NFC : Do you really have to tell people this?

Clyde,

It all has to do with the "dumbing down" of America. People are too f-ing stupid to read the labels. Our government is afraid that if people see "sugar free" they immediately think "diet", so we better make sure there is a warning that it is not for weight control. Duh! They are still cookies, and if 3 = 170 calories, it ain't diet food. Most Americans are too dumb to figure that out for themselves. And we wonder why our country is getting so FAT.

Okay, rant over.

Regards,
Steve

 

agreed, there are some dumbass people out there. Its quite shocking.

 

I dont think its the dumb asses that are creating this. Its the ****** that eats it, gets fatter and calls a great lawyer who then goes to town against wealthy Peppridge Farm who pays the attorney a few hundred grand to shut up his client and avoid bad press.


THATS why its on the label.


No kidding the contents in my coffee cup are extremely hot and can burn me. But its printed on every cup.

 

it is a shame it has come to this but if they do not make themselves totally clear they are open for law suits.

but you kinda have to admit their marketing techniques are a bit underhanded, *sugar-free, but still loaded w/ calories*

 

Ciao has it right. That's exactly what drives these stupid warnings -- corporate concerns of liability. I mean, seriously, do we really need "this bag should not be wrapped around your head" printed on plastic grocery bags??? Damn lawyers (Ahem, for those of you that are offended by this, please see my profile.)

By the way, on the famous McDonalds coffee cup case, I know from a guy who worked with the lawyers that tried it that there was more to it than that. The reason that particular jury hammered the Golden Arches that way was because their lawyers went after this poor (stupid, maybe, but poor) woman with a vengeance. They wouldn't even give her some free fries. They really pissed off the jury.

 

http://www.stellaawards.com/

Not sure how true this is or not and take it with a grain of salt but still an entertaining read.

The 2005 True Stella Awards Winners
by Randy Cassingham
Issued 31 January 2006

#7: Bob Dougherty. A prankster smeared glue on the toilet seat at the Home Depot store in Louisville, Colo., causing Dougherty to stick to it when he sat down. "This is not Home Depot's fault," he proclaimed, yet the store graciously offered him $2,000 anyway. Dougherty complained the offer is "insulting" and filed suit demanding $3 million.

#6: Barbara Connors of Medfield, Mass. Connors was riding in a car driven by her 70-year-old(!) son-in-law when they crashed into the Connecticut River, and Connors sank with the car. Rescue divers arrived within minutes and got her out alive, but Connors suffered brain damage from her near-drowning. Sue the driver? Sure, we guess that's reasonable. But she also sued the brave rescue workers who risked their lives to save hers.

#5: Michelle Knepper of Vancouver, Wash. Knepper picked a doctor out of the phone book to do her liposuction, and went ahead with the procedure even though the doctor was only a dermatologist, not a plastic surgeon. After having complications, she complained she never would have chosen that doctor had she known he wasn't Board Certified in the procedure. (She relied on the phonebook listing over asking the doctor, or looking for a certificate on his wall?!) So she sued ...the phone company! She won $1.2 million plus $375,000 for her husband for "loss of spousal services and companionship."

#4: Rhonda Nichols. She says a wild bird "attacked" her outside a home improvement store in Fairview Heights, Ill., causing head injuries. That's right: outside the store. Yet Nichols still held the Lowe's store responsible for "allowing" wild birds to fly around free in the air. She never reported the incident to the store, but still sued for "at least" $100,000 in damages. In January 2006, the case was thrown out of court.

#3: Barnard Lorence of Stuart, Fla. Lorence managed to overdraw his own bank account. When the bank charged him a service fee for the overdraft, he filed suit over his "stress and pain" and loss of sleep over the fee. A few hundred thousand bucks, he says, will only amount to a "slap on the wrist", whereas the $2 million he's suing for is more like being "paddled". Kinky!

#2: Wanita "Renea" Young of Durango, Colo. Two neighborhood teens baked cookies for their neighbors as an anonymous gesture of good will, but Young got scared when she heard them on her front porch. They apologized, in writing, but Young sued them anyway for causing her distress, demanding $3,000. When she won(!!) $900, she crowed about it in the newspaper and on national TV. Now, she's shocked (shocked!) that everyone in town hates her for her spite, and is afraid she may have to move. But hey: she won.

And the winner of the 2005 True Stella Award: Christopher Roller of Burnsville, Minn. Roller is mystified by professional magicians, so he sued David Blaine and David Copperfield to demand they reveal their secrets to him -- or else pay him 10 percent of their lifelong earnings, which he figures amounts to $50 million for Copperfield and $2 million for Blaine. The basis for his suit: Roller claims that the magicians defy the laws of physics, and thus must be using "godly powers" -- and since Roller is god (according to him), they're "somehow" stealing that power from him.

 

I think Nip should get together with Jawad and file suit against that Roller guy. Everyone on this forum knows NipTuck is god!! There can only be one.

Jawad: I get 10% of the loot for suggesting it.

 

Everyone blames the lawyers for these cases. Don't blame the lawyers -- blame the juries. If juries would throw these stupid cases out without awarding money, lawyers would stop bringing them. It's like any other business; if there is money to be made, why not give it a try? As long as lay jurors continue to award rediculous amounts of money in these nonsense cases, people will keep suing. When it is no longer profitable, people will stop.

You example is an apt one. In the actual "Stella" case against McDonalds, it was clear that she was at fault for her own injuries. She bought the coffee, knew it was hot, put it between her legs and tried to remove the lid while driving. It spilled, burning her legs. So why is McDonald's liable? Because other people had been burned before on their coffee and they were supposed to lower the temperature of the coffee they were serving, but didn't. Why not? Because people were complaining that their coffee wasn't HOT.

Common sense. Our world lacks basic common sense. Coffee is hot. If you spill it you will burn yourself. Be careful. Makes sense to me. But some jury of lay people awarded poor Stella $8 million, one day's profits from McDonald's worldwide coffee sales. If they'd sent her and all those people like her home without a dime, and said hey, next time use common sense, cases like this would never see the light of day.

Oh well. Enough of that. My $.02, FWIW.

 

I dont blame the jury. I blame the lawyers. Lawyers saw the merit to even GET the case to trial. If a lawyer is a great closer, he can convince the judge that the matter is significant enough to goto trial, based on law.

Once at trial the closer (lawyer) does his/her job to convince the jury to render decision.

If the matter of a hot cup of coffee burning someone opening it between their legs while driving and getting burned made it to trial--thats not the jury's fault. Thats the lawyer. Thats a damn good lawyer, in my book.

Ethically, should that lawyer have taken that case? No. But ethics dont pay our bills.

 

Clyde,

There is an old saying: "The only administrative post worth having is that of absolute King." Too bad, 'cause I think you or I would straighten things out really quickly. But such is life.

Say, do you think we could have a good class action against Ferrari? After all, they built these cars to be so attractive that they knew we couldn't resist buying them, thereby causing us to incur all kinds of unforeseen expenses and wasting large chunks of our time talking on line figuring out what to do with them. Mental anguish, pain and suffering (especially if you've ever tried to work on one of these cars yourself). Could be worth MILLIONS! Okay, who's in??

 

Blame Bill Clinton, if he had only killed Bin Laden....er wait, sorry wrong thread.

Why is it that these days, when something awful happens to somebody the first thing they think is "sue" and "how much can I get?" It sort of takes away the "victimization" of a victim when they can turn a life altering occurance to a massive cash windfall.

The whole thing sullies those people who truely are suing for a "just cause," as those who are suing manufactures of defective products, extreme negligence, and even discrimination are lumped together with the dude who was killed when he scaled a fence to play basketball and was electrocuted. I don't think physical suffering or even death is always an invitation to sue.

JMHO