Me and My Nine Iron

September 25, 2012

Millionaire (only in America)


In July, Yahoo! posted an article it considered ten of the toughest games. From this list, I went on to play one of them, a computer game as stupid as it is difficult. (If you haven’t heard of it.)

QWOP

After introducing it to my two friends, we spent a night beating it. Well, my one friend went 100 yards dragging his right leg the whole way, but it was deemed fine by the game.

After you give up on that, check out this funny GIF.

A hilarious look into LeBron James‘ email account from the guy who wrote Sh*t My Dad Says, Justin Halpern.

Last Wednesday, a Denver man was awarded $7.2 million for being diagnosed with “popcorn lung,” possibly from inhaling the artificial butter smell of the microwave popcorn he ate. This has got to be up there with the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit, which had just a $2.9 million verdict, because the man kind of asked for it, eating two to three bags of microwave popcorn every day for ten years.

In a post-verdict interview, he remarks that he “probably looks like a fairly healthy guy.” Yeah, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t find anyone to agree with you, but have fun with your millions.

BJ

Advertisements

7 Comments »

  1. Actually, I read that “the popular perception of the case was materially accurate, claim that the vast majority of judges who consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury…” Her attorneys argued that the coffee’s temperature was “unreasonably dangerous” and “defective.”

    It appears that the facts of the case are very simple. An old lady spilled coffee on herself, got burned badly and wants the company to pay for her medical expenses when it had no wrongdoing. Unless you shed light on facts I’m (and the general public) unaware of, I have no remorse for this dumb hag.

    Comment by Bryan Jeon — September 26, 2012 @ 10:00 am | Reply

    • Nah, Ja-Hon’s right. This case is one of the most commonly misunderstood cases in tort reform. First, McD knowingly provides scalding hot coffee to make more money. During the trial it was exposed that it was a simple cost-benefit analysis. Will the potential for causing harm by providing a beverage at unsafe temperatures be worth the extra money those temperatures would bring in by having the beverages remain hot while customers transported their beverages to their home/office? I think we can agree that at some point, the temperature of a beverage becomes hot enough where the company should bear some liability.

      Second, when the woman asked for 20k in medical fees, McD dismissed her claim and treated her disrespectfully. She had 2 years of treatment and had permanent impairments. This wasn’t a frivolous lawsuit. Instead of recognizing that, they offered her 800 dollars and basically dared her to file a lawsuit.

      This misinformation surrounding this case has become popular enough that there’s even an HBO documentary(as JH mentioned) based on it. “It” being the misinformation spread by lobbyists under the guise of tort reform.

      Now I’m no liberal hippie and I believe in personal responsibility that’s severely lacking in America these days, but this isn’t the case to place that anger.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

      Comment by dan — October 1, 2012 @ 12:07 am | Reply

      • Per Wiki, a couple quotes from different cases: “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.” In another, “the opinion noted that hot coffee (179 °F (82 °C) in this case) is not “unreasonably dangerous,” a temperature colder than McDonald’s after the Liebeck lawsuit. Why is it that similar cases are being dismissed?

        Purists will tell you that they want their coffee or tea hotter than they can handle and then have it cool down to the temperature that they prefer. Spilling a hot drink has a risk of injury; opening a knowingly hot drink in between your legs dispels all responsibility for McDonald’s. I’m sure initially, Liebeck just wanted them to cover the medical bills. And McDonald’s is supposed to pick this up?

        Comment by Bryan Jeon — October 1, 2012 @ 9:58 am

    • Quick points:

      1) I don’t agree she bore the full assumption of risk as you suggest. The temperature and danger of the coffee wasn’t widely known at the time.

      2) If cases being dismissed imply frivolousness, do previous settlements imply guilt? Because McD settled a bunch of cases prior.

      3) She was definitely careless and didn’t “deserve” the money. But, the money was meant to penalize McD, not compensate her. The jury wanted to change McD’s practices and a small judgment wasn’t gonna do it.

      4) I don’t mind if you don’t agree with me, but I hope you see that this case is a bit more nuanced than you thought. I definitely don’t think it should be the case everyone thinks of when they think of tort reform.

      Comment by dan — October 1, 2012 @ 3:17 pm | Reply

      • 1) Since the case, I believe all they did with regards to their practices was lower the coffee temperature to about 180, still immediate-burn temp., and put a stern warning on the cup. The latter does nothing but make McDonald’s not liable and doesn’t really promote awareness of the dangers like they were punished to do.

        2) You and I both know that settlements don’t imply guilt. I’m inclined to believe a different judge could’ve thrown this case out as frivolous. A world of a difference.

        3) I believe the jury also wanted to reward an old woman who got burned badly. And it’s undeniable that juries oversympathize with the elderly.

        4) I feel like this is an example of when learned knowledge is clouding common sense. Take a step back and think about what you just said. The dangers of a hot drink wasn’t widely known at the time? Really? C’mon, we don’t need cases to prove what is already common sense. That’s what’s wrong with tort law today. If it’s not spelled out for us and plastered everywhere for us to see, it’s not our fault no matter how obvious the dangers.

        Comment by Bryan Jeon — October 1, 2012 @ 6:14 pm

    • Again, it’s not just ‘hot’ coffee, it’s scalding at a point it can cause severe burns within seconds.

      My second point was more rhetorical because you implied this case was frivolous because of other cases. My point was that this case is THIS case. Different sets of facts make all the difference in the world.

      If you still think this case should be the seminal case through which we should promote tort reform(your language “got to be up there with the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit” suggests you did), then you are much more pro-tort reform than I thought. Most people didn’t understand the severity of her injuries, didn’t realize that McD’s coffee’s history of burning customers, and didn’t know about her good-faith offers before the lawsuit. Was she careless? Did she deserve to even get her medical payments taken care of? Maybe not, but she’s hardly the money-hungry litigant most people think of when they hear about this case.

      Anyways, I think this is as far as this discussion can go online. This commenting system is pretty bad for discussions since I can’t direct reply to your replies and just general misunderstandings. We can talk more over lunch or a bball sesh.

      Comment by dan — October 1, 2012 @ 9:47 pm | Reply

  2. You should actually watch “Hot Coffee” (2010) and read up a bit more on tort law. That McDonald’s lawsuit was skewed by the media to sheer ludicrous fallacy. That lady absolutely deserved what she got for not just the medical expenses, but the ridiculous run around she was given. I don’t admit this lightly (you know how I am with gimmicks) but the grandma was definitely the victim.

    This popcorn lung pussy on the other hand, I agree with 100%.

    Comment by Ja-Hon Suh — September 25, 2012 @ 2:48 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: