[Sandpaper]

Regarding the lawsuit against Remington Arms over their marketing tactics in relation to their liability in a crime. It seems to me that if found liable this would mean that if you are rear-ended in traffic by some buffoon in his Corvette you would then have a case against Chevrolet for marketing a race car to civilians. Am I missing the point? What do you think?

[Janik]

Yah, it's a head scratcher. I'm not understanding it at all. But it's scary. Drunk driver drank Bud Light? Sue Bud Light. I mean, they advertise too.

[Sandpaper]

I agree, and if I'm being fair this is a slippery slope argument. But the slope... it looks slippery.

[Bfgloki]

It’s already been abused: McDonalds made hot coffee. Woman ordered hot coffee cause she wanted hot coffee. Woman spilled hot coffee on herself and blamed McDonalds for giving her hot coffee.

[ncjw]

Regarding the lawsuit against Remington Arms over their marketing tactics in relation to their liability in a crime. It seems to me that if found liable this would mean that if you are rear-ended in traffic by some buffoon in his Corvette you would then have a case against Chevrolet for marketing a race car to civilians. Am I missing the point? What do you think?

Remington wanted SCOTUS to make a quick ruling to shut this down before they spent millions more defending it as it is, as you correctly state, complete nonsense (in lawyer speak, it is "a novel legal theory"...). Unfortunately, SCOTUS declined to hear it at this point. I am sure it is for completely political reasons, they don't want to touch a 2A case in this session before an election year (what??, SCOTUS is political - not a group of blind, justice seeking, holy wisemen???...).

The case isn't decided, so once the CT court decides against Remington (it will be a shocker if they actually follow the law and decide for Remington - again politics not justice), then SCOTUS will have another chance to intervene. We shall see then if any of the conservative block goes wobbly on 2A.

[Lgaam]

Even the CT Supreme Court, in overturning the Appeals Court decision, said that proving the case would be a "Herculean effort." The decision also provisionally allowed the suit to continue, though I'm not sure how they would revisit the issue as the case continues.

I'm not concerned about the merits of the case, based on the hyperbolic nature of the complaint filing. I know there are at least a few sane people left in CT, so getting a reasonable jury isn't outside the realm of possibility. The problem comes in the fact that defending against this tripe is not going to come cheap, and Remington isn't exactly in the best financial shape. Regardless of what they win or how they win it, the left will spin any morsel of a victory and get all full of themselves. Like they aren't unbearable to put up with, already.

[Weapon]

It’s already been abused: McDonalds made hot coffee. Woman ordered hot coffee cause she wanted hot coffee. Woman spilled hot coffee on herself and blamed McDonalds for giving her hot coffee.

The media did a wonderful job of misrepresenting that case (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants) and misleading people into believing McDonald's was not knowingly putting people at risk of serious harm. It was undoubtedly purposeful misrepresentation due to political and corporate influences.

Undisputed facts presented in that case (which the media conveniently never mentioned):
--By corporate specifications, McDonald's sold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. ~30˚ hotter than coffee made by the average home coffee maker or that served by many other coffee establishments;
--McDonald's admitted that its coffee was “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drank at that serving temperature;
--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 had 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 were 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;”
--Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.

Two jurors later commented on the case, one noting that McDonald’s showed “callous disregard for the safety of people” and another noting that the facts were “overwhelmingly against the company.”

As for how hot the coffee actually was....Liebeck received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body (third degree burns destroy both the epidermis and the dermis to where the skin cannot regenerate. The skin is burned all the way down to the muscle/fatty tissue layer.), was hospitalized for a total of eight days, had whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting (including vaginal skin grafts), scarring, and was disabled for more than two years. In her original claim against McDonald's, she wanted only to be compensated for her medical bills and for them to serve their coffee at a safer temperature. She offered to settle for $20,000, however, McDonald’s refused to settle and offered her $800.

After hearing all of the evidence, the jury unanimously voted to award Stella Liebeck $200,000 for compensatory damages and reduced it to $160,000 because they found she was 20% at fault. The jury awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. That amount was equal to just two days of McDonald’s coffee sales. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000 (total verdict $620,000), but he stated that McDonald’s had engaged in “willful, wanton and reckless” behavior. Liebeck and McDonald’s eventually settled the suit confidentially (supposedly for around $500k). She died in 2004 and supposedly never fully recovered from the injuries she sustained. McDonald's current policy is to serve coffee at 176–194°F but they now use cups made of much more rigid foam.

Interesting side note, years before the Liebeck case, 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. If McDonald's had partially followed that warning and lowered the serving temperature of their coffee to 145-155°, even if she had spilled the coffee on bare skin, the most she would have gotten would have been second degree burns.

Never believe the media when it comes to court cases as they almost always get it wrong and sometimes they do so on purpose.

[Badgerboy]

From what I read, the tact taken in the suit involved Remington's marketing strategy. They supposedly marketed the rifles as superior killing machines, and thus implied recommendation for their use in killing people. This would be akin to Miller Beer promoting their product as a driving aid...At least this is the understanding of the argument from what I read. I don't agree, but lawyers are professional spin-meisters, and can make juries believe black is white, wet is dry, and twist the definition of "is"...

[TL1000RSquid]

It’s already been abused: McDonalds made hot coffee. Woman ordered hot coffee cause she wanted hot coffee. Woman spilled hot coffee on herself and blamed McDonalds for giving her hot coffee.

The media did a wonderful job of misrepresenting that case (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants) and misleading people into believing McDonald's was not knowingly putting people at risk of serious harm. It was undoubtedly purposeful misrepresentation due to political and corporate influences.

Interesting side note, years before the Liebeck case, 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. If McDonald's had partially followed that warning and lowered the serving temperature of their coffee to 145-155°, even if she had spilled the coffee on bare skin, the most she would have gotten would have been second degree burns.

Never believe the media when it comes to court cases as they almost always get it wrong and sometimes they do so on purpose.

Still siding with McD's on this one, its coffee its expected to be very hot, and my coffee maker is set to 183 degrees. I want my coffee hot and to stay hot for awhile, especially at places where I need to park and have to add sugar and milk packets.

If an employees drops it on your lap from the window thats another story but if your an adult you should know coffee can burn you if you spill it on you. If i burn my balls with hot coffee thats on me not going to go calling my lawyer.

[Weapon]

It’s already been abused: McDonalds made hot coffee. Woman ordered hot coffee cause she wanted hot coffee. Woman spilled hot coffee on herself and blamed McDonalds for giving her hot coffee.

The media did a wonderful job of misrepresenting that case (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants) and misleading people into believing McDonald's was not knowingly putting people at risk of serious harm. It was undoubtedly purposeful misrepresentation due to political and corporate influences.

Interesting side note, years before the Liebeck case, 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. If McDonald's had partially followed that warning and lowered the serving temperature of their coffee to 145-155°, even if she had spilled the coffee on bare skin, the most she would have gotten would have been second degree burns.

Never believe the media when it comes to court cases as they almost always get it wrong and sometimes they do so on purpose.

Still siding with McD's on this one, its coffee its expected to be very hot, and my coffee maker is set to 183 degrees. I want my coffee hot and to stay hot for awhile, especially at places where I need to park and have to add sugar and milk packets.

If an employees drops it on your lap from the window thats another story but if your an adult you should know coffee can burn you if you spill it on you. If i burn my balls with hot coffee thats on me not going to go calling my lawyer.

Minor fact I forgot to mention - the cups they were serving their coffee in were not rated for those temperatures for any amount of time. If you took the lid off to add sugar or creamer, they would basically collapse from any lateral pressure.

[Lthrnck1775]

From what I read, the tact taken in the suit involved Remington's marketing strategy. They supposedly marketed the rifles as superior killing machines, and thus implied recommendation for their use in killing people. This would be akin to Miller Beer promoting their product as a driving aid...At least this is the understanding of the argument from what I read. I don't agree, but lawyers are professional spin-meisters, and can make juries believe black is white, wet is dry, and twist the definition of "is"...

Disagree.... apples and oranges. Beer is not intended as a "driving aid", how you abuse it is your issue. Rifles are *obviously* designed to kill things.... as the law provides. (Meaning animals if hunting, etc... or combatants if the cops/military buys it). Superior "Killing machine" does not automatically equate to people.... even if it did, does the law allow that? You're setting up a straw man argument.

Just my .02. When are people held accountable for mis-using a tool?

[Badgerboy]

From what I read, the tact taken in the suit involved Remington's marketing strategy. They supposedly marketed the rifles as superior killing machines, and thus implied recommendation for their use in killing people. This would be akin to Miller Beer promoting their product as a driving aid...At least this is the understanding of the argument from what I read. I don't agree, but lawyers are professional spin-meisters, and can make juries believe black is white, wet is dry, and twist the definition of "is"...

Disagree.... apples and oranges. Beer is not intended as a "driving aid", how you abuse it is your issue. Rifles are *obviously* designed to kill things.... as the law provides. (Meaning animals if hunting, etc... or combatants if the cops/military buys it). Superior "Killing machine" does not automatically equate to people.... even if it did, does the law allow that? You're setting up a straw man argument.

Just my .02. When are people held accountable for mis-using a tool?

I agree with you. I was just sharing the spin that I read...their justification for the lawsuit.