One bad lawsuit deserves another

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Sunday, July 27, 2003 | Tom Purcell

[Jean S]

According to The Washington Times, a dozen heavy drinkers in Glasgow, Scotland, are going to sue drink makers for not warning them about the dangers of alcohol. I don't know how the Scots got the jump on America, but I'm really worried.

[Chad Fairbanks]

I have an idea - drink makers should sue drinkers, and snack makers should sue fat people, for giving their products bad reputations ;0)

[conservative_2001]

This lawsuit will find its way into our courtroom in no time.

[SaudiDuck]

Re: the Mac's Lounge coffee spill...the initial award was for millions, and the gal did have 3rd degree burns on her woo woo, but the case was ultimately settled out of court for medical costs and a portion of her attorney's fees.

[Bluntpoint]

Thank God, the shyster in a pure nuisance suit got paid.

Everything is all right then.

That was, by all accounts, the only reason this suit went forward... attorney fees.

[Bluntpoint]

The only legitimate suit a lawyer can file, in my honest opinion, is a suit for "wrongful life" against his or her parents.

[Dahoser]

According to The Washington Times, a dozen heavy drinkers in Glasgow, Scotland, are going to sue drink makers for not warning them about the dangers of alcohol. I don't know how the Scots got the jump on America, but I'm really worried.

He forgets that horrible woman in Seattle who gave birth to a brain damaged child and despite admitting to drinking up to half a fifth of bourbon a day during her pregnancy, nevertheless sued Jim Beam for not warning her that it would harm her unborn child. The case was not laughed out of court as it should have been, but instead went to trial. Thankfully, a jury acquitted the company, but not before Beam had to fully defend itself against the absurdity that the tragic result of this woman's willful actions were its fault.

So, no, the Scots have not beaten us to any alcohol liability punch. Sad but true.

[DonQ]

Altho the McD's coffee case is often trotted out as an example of a silly lawsuit, in fact it was a very valid strike for consumers.

It turned out that McD's was keeping its coffee fully 50 degrees (F) hotter than any home perc would. This was official McDonald's policy for all its restaurants. Hardened truck drivers couldn't even drink it without waiting about 20 minutes for it to cool. Evidently the McD's strategy was that, by making people sit around waiting for their coffee to cool to a tolerable level, they might also order more food.

For years before the plaintiff in that case ever got her coffee at the McDonald's drive-thru window, the McDonald's HQ had gotten a LOT of complaints and reports of injuries about its super-heated coffee, yet they continued to serve their coffee hot enough to glow in the dark (figuratively). Nothing short of a major lawsuit by someone they had injured would have changed their way.