second. 16% of her body is >32% of the
front of her body. Unless the liquid was forced upwards at a
horrendous speed, and over a wide area, its impossible for her to have
received even contact from the liquid, let alone 3rd degree burns, to
that extent. But as long as someone else is going to foot the bill,
who cares, I guess....
>The concept of punitive damages is profoundly flawed.
It makes no sense whatsoever. Why whould one individual benefit
financially, in addition to the compensation already awarded, for a
company's misdemeanours? Yes, the company should be punished, but what
has THAT claimaint, as opposed to any other claimant, done to deserve
$X million in punitive damages over and above the compensation. As you
say, fine them and leave it at that.
Brian
Demetrius Zeluff
But here's the difference:
"On the basis of Mr. Hathaway’s evidence I find that McDonald’s serving
temperatures were based on what the rest of the catering industry was
doing in terms of hot drinks and I infer that what the rest of the
industry was doing was endeavouring to meet customers’ requirements.
Perhaps unsurprisingly there was no evidence that McDonald’s serving
temperature was unusually hot compared with the serving temperatures
adopted by other similar restaurants and outlets. On the material before
me therefore I reject the criticisms the claimants have made about
McDonald’s serving temperatures and for the reasons I have given I
propose to answer generic issues (1) and (2) “No”. "
CompanyX knew (in teh US) that their drinks were much hotter than most
other companies sold then, and that the drinks were harmfully hot, and
that their customers did not realise the potential for full thickness
burns.
I'd be interested to nkoe if you think companyX had lousy lawyers or the
UK claiments had a lousy expert witness?
Demetrius Zeluff
4ax.com:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:50:06 +0100, Demetrius Zeluff
> <2876...@tmicha.net> wrote:
>
>>She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her
>>body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment
>>for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability
>>for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994.
>>Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s
>>for $20,000.
>
> Greedy cow.
How the fuck is this not insulting or hurtful to others? Or potentially
defamatory, considering a jury agreed that she had not been greedy but had
been harmed by COMPANY-X
[snip]
> The concept of punitive damages is profoundly flawed.
Teh Judge reduced the amount of damages to less than 500,000USD
>>Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of
>>the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at
>>McDonald's required temperature;
>
> That doesn't say much for the general intelligence of their customers.
Do you know what a 3rd degree (full thickness) burn actually is?
It would seem simple to have a lid that says "HOT!", especially if you've
already had 700 cases in ten years of people being injured, sometimes
scarred for life, and when you know that your coffee is much hotter than
other companies.
Cynic
>> I agree entirely. Lots of things are dangerous, but we are expected
>> to realise the danger and be careful. Hot drinks are dangerous
> But some hot drinks are more dangerous than others, because they are
> hotter than others.
> That company was selling drinks at 180 degrees F (near boiling, 212
> degrees F) even though they knew the risks.
So? When I make tea, I use water that *is* boiling. I know the risks, so I
am careful. If you make hot tea at below the temperature that is capable of
causing serious burns, I doubt many people will accept an offer from you of
a cup of tea! Have you ever *tasted* tea made with water at 65 deg C? It
was a complaint of the people who climbed Everest that it was impossible to
make a decent cup of tea at that altitude. I would anyway dispute that 180
deg F is "near boiling" (it is over 30 deg F cooler), but that is beside the
point.
> At that temperature it takes just a few seconds for spilt coffee to cause
> 3rd degree burns.
About 2 seconds if you are wearing clothes, the damage is less on unclothed
skin. Perhaps it is negligent to allow people to drink tea & coffee unless
they are naked? (Now there's an idea!)
> Between 1982 and 1992 COMPANYX[1] had 700 claims from people burnt by
> coffee.
Unimpressive. An average of 70 claims per year out of I'd guess hundreds of
thousands of customers a *day*. It is an insignificant percentage.
> This link contains factual NON DEFAMATORY information about the case, and
> explains some of the mistakes in the report at the time:-
> <http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm>
A link to a similar case brought in the UK has also been posted.
> > a fact that my parents taught me when I was very young.
> COMPANYX[1] "also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
> customers want it that way.
Yes, I certainly expect my coffee to be served hot. YMMV.
> The company admitted its customers were
> unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee
I expect many are unaware of the difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree
burns ( which are no longer terms used in the UK anyway). I would however
expect them to be aware that spilling hot coffee on yourself is likely to
result in injury, and take care to avoid it happening.
> and
> that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
> "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
> the hazard."
When I serve tea & coffee to guests, my cups have no warnings on them
whatsoever! Do yours? If not, do you regard yourself as negligent? Or
perhaps you give a safety briefing every tea-time.
>> Cars are even
>> more dangerous and have cause far more injuries than spilt coffee, but
>> I somehow doubt that you would win compensation from Ford if you
>> stepped into the road in front of one of their products and were
>> maimed for life.
> If CAR-COMPANY-X[1] used a hood ornament that was shown to cause lots of
> extra wounding in accidents then actually I think victims might be in
> with a chance of a claim.
Only if the ornament was significantly different to the industry standard.
McDonald served its coffee at similar temperatures as most other vendors of
hot drinks.
--
Cynic
The Todal
> IanAl <m...@privacy.net> wrote in news:ek6kc01fdtsl6v4ki178b5pmg464bou06q@
> 4ax.com:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:50:06 +0100, Demetrius Zeluff
> > <2876...@tmicha.net> wrote:
> >
> >>She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her
> >>body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment
> >>for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability
> >>for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994.
> >>Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s
> >>for $20,000.
> >
> > Greedy cow.
>
> How the fuck is this not insulting or hurtful to others?
If the mods thought that the greedy cow would be reading this newsgroup,
they would reject such posts.
> Or potentially
> defamatory, considering a jury agreed that she had not been greedy but had
> been harmed by COMPANY-X
I don't think the jury had to make any finding about whether she was greedy.
But to be fair, in the USA a piffling sum like 20k dollars wouldn't go far
towards paying for a skin graft and followup treatment.
The Todal
But don't forget:
"If this submission be right, McDonald’s should not have served drinks at
any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence
is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 C will cause a deep
thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus,
if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness
burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 C and
60 C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its
best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 C and 95 C.
Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the
temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee
served at between 55 C and 60 C would not have been acceptable to McDonald’s
customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able
to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at
least 65 C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for
the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a
scalding injury if the drink is spilled. "
>
> I'd be interested to nkoe if you think companyX had lousy lawyers or the
> UK claiments had a lousy expert witness?
I think in the USA the decisions are made by gullible juries who think the
defendant has a bottomless purse, whereas in the UK the decisions are made
by judges who are better able to see both sides of the argument.
I really cannot understand why big business in the USA, which usually wields
such power over presidents, has not yet been able to reform the system of
justice and remove the decision-making from juries. I fail to see the point
of regularly having trials in which the jury awards millions of dollars
whereupon the case goes to appeal and the award is routinely reduced to
thousands of dollars. It's like trial by chimp. The first part of the
process is a complete waste of money. Which of course is part of the reason
why awards are so high, because the jury knows the lawyers will take about
half the damages to pay their costs.
Demetrius Zeluff
bigbrian <harr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:erekc0prptgghceer...@4ax.com:
I wrote:-
>>>Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of
>>>her grandson's car having purchased a cup of McDonald's coffee. After
>>>the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees
>>>while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring
>>>scalding hot coffee onto her.
IANAL wrote:-
>>What a stupid thing to do. 100% responsible.
>
> Have to agree. Also, IIRC, she was wearing shorts at the time.
> Leaving aside the aesthetic implications of a 79 year old woman in
> shorts, you don't have to be Einstein to figure out that placing a cup
> of what you hope is a hot liquid between your legs in a moving car
> isn't a smart idea.
You've mangaged to cram so many inaccuracies into this one paragraph
it's hard to start correcting them.
1) The car was not moving. That fact was even quoted in the post you
replied to.
2) She was not wearing shorts. If she had been wearing shorts the
damage would have been LESS severe.
3) "what you hope is a hot liquid" - the liquid was much hotter than
most other places sold coffee.
[snip]
>>>She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her
>>>body,
>
> I don't believe this for a second.
What you believe is of no consequence. COMPANYX did not question the
amount or severity of burning.
> 16% of her body is >32% of the front of her body. Unless the liquid
> was forced upwards at a horrendous speed, and over a wide area, its
> impossible for her to have received even contact from the liquid,
> let alone 3rd degree burns, to that extent.
She was sitting down. Spilling coffee caused it to pool around her
groin, thighs and buttocks. She was wearing 'sweatpants', which held
scalding liquid close to her skin for longer.
You've demonstrated ignorance of the facts. It is pointless discussing
a case with osmeone who is making basic errors of fact about that case,
and disputing facts which nobody involved in the case was disputing.
<http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm>
<http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm>
She was a little olld lady who had *never* before filed suit against
anyone, who had tried to settle with COMPANYX for cost of medical bills,
and who was turned away by a company who had been maiming people for
many years.
COMPANYX knew that most customers did not realise that it was possible
to get a full thickness burn from the coffee. COMPANYX knew that many
people had been harmed by the coffee (700 in the past 10 years).
COMPANYX knew that their coffee was much hotter than other companies
coffee. COMPANYX ignored warnings froma national burns centre about the
temperature of drinks. Knowing all of this COMANYX still chose not to
give any warnings.
Perhaps you're not sure what a full thickness burn is?
Perhaps you're somehow thinking that a liquid that causes a full
thickness burn in two seconds is normal?
Text about burns:
<http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Burns?open>
Plugging "full thickness burns" into Google image search will show you
the severity of the injuries this woman recieved.
Demetrius Zeluff
news:cadh6l$gis$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk:
> "Demetrius Zeluff" <2876...@tmicha.net> wrote
>
>>> I agree entirely. Lots of things are dangerous, but we are expected
>>> to realise the danger and be careful. Hot drinks are dangerous
>
>> But some hot drinks are more dangerous than others, because they are
>> hotter than others.
>
>> That company was selling drinks at 180 degrees F (near boiling, 212
>> degrees F) even though they knew the risks.
>
> So? When I make tea, I use water that *is* boiling. I know the
> risks, so I am careful.
Exactly. Almost every other company stored coffee at lower temperatures
than COMPANYX. That's the point of the judgement; not that 'coffee is
hot', but that companyx's coffee was hotter than everyone elses, that
companyx knew customers did *not* appreciate the risk, that companyx's
coffee had harmed many people, that companyx, knowing that their coffee
was hot and knowing that the customers did not realize the risk and
knowing that customers had been harmed decided to continue selling coffee
that hot without any warning.
> If you make hot tea at below the temperature
> that is capable of causing serious burns, I doubt many people will
> accept an offer from you of a cup of tea! Have you ever *tasted* tea
> made with water at 65 deg C?
Making the drink is different from storing the drink.
> It was a complaint of the people who
> climbed Everest that it was impossible to make a decent cup of tea at
> that altitude. I would anyway dispute that 180 deg F is "near
> boiling" (it is over 30 deg F cooler), but that is beside the point.
180f to 190f. Don't forget that the graph of damage vs temperature is
logarithmic, so at the top of the graph there is not much difference. As
temperature drops the amount of damage caused drops dramatically. This
seems to have escaped most people contributing to this thread.
>> At that temperature it takes just a few seconds for spilt coffee to
>> cause 3rd degree burns.
>
> About 2 seconds if you are wearing clothes, the damage is less on
> unclothed skin. Perhaps it is negligent to allow people to drink tea
> & coffee unless they are naked? (Now there's an idea!)
>
>> Between 1982 and 1992 COMPANYX[1] had 700 claims from people burnt by
>> coffee.
>
> Unimpressive. An average of 70 claims per year out of I'd guess
> hundreds of thousands of customers a *day*. It is an insignificant
> percentage.
Cobblers. That's more than one per week. How many of those needed
hospital treatment. Imagine if it were not burns but mild stomache upset
that was being caused; they'd be shut down.
>> The company admitted its customers were
>> unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee
>
> I expect many are unaware of the difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd
> degree burns ( which are no longer terms used in the UK anyway). I
> would however expect them to be aware that spilling hot coffee on
> yourself is likely to result in injury, and take care to avoid it
> happening.
They'd take more care if they thought they were at risk of a third degree
burn?
>> and
>> that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
>> "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers
>> of the hazard."
>
> When I serve tea & coffee to guests, my cups have no warnings on them
> whatsoever! Do yours?
Have you ever measured the temperature at which you serve drinks? Try
it, you might be suprised. Most drinks served at home are about 55 to 60
degrees celcius. COMPANYX was serving drinks at about 83, or higher,
degrees celcius.
In fact, I do often say something like "watch out, it's hot!" to people.
Especially if I haven't added milk.
> If not, do you regard yourself as negligent?
If I had managed to disfigure many people over the years, and if I knew
that my coffee was much hotter than other people's coffee, and if I knew
that my guests were unaware of the risk of a full thickness burn from my
coffee, if I had received warnings from a national burns unit about the
temperature of coffee then yes, I would think about how I served my
coffee.
> Or perhaps you give a safety briefing every tea-time.
'HOT!' seems easy enough. Really, how much would that have cost to
implement? They change the packaging quite often; it could have been
incorporated into some new design.
>>> Cars are even
>>> more dangerous and have cause far more injuries than spilt coffee,
>>> but I somehow doubt that you would win compensation from Ford if you
>>> stepped into the road in front of one of their products and were
>>> maimed for life.
>
>> If CAR-COMPANY-X[1] used a hood ornament that was shown to cause lots
>> of extra wounding in accidents then actually I think victims might be
>> in with a chance of a claim.
>
> Only if the ornament was significantly different to the industry
> standard. McDonald served its coffee at similar temperatures as most
> other vendors of hot drinks.
No they did not. COMPANYX served their drinks hotter than every other
company. This is not in dispute by anyone involved in the case.
Marshall Rice
writes
>But don't forget:
>"If this submission be right, McDonald’s should not have served drinks at
>any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence
>is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 C will cause a deep
>thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus,
>if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness
>burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 C and
>60 C.
60C is usually taken as the threshold.
>But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its
>best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 C and 95 C.
>Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the
>temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee
>served at between 55 C and 60 C would not have been acceptable to McDonald’s
>customers.
Little-known factoid: women can tolerate drinking liquids at much higher
temperatures than men.
Perhaps their mouths, tongues and throats become leathery through over-
use, or perhaps it's just down to the fact that they're smaller than
those of men and accommodate a smaller volume of liquid, which loses its
heat more readily to the blood and tissues. In any event, serving coffee
at a temperature which suited most women customers would still draw
complaints from men and vice versa.
--
Marshall Rice
(Put the bin out to email me)
Marshall Rice
<harr...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:15:07 +0100, IanAl <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:50:06 +0100, Demetrius Zeluff
>><2876...@tmicha.net> wrote:
>>
>>>IanAl <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
>>>news:a6ljc01b3qgekdc9u...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:00:11 +0100, "Scott"
>>>> <som...@spamtrap.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her
>>>body,
>
>I don't believe this for a second.
Nor do I.
>16% of her body is >32% of the
>front of her body.
There's a rule-of-thumb for estimating the extent of burns known as the
'rule of nines'. Each leg is 2X9% (i.e. 18%) of the total body area,
each side of the torso another 18%, the arms and head/neck 9% each and
the genitals 1%.
>Unless the liquid was forced upwards at a
>horrendous speed, and over a wide area, its impossible for her to have
>received even contact from the liquid, let alone 3rd degree burns, to
>that extent.
It's not ordinarily possible to get 3rd degree burns (in which the whole
thickness of the dermis is destroyed) from something like coffee unless
contact with a large enough volume of it to retain its temperature after
contact with the skin is maintained for long enough to do the necessary
damage.
3rd-degree scalds do happen, as when children tip the contents of
saucepans over themselves, or people fall into baths of hot water, but I
think it most unlikely that you could get one from a cup of coffee in
the circumstances described.
That said, a few days down the line there may be no way of
distinguishing between a badly-treated (infected) 2nd-degree burn (much
more likely) and a 3rd degree one, so knowing the socio-legal
environment in which American doctors have to operate (no pun) I think
it's more likely that someone exaggerated the extent of the original
injury to cover for not having dealt with it properly in the first
place.
>But as long as someone else is going to foot the bill,
>who cares, I guess....
Indeed.
Cynic
>> If you make hot tea at below the temperature
>> that is capable of causing serious burns, I doubt many people will
>> accept an offer from you of a cup of tea! Have you ever *tasted* tea
>> made with water at 65 deg C?
> Making the drink is different from storing the drink.
Let's see. I put a teabag into a cup. I boil water. I pour the *boiling*
water into the cup. In my case I use powdered milk & sugar. I carry the
cup of tea into the next room. The time between pouring water at 100 deg C
and serving is usually less than a minute. The heat absorbed by the tea
bag, powdered milk & sugar is negligible. I have not measured the
temperature, but I would be surprised if it is less than 80 deg C at the
time I put the cup on the table.
>> It was a complaint of the people who
>> climbed Everest that it was impossible to make a decent cup of tea at
>> that altitude. I would anyway dispute that 180 deg F is "near
>> boiling" (it is over 30 deg F cooler), but that is beside the point.
> 180f to 190f. Don't forget that the graph of damage vs temperature is
> logarithmic, so at the top of the graph there is not much difference. As
> temperature drops the amount of damage caused drops dramatically. This
> seems to have escaped most people contributing to this thread.
I read that the logarithmic scale referred to *time* rather than
temperature, but perhaps I mis-read.
>>> Between 1982 and 1992 COMPANYX[1] had 700 claims from people burnt by
>>> coffee.
>> Unimpressive. An average of 70 claims per year out of I'd guess
>> hundreds of thousands of customers a *day*. It is an insignificant
>> percentage.
> Cobblers. That's more than one per week. How many of those needed
> hospital treatment. Imagine if it were not burns but mild stomache upset
> that was being caused; they'd be shut down.
The numbers are irrelevant of themselves. It is the percentage of customers
that give the probability of injury, and thus the level of risk involved.
>> I expect many are unaware of the difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd
>> degree burns ( which are no longer terms used in the UK anyway). I
>> would however expect them to be aware that spilling hot coffee on
>> yourself is likely to result in injury, and take care to avoid it
>> happening.
> They'd take more care if they thought they were at risk of a third degree
> burn?
I honestly don't believe so. It can be reasonably assumed that people will
ordinarily take care to avoid anything that is very painful. The details of
the exact medical consequences are unlikely to affect their action
significantly if they know that a risk of painful injury exists.
>> When I serve tea & coffee to guests, my cups have no warnings on them
>> whatsoever! Do yours?
> Have you ever measured the temperature at which you serve drinks? Try
> it, you might be suprised. Most drinks served at home are about 55 to 60
> degrees celcius. COMPANYX was serving drinks at about 83, or higher,
> degrees celcius.
I have answered the first part. A UK court came to the opposite conclusion
regarding the temperature that other establishments served hot drinks.
> In fact, I do often say something like "watch out, it's hot!" to people.
> Especially if I haven't added milk.
I do if I am serving a child. An adult may find such a warning to be
patronising.
>> If not, do you regard yourself as negligent?
> If I had managed to disfigure many people over the years
Think of the percentages, not the numbers. If the same percentage of your
guests had suffered injury as your figures indicate about McDonalds, then
assuming that you serve 7 guests in your home every day (an abnormal amount
of socialising) and McDonalds have an average of 10000 customers a day over
all their US outlets (I should think a gross under-estimate), you could
expect an incident every 1000 years or so. I don't think that anyone would
consider one accident every thousand years to indicate negligence.
> and if I knew
> that my coffee was much hotter than other people's coffee, and if I knew
> that my guests were unaware of the risk of a full thickness burn from my
> coffee, if I had received warnings from a national burns unit about the
> temperature of coffee then yes, I would think about how I served my
> coffee.
I doubt that many of your guests *are* aware that coffee at 65 deg C can
result in a full thickness burn. So do you tell them this before serving
them? Do you ask each guest what temperature they make their hot drinks at
home in order to ascertain whether the temperature of yours is much hotter
than they may be accustomed to?
>> Or perhaps you give a safety briefing every tea-time.
> 'HOT!' seems easy enough. Really, how much would that have cost to
> implement? They change the packaging quite often; it could have been
> incorporated into some new design.
I suppose they had better put "COLD!" on their ice cream as well. And
"SALTY!" on their salt. Do you really seriously believe that there are many
adults in the US who are blissfully unaware that coffee is often served at
temperatures that can burn?
In any case, litigation has resulted in companies putting stupid warnings on
their products to such an extent that people no longer take a lot of notice
of them. Which means that the warnings that *are* necessary get ignored
along with the rest. When I bought an aluminium ladder in the US a few
years ago, it was covered with so many warning stckers that hardly any metal
was visible. I read most of them for their amusement value, but I doubt
many people bother.
--
Cynic
IanAl
<2876...@tmicha.net> wrote:
>bigbrian <harr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:erekc0prptgghceer...@4ax.com:
>>>>Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of
>>>>her grandson's car having purchased a cup of McDonald's coffee. After
>>>>the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees
>>>>while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring
>>>>scalding hot coffee onto her.
>
>IANAL wrote:-
>
>>>What a stupid thing to do. 100% responsible.
>She was sitting down. Spilling coffee caused it to pool around her
>groin, thighs and buttocks. She was wearing 'sweatpants', which held
>scalding liquid close to her skin for longer.
>You've demonstrated ignorance of the facts. It is pointless discussing
>a case with osmeone who is making basic errors of fact about that case,
>and disputing facts which nobody involved in the case was disputing.
>She was a little olld lady who had *never* before filed suit against
>anyone, who had tried to settle with COMPANYX for cost of medical bills,
>and who was turned away by a company who had been maiming people for
>many years.
>
>COMPANYX knew that most customers did not realise that it was possible
>to get a full thickness burn from the coffee. COMPANYX knew that many
>people had been harmed by the coffee (700 in the past 10 years).
>COMPANYX knew that their coffee was much hotter than other companies
>coffee. COMPANYX ignored warnings froma national burns centre about the
>temperature of drinks. Knowing all of this COMANYX still chose not to
>give any warnings.
>
>Perhaps you're not sure what a full thickness burn is?
>Perhaps you're somehow thinking that a liquid that causes a full
>thickness burn in two seconds is normal?
>
>Text about burns:
><http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Burns?open>
>
>Plugging "full thickness burns" into Google image search will show you
>the severity of the injuries this woman recieved.
We're not disputing her injuries, but her irresponsible attitude to
her own safety, and apparent wish to 'milk the system' for all it's
worth. Apart from the fact that increases in the company's expenses
are bound to result in either increased prices for customers or
reduced pay for staff, any degree of success in this type of action
can only encourage others to take similar frivolous actions.
Crunchie
>
> Let's see. I put a teabag into a cup. I boil water. I pour the
*boiling*
> water into the cup. In my case I use powdered milk & sugar. I carry the
> cup of tea into the next room. The time between pouring water at 100 deg
C
> and serving is usually less than a minute. The heat absorbed by the tea
> bag, powdered milk & sugar is negligible. I have not measured the
> temperature, but I would be surprised if it is less than 80 deg C at the
> time I put the cup on the table.
>
Mug of tea, 250ml water 20ml milk 1 tsp sugar after 1 minute brew and 1
minute rest was 64.7C just tested with a digital food probe :)
Crunch....................
Cynic
You surprise me. Do you pour the water directly into a cup as I do, or are
you using a teapot - there would be quite a difference. 1 minute to brew is
quite a bit - dunking the teabag a few times takes me about 10 seconds.
And, that 20ml of milk, presumably from the 'fridge will pull the
temperature down quite a bit. Do the same thing using powdered milk as I
do. Also depends on the material your cups are made from of course.
> Crunch....................
I'd perform the test on my arrangement if I had a thermometer handy, but I
don't. I do have a cup of tea in front of me however, which I am taking
care not to spill on myself because it would undoubtedly cause a very
painful scald.
--
Cynic
bigbrian
wrote:
>"Demetrius Zeluff" <2876...@tmicha.net> wrote
>
>
>>> Unimpressive. An average of 70 claims per year out of I'd guess
>>> hundreds of thousands of customers a *day*. It is an insignificant
>>> percentage.
>
>> Cobblers. That's more than one per week. How many of those needed
>> hospital treatment. Imagine if it were not burns but mild stomache upset
>> that was being caused; they'd be shut down.
>
>The numbers are irrelevant of themselves. It is the percentage of customers
>that give the probability of injury, and thus the level of risk involved.
Its one incident per 24 million cups sold. If the coffee is
"unreasonably dangerous" (the wording used in claim), one would expect
a significantly rate of attributable injury
Brian
bigbrian
<2876...@tmicha.net> wrote:
>(I've fscked the attribs, sorry.)
>
>bigbrian <harr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:erekc0prptgghceer...@4ax.com:
>
>I wrote:-
>
>>>>Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of
>>>>her grandson's car having purchased a cup of McDonald's coffee. After
>>>>the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees
>>>>while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring
>>>>scalding hot coffee onto her.
>
>IANAL wrote:-
>
>>>What a stupid thing to do. 100% responsible.
>>
>> Have to agree. Also, IIRC, she was wearing shorts at the time.
>> Leaving aside the aesthetic implications of a 79 year old woman in
>> shorts, you don't have to be Einstein to figure out that placing a cup
>> of what you hope is a hot liquid between your legs in a moving car
>> isn't a smart idea.
>You've mangaged to cram so many inaccuracies into this one paragraph
>it's hard to start correcting them.
But some people just can't resist the urge to try, I guess. Its a pity
(but not much of a surprise) that you chose to do it in the tone you
did, though. Wondering if I'm in the right group here.....
>3) "what you hope is a hot liquid" - the liquid was much hotter than
> most other places sold coffee.
McDonalds quality control indicates that its coffee should be served
between 180 and 190 degrees
The National Coffee Association (NCAUSA) recommends coffee be brewed
at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and
drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be
"maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit"
Its hardly McDonalds fault if they follow the guidelines with greater
enthusiasm than others. But no one sues the NCAUSA for having
guidelines that will injure people if applied. A cynic would conclude
that that was because the NCAUSA doesn't have as much money as
McDonalds. On the other hand, it might be because an accident rate of
700 incidents in 10 years is so small - 1 per 24 million cups sold,
in fact - that it falls into the "there's always going to be one
idiot" category. Somehow nearly 17 billion cups of "unreasonably
dangerous" coffee managed to be drunk without incident. Guess they
were all lucky
>[snip]
>
>>>>She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her
>>>>body,
>>
>> I don't believe this for a second.
>
>What you believe is of no consequence. COMPANYX did not question the
>amount or severity of burning.
Do carry on,. please :-)
>> 16% of her body is >32% of the front of her body. Unless the liquid
>> was forced upwards at a horrendous speed, and over a wide area, its
>> impossible for her to have received even contact from the liquid,
>> let alone 3rd degree burns, to that extent.
>
>She was sitting down. Spilling coffee caused it to pool around her
>groin, thighs and buttocks. She was wearing 'sweatpants', which held
>scalding liquid close to her skin for longer.
>
>You've demonstrated ignorance of the facts. It is pointless discussing
>a case with osmeone who is making basic errors of fact about that case,
>and disputing facts which nobody involved in the case was disputing.
There's that tone again
><http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm>
><http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm>
Lets take a look at that second link of yours there for a sec
"A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body"
Yes, thats 6%. And there are plenty of other reports with the same
figure, just as there are with 16%. Looks like someone might actually
have disputed it after all
As someone once said
You've demonstrated ignorance of the facts. It is pointless
discussing a case with osmeone who is making basic errors of fact
about that case, and disputing facts which nobody involved in the case
was disputing.
So I won't bother any more
Brian
bigbrian
>In uk.legal.moderated on Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:20:07 +0100, bigbrian
><harr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>} Leaving
>}aside the aesthetic implications of a 79 year old woman in shorts, you
>}don't have to be Einstein to figure out that placing a cup of what you
>}hope is a hot liquid between your legs in a moving car isn't a smart
>}idea.
>
>The car was not moving when the spill happened.
So I understand.
Brian
Demetrius Zeluff
news:3tllc0p6tc4lj9e6q...@4ax.com:
[snip]
> We're
What's this we?
> not disputing her injuries
Some people have.
> but her irresponsible attitude to
> her own safety, and apparent wish to 'milk the system' for all it's
> worth.
Except she asked for USD20,000 to cover expenses. The only reason she got
more is because COMPANYX declined to settle, and took it to court. (She
had never filed against anyone before.) The Judge seemed to think that her
original request for USD20k was too low, and awarded nearly USD500k.
> Apart from the fact that increases in the company's expenses
> are bound to result in either increased prices for customers or
> reduced pay for staff, any degree of success in this type of action
> can only encourage others to take similar frivolous actions.
It isn't frivolous. They knew the coffee was hotter than anyone elses,
they knew many people injured themselves, they knew their customers
underestimated the danger, they ignored warnings, they chose not to provide
warnings and to continue serving coffee at that high temperature.
COMPANYX has a *huge* amount of money; if they couldn't win the case it is
because it has merit.
Alan Hope
>Also, IIRC, she was wearing shorts at the time. Leaving
>aside the aesthetic implications of a 79 year old woman in shorts, you
>don't have to be Einstein to figure out that placing a cup of what you
>hope is a hot liquid between your legs in a moving car isn't a smart
>idea. But as long as someone else is going to foot the bill, who
>cares, I guess....
She wasn't wearing shorts. She was wearing sweatpants which maintained
the scalding coffee on her skin.
And the car was not in motion. Her nephew had pulled over and stopped
before she opened the cup to add cream and sugar.
But why check the facts before commenting?
--
AH
Alan Hope
>We're not disputing her injuries, but her irresponsible attitude to
>her own safety, and apparent wish to 'milk the system' for all it's
>worth. Apart from the fact that increases in the company's expenses
>are bound to result in either increased prices for customers or
>reduced pay for staff, any degree of success in this type of action
>can only encourage others to take similar frivolous actions.
By that logic, noone should ever sue a company for anything,
regardless of their degree of negligence, because it forces the
customers to pay.
The principle of corporate liability is wiped out at a stroke.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>"Demetrius Zeluff" <2876...@tmicha.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns9506101B26862...@news-60.giganews.com...
>> IanAl <m...@privacy.net> wrote in news:ek6kc01fdtsl6v4ki178b5pmg464bou06q@
>> 4ax.com:
>> > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:50:06 +0100, Demetrius Zeluff
>> > <2876...@tmicha.net> wrote:
>> >>She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her
>> >>body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment
>> >>for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability
>> >>for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994.
>> >>Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s
>> >>for $20,000.
>> > Greedy cow.
>> How the fuck is this not insulting or hurtful to others?
>If the mods thought that the greedy cow would be reading this newsgroup,
>they would reject such posts.
Presumably since the group is carried on Google, the posts are able to
be read by anyone in the world with an Internet connection? What if
such a person did a search on McDonald's and coffee, for instance?
>> Or potentially
>> defamatory, considering a jury agreed that she had not been greedy but had
>> been harmed by COMPANY-X
>
>I don't think the jury had to make any finding about whether she was greedy.
>But to be fair, in the USA a piffling sum like 20k dollars wouldn't go far
>towards paying for a skin graft and followup treatment.
>
>
--
AH
Alan Hope
>> >> ---cut here---
>> >> http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
>> > snipped
Tea ought indeed to be brewed at such temperatures, but it ought also
to be allowed to stand for five minutes thereafter.
>Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the
>temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee
>served at between 55 C and 60 C would not have been acceptable to McDonald’s
>customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able
>to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at
>least 65 C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for
>the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a
>scalding injury if the drink is spilled. "
>> I'd be interested to nkoe if you think companyX had lousy lawyers or the
>> UK claiments had a lousy expert witness?
>I think in the USA the decisions are made by gullible juries who think the
>defendant has a bottomless purse, whereas in the UK the decisions are made
>by judges who are better able to see both sides of the argument.
>I really cannot understand why big business in the USA, which usually wields
>such power over presidents, has not yet been able to reform the system of
>justice and remove the decision-making from juries. I fail to see the point
>of regularly having trials in which the jury awards millions of dollars
>whereupon the case goes to appeal and the award is routinely reduced to
>thousands of dollars. It's like trial by chimp. The first part of the
>process is a complete waste of money. Which of course is part of the reason
>why awards are so high, because the jury knows the lawyers will take about
>half the damages to pay their costs.
The answer may lie in the comparative lobbying clout of lawyers
themselves, none of whom lose in these cases, whatever the outcome.
--
AH
The Todal
"Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:m3omc050pgtrpj4o4...@4ax.com...
> The Todal goes:
>
> >"Demetrius Zeluff" <2876...@tmicha.net> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9506101B26862...@news-60.giganews.com...
> >> IanAl <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
news:ek6kc01fdtsl6v4ki178b5pmg464bou06q@
> >> 4ax.com:
> >> > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:50:06 +0100, Demetrius Zeluff
> >> > <2876...@tmicha.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her
> >> >>body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool
treatment
> >> >>for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and
disability
> >> >>for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994.
> >> >>Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with
McDonald's
> >> >>for $20,000.
>
> >> > Greedy cow.
>
> >> How the fuck is this not insulting or hurtful to others?
>
> >If the mods thought that the greedy cow would be reading this newsgroup,
> >they would reject such posts.
>
> Presumably since the group is carried on Google, the posts are able to
> be read by anyone in the world with an Internet connection? What if
> such a person did a search on McDonald's and coffee, for instance?
She might be shamed into giving the money back, maybe...
When she starts contributing to u-l-m, we will not permit any "greedy cow"
comments thereafter. The moderation rules are really for the benefit of the
contributors to the group rather than for the benefit of the world at large.
It would be a terrible thing if people felt they had to be polite about
Warmonger Blair and his cabinet of self-serving hypocrites.
IanAl
<2876...@tmicha.net> wrote:
>COMPANYX has a *huge* amount of money;
Do you think that it is more acceptable to shoplift from large stores
than steal from your next door neighbour?
Cynic
> By that logic, noone should ever sue a company for anything,
> regardless of their degree of negligence, because it forces the
> customers to pay.
> The principle of corporate liability is wiped out at a stroke.
There is actually some merit in that argument. If you believe in the
American concept of allowing "market forces" to run free, then it follows
that companies will develop so as to provide what the public want - and if
the public want cheaper prices at the expense of safety, why should such a
"market force" suffer interference? If OTOH the consumer wants protection,
then the companies who sell dangerous goods and services will not get any
custom, and so will be forced out of the market.
In a nutshell, the consumer is the person really at fault.
--
Cynic
IanAl
>IanAl goes:
>
>>We're not disputing her injuries, but her irresponsible attitude to
>>her own safety, and apparent wish to 'milk the system' for all it's
>>worth. Apart from the fact that increases in the company's expenses
>>are bound to result in either increased prices for customers or
>>reduced pay for staff, any degree of success in this type of action
>>can only encourage others to take similar frivolous actions.
>
>By that logic, noone should ever sue a company for anything,
>regardless of their degree of negligence, because it forces the
>customers to pay.
I regard it as acceptable if the cause is just and the amount modest.
Scott
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cag076$5r6$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> "Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote
>
> > By that logic, noone should ever sue a company for anything,
> > regardless of their degree of negligence, because it forces the
> > customers to pay.
>
> > The principle of corporate liability is wiped out at a stroke.
>
> There is actually some merit in that argument. If you believe in the
> American concept of allowing "market forces" to run free, then it follows
> that companies will develop so as to provide what the public want - and if
> the public want cheaper prices at the expense of safety, why should such a
> "market force" suffer interference?
Because the market forces cannot act sufficiently quickly. A manufacturer
who built electrical goods with dangerous, but cheap, internal wiring might
undercut the market without the public being aware of the risks. Had they
known, a reasonable person would not buy the goods because of that risk.
Unfortunately they will not know of the risks until they have parted with
their money.
D.M. Procida
> >COMPANYX has a *huge* amount of money;
>
> Do you think that it is more acceptable to shoplift from large stores
> than steal from your next door neighbour?
Yes, I do.
Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140
IanAl
wrote:
>The court decides the amount surely and if the court says it is just
>and equitable what is wrong with that!!!!
The court might be unjust and inequitable. Many are.
Jo Lonergan
Cup of coffee 150 ml, made by electric expresso machine (forces water
at just under boiling point through the coffee) into well warmed cup,
immediately tested with meat thermometer: 67.5 C, 155 F (the meat
thermometer is obviously a blunt instrument)
Subjective impression (female tester): very hot but still within easy
drinking range and unlikely to cause any damage in contact with skin
(finger, I couldn't get my elbow into the cup).
One thing that hasn't come up in this thread is that the skin is more
easily damaged as people get older, and takes much longer to heal, so
the elderly lady in question may have suffered worse injury than a
younger person would have.
As to the merits of McDonalds' case, what I've read of their own
employees' testimony would have inclined me, had I been on the jury,
to hit them with the maximum. Don't they have a PR department?
--
Jo
PeteM
>Following that, there was a case - I don't have the details to hand - of a woman
>visiting her doctor
>for a routine examination, during which the doctor established that she had been
>branded (or
>scarred I don't remember which) on her buttocks, with her husband's initials. This
>was part of an
>S&M playtime thing they had going and was again, entirely consensual. The
>doctor reported his
>findings to the police, who, in spite of the assertions by the wife that it was
>entirely consensual,
>and, presumably buoyed by the details of the Spanner case, proceeded with a
>charge. The judge
>threw the case out, slamming the prosecution as a waste of time and money, and
>made a
>statement to the effect that the courts shouldn't be getting involved in what a
>consenting husband
>and wife get up to in the privacy of the marital bedroom
Do you know if anything happened to the doctor? Was he reported to the
GMC? His behaviour seems to have been a gross breach of medical
confidentiality, and potentially highly damaging to the doctor-patient
relationship.
--
PeteM
bigbrian
I don't, but looking again for some information, I've found the
details of the case. It was R v Wilson fom 1996 (also known as the
Doncaster Bottom Branders case). Rv Brown (Spanner) dates from 1993,
although was still in the ECHR in late 1996.
It was the Court of Appeal who overturned Wilson's conviction for ABH,
commenting that the brands were a "desirable bodily adornment",
although in reality they no less severe than the injuries in the Brown
case.
As it heppens, in between the two cases, the 1994 Crown Prosecution
Service guidelines defining ABH were modified to define it as a
"moderately severe injury", , and one which requires stitches. Since
none of the defendants in R v Brown required any kind of
hospitalisation, such a charge now for the same offences wouldn't
stick, although there are obviously other kinds of assault charges
that could be brought
It seems the law seeks to justify the apparent discrepancy in the
treatment by differentiating the motives. Where the end result is
"desirable bodily adornment" it seems to be OK, but where the acts
were prompted by "the satisfaction of a sadomasochistic libido". it
seems to be contrary to public policy to allow consent.
Brian
bigbrian
>On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:00:12 +0100, bigbrian wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I don't, but looking again for some information, I've found the
>>details of the case. It was R v Wilson fom 1996 (also known as the
>>Doncaster Bottom Branders case). Rv Brown (Spanner) dates from 1993,
>>although was still in the ECHR in late 1996.
>>
>>It was the Court of Appeal who overturned Wilson's conviction for ABH,
>>commenting that the brands were a "desirable bodily adornment",
>>although in reality they no less severe than the injuries in the Brown
>>case.
>>
>>As it heppens, in between the two cases, the 1994 Crown Prosecution
>>Service guidelines defining ABH were modified to define it as a
>>"moderately severe injury", , and one which requires stitches. Since
>>none of the defendants in R v Brown required any kind of
>>hospitalisation, such a charge now for the same offences wouldn't
>>stick, although there are obviously other kinds of assault charges
>>that could be brought
>>
>>It seems the law seeks to justify the apparent discrepancy in the
>>treatment by differentiating the motives. Where the end result is
>>"desirable bodily adornment" it seems to be OK, but where the acts
>>were prompted by "the satisfaction of a sadomasochistic libido". it
>>seems to be contrary to public policy to allow consent.
>
>The other difference, of course, is that between gay groups and
>heterosexual married couples.
>The Court of Appeal, per Russell L.J., said that
>"Consensual activity between husband and wife, in the privacy of the
>matrimonial home, is not, in our judgment, a proper matter for
>criminal investigation, let alone criminal prosecution."
Indeed, its an obvious difference, but one which the law didn't
directly address. While the R v Wilson judgement did mention husband
and wife relationships, it didn't do so to the specific exclusion of
same sex relationships, and there's nothing in the R v Brown judgement
that would indicate that it couldn't have been applied to
"satisfaction of a [heterosexual] sadomasochistic libido"
Which is not to say that it would :-)
Brian