module

...I used to think the "coffee is hot" jokes were funny on late-night TV. Then I watched the HBO documentary "Hot Coffee" and it brought up some good questions. I don't find "coffee is hot" jokes so funny anymore.

https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/hot.../synopsis.html

eja_ bottecchia

You got it...

eja_ bottecchia

A well informed public is the antidote to Internet rumor mongering.

ngateguy

I just bought a bike from them and picked it up Saturday and did not have to sign this kind of waiver. They did hand me a pamphlet about safe riding but no waiver.

John Forester

Originally Posted by John Forester
Now do you understand why it was a good thing that the directors of Derby Cycle got hit for $7 million for failing to provide the legally required instruction that safety requires the use of a headlamp when cycling at night?



When the highest US bicycle-design-safety regulator, and the bicycle manufacturers, and, to a contributing extent the manufacturers of reflective materials, all have stated that the all-reflector system is all that is required to be safe when cycling at night, for so long and so extensively that some 3/4 of the US population believe that their all-reflector system does what they claim, you, genec, disagree when one of these organizations is made to pay reasonable reparations for injuries caused to someone who acted in accordance with that nonsense.

Genec, do you have any sense of justice?

KonAaron Snake 

In fact Mcdonalds was grossly negligent in that case and had their coffee at an unsafe temperature across the board. They were aware of problems, knew of injuries, were advised about negligence and continued to behave poorly. The famous million dollar settlement was later overturned by a judge and the reward as a few hundred thousand for legitimate extensive medical bills. She had 3rd degree burns. The particular Mcdonalds involved had a broken thermostat as I recall...and they left it unfixed after failed inspections.

If the coffee case is the best the tort reformers can find, they truly have an incredibly weak position - that case is an example of the system working. The fact that it is endlessly quoted is a testament to the stupidity of our populace, and the tort reform movement. I've spilled coffee on myself - and I've never received third degree burns from it.

ngateguy

I would be interested in finding out if this was overturned on appeal. Most lawsuits judgements are overturned or the penalty is drastically cut, as with the famous MacDonald coffee lawsuit, once it gets out of the hands of a jury.

module

I'm glad to hear that your location didn't ask you to sign any paperwork at all. My location tried to do the "just sign here to acknowledge that we properly setup your bike"...and when reading the form the language I objected to was hidden in the back page.

In fact the standard REI drop-off form for bicycle maintenance includes the exact same terms-and-conditions. When I spoke to a senior person at REI about this I was told that all locations use the same forms.

...just be mindful of that if you ever bring your bike in for maintenance or adjustments.

ngateguy

That might be the difference I picked mine up in the box. I prefer putting my own bikes together.

genec

Do you EVER put hot coffee between your legs? Or are you just wise enough to consider that the end result might be painful?

John Forester

My understanding is that the award remained. The young victim was so badly injured that the best job he will probably ever get is restaurant dishwasher and he will always have to have his behavior supervised for his entire life. That ain't cheap.

Keith99

Actually the McDondald's case and the Derby case have one thing in common.

Note that the McDondald's case involved selling the coffee at the drive through. That means they were implicitly saying the coffee was safe for transport. It was not. If the earlier post regarding the Derby case was accurate then they explicitly said the reflectors would do the job at night. They clearly did not.

In some other ways the cases are polar opposites. McDondalds was aware of the problem and there was documentation that they felt that they would make more than enough extra money to cover the cost of any lawsuits. Bad mistake as that is the kind of thing that leads to huge punitive damages. Derby seems totally unaware of the real world in more ways than one.

Chicago Al 

I remember reading some time ago on the CR list or somewhere, a comment from someone who was in the bike industry back in the 'boom' years, that the Nishiki importer, Derby, was a terrible company to deal with on a business level. Perhaps that was a sign of their 'corporate culture,' which also showed in their performance in that lawsuit.

module

I prefer setting up my own bikes as well. Check the packing list within your box. You will see the setup form as initialed by the REI employee who tested the bike before placing it in the shipping box. On the back of that form you will find the language that I found disagreeable.

As long as you setup and maintain your own bike, REI is less concerned that you will prevail in a lawsuit.

However, if you ever bring your bike to REI for setup, repair or maintenance they will not allow you to leave your bike until you sign the legal release. If they do it right they will clearly disclose this before performing services or taking your money. My experience is they tried to present the document at the last minute before letting me leave the store.

KonAaron Snake 

If I put coffee between my legs, received third degree burns and the company refused to pay bills after being warned on several occasions that their coffee was dangerous and people were hurt - and the particular McDonald's had failed inspections on their coffee machine - you're damn right I'd sue. They were warned that what they were doing was dangerous, there were prior injuries, they behaved like asshats to her after their negligence and after they were correctly found negligent, they whined and pretended to be a victim.

If you owned a restaurant, would you continue using a coffee machine that failed an inspection? If you owned the corporation, would you sell liquid at 145 degrees (20 over "normal"), after causing several injuries, though a drive through window? I would not sell coffee at temperatures resulting in skin grafts after my internal counsel advised me we were negligent and vulnerable. Thy made a poor, stupid decision based on a foolish risk profile. In fact, they got away easy in the end.

genec

Ah yes... "they" are the problem. People refuse to use common sense and not do stupid things... such as put hot coffee in a place it should not be... so the big pockets are the issue... sue "them," not the people doing stupid things.

Riding a bicycle at night... without a light... ah yes, must be the bicycle manufacture that is so stupid as to not put a light on a bike.

Man puts milkshake between legs, spills same, has collision due to distraction... ah, yes, must be the shake is "too cold." SIGH.


BTW I noticed your reply began with "if I put coffee between my legs..." So again I wonder... do you ever do this...

ItsJustMe

Whether someone puts the coffee between their legs or not is irrelevant. Sometimes people spill things. The coffee in this case was served so hot that if spilled on clothing, it would cause 3rd degree burns before the person could do anything about it. They had received multiple complaints that the coffee was FAR too hot, and there was NO good reason for it to be that hot. They had been informed of multiple previous injuries. They had defective equipment that they knew was defective. In spite of all this, they did nothing.

Honestly, this is more along the lines of if a bicycle company provided defective reflectors and knew they were doing it. It's a bad analogy to this case.

John Forester

Wake up, Genec, use your brains. That was not the argument at all. The manufacturer was one of those campaigning, very effectively, for cyclists to ride at night with only the 10-reflector system. That's the nastiness of this situation. If people like that got what they really deserve, there would be many more with nasty lifelong disabilities.

genec

I don't care if the manufacture was campaigning for someone to ride on a bare seat post... at some point the USER is responsible for engaging their own brains and figuring out that perhaps a seat is a better solution... or in this case, a damn light.

Passing on that personal responsibility seems to be a favorite past time here in the US.

But no, in this country we have to have 3x5 warning labels on hair dryers, electric blankets and extension cords because people refuse to be responsible for the use of these things... and we have to put signs on street corners telling drivers what they should already know... to NOT hit the peds. All indicators of a system gone insane.

howeeee

I believe in those cases you can not sign away your legal rights and probably the releases would not hold up in court.

ModeratedUser150120149

You would make your case more effectively if you left out the political diatribe. There is an argument to be made. I'll leave it to you to pull it out of the morass.

genec

I'm just going to drop it... although I do get a huge chuckle out of this forum demanding that cyclists have to pay attention, be aware, keep their heads on a swivel, and be responsible for themselves, while at the same time pointing out how this doesn't apply if one happens to "buy hot coffee..."

John Forester

You know, Genec, in this particular matter I entirely agree with you about personal responsibility.

I say that those persons and organizations who, for their own financial advantage, have been running a forty-five year campaign to persuade cyclists that the ten-reflector system provides adequate conspicuity when cycling at night, should indeed be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. But your previous posting says that you believe that they should not be held responsible.

I also say that those legally given the positions of bicycle equipment safety regulators, the bicycle specialists in the Consumer Product Safety Commission of the United States, should be held professionally negligent for not knowing that cycling at night requires a headlamp or, since they have been officially informed by many experts that headlamps are necessary for safety when cycling at night, should be prosecuted for corruption by writing into their safety regulation the words of those persons mentioned in the previous paragraph. I take it, Genec, that to be consistent you don't believe that these persons should be held responsible?

Yet, Genec, you assume that the common inexpert person should have the responsibility to determine that all these officials and their official regulations are wrong and that a headlamp is required for safety when cycling at night. You, Genec, absolve all those with the expert knowledge and responsibility to do right but who have deliberately, for their own financial and bureaucratic interests, been doing wrong, while placing full responsibility on the victim of this wrongdoing who is in the worst position to recognize right from wrong.

wphamilton

Genec is capable of making his own arguments, but I'll pose a question to you about product liability. I don't think you'll disagree that our laws and culture have for decades trended to shifting responsibility from the ultimate user of a product to those who have provided it.

Do you at least agree that there is some point at which this shifting of liability crosses the line from redressing injury resulting from reasonable use to holding others responsible for general stupidity, or careless disregard if you prefer? If so, do you believe that it requires expertise to realize that being invisible in the darkness in the path of high-speed vehicles is dangerous?

I think I will posit that this decades-long approach of shifting responsibility from the individual's own actions has conditioned them to greater carelessness. To the attitude that whatever may happen will become someone else's problem. When such individuals fall victim by their own actions, influenced by their unrealistic expectations regarding the consequences, who is really guilty of the wrong-doing? Perhaps those who promulgate and reinforce the dangerous world-view that holds others liable for our actions while we suffer the consequences.

genec

John, if the common man (inexpert person) would switch on their porch light before stepping out into the night, then I believe that person KNOWS they need light to see at night... everything else follows from that. (long long ago it was said, "it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness..." have we since lost that "common knowledge?")

The "experts" (heaven forbid) at CPSC (and in fact that whole organization... no doubt staffed with lawyers seeking to cover their/someones' behinds) should be promptly dumped... but that is a separate issue altogether, albeit somewhat related in the specific case you brought up.

Now of course we should be somewhat careful going down this slope... for one could easily argue that the common man would also not be foolish enough to ride a bicycle on roads filled with fast moving motor vehicles... and certainly this thought has been expressed by judges, LEOs, and of course, "the common man." (I can't help but wonder what sort of disclaimer the CPSC might put on a bicycle -- "Do not ride, may topple over.")