29 replies to this topic

[Bill Z]

[_john_doe_]

If people start paying attention to the road while they are at the wheel, there shouldn't be a problem.

[Chad Vander Veen]

we're complaining about curbs now?

God, what next? Loud wind?

[Bill Z]

John & Mr. Vanderveen,

Have you seen these? It's not the curb on the edge of the sidewalk. It's this road hazard sitting between the gutter and the edge of the line marking the biketrail on the street. It's located where a new bike path will cross the street running through the fields where the powerlines are. If you haven't seen what I'm talking about, go drive by BT collins Park and look for yourself. Because the things are hazardous, they have orange cones around them, but eventually, those will be removed and this hard curb will be sitting in the street.

[_john_doe_]

I've seen them, and I don't see the issue with them.

So, like I said, if people are paying attention at the wheel, there shouldn't be any problems.

Some jackass driving down the residential street at 40MPH (which is common) not paying attention SHOULD hit them. And I hope they don't have a spare.

[Chad Vander Veen]

John & Mr. Vanderveen,

Have you seen these? It's not the curb on the edge of the sidewalk. It's this road hazard sitting between the gutter and the edge of the line marking the biketrail on the street. It's located where a new bike path will cross the street running through the fields where the powerlines are. If you haven't seen what I'm talking about, go drive by BT collins Park and look for yourself. Because the things are hazardous, they have orange cones around them, but eventually, those will be removed and this hard curb will be sitting in the street.

I know where they are and have seen them in many other cities. Not a big deal

[ChipShot]

Some jackass driving down the residential street at 40MPH (which is common) not paying attention SHOULD hit them. And I hope they don't have a spare.

That, in itself, is reason to have them. Wish we could get 'em on my street, frankly. I'll check it out later.

[ChipShot]

If people can get sue Mcdonalds for spilling hot coffee on themselves

Do people still not know the real reason McDonalds lost that case ???

[ChipShot]

Checked it out, and no big deal. Once they paint the curb portions of those 4 'islands', they'll be very noticeable to bike people, cars, etc. So if you hit one once they're painted, shame on you. You're either blind, dumb, drunk, or all 3.

[_john_doe_]

Well, if you guys get your way, someone will hit them, get hurt, and then sue the city for millions. and win. then we all lose.

If people can get sue Mcdonalds for spilling hot coffee on themselves, people can definitely sue the city over these road hazards.

That's EXACTLY what we need... more SUE HAPPY people in our community. Looking for something to have a problem with and any reason to sue the city over.

Good luck with that. Let us know how it works out for you.

If you are that 'unhappy' over it, head on down to City Council and voice your concern. (better yet, have your attorney put it in writing on some letterhead and send it certified mail to the Dir. of City Planning)

Good luck!

[cw68]

Do people still not know the real reason McDonalds lost that case ???

Most people don't. It's spin working well. (disclaimer, used to work PR for McD's corporate through a hired agency.)

[Chad Vander Veen]

Most people don't. It's spin working well. (disclaimer, used to work PR for McD's corporate through a hired agency.)

I admit I don't know. What was the real reason?

[Dave Burrell]

I admit I don't know. What was the real reason?

Here you go...

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

[cw68]

Thanks for posting that Dave. It's wasn't just some lady in a car who got burned. It was a systematically lack of responsibility with McD's thinking they were above common sense.

Working for McD's was not a personal highlight for me. Simply a pain in the butt company. I worked for them during the McLibel trial, though not connected to it in any way.

[ChipShot]

Good summary, but wasn't the coffee actually melting the cups, and McD's knew about that, but it would have been too costly to correct the problem? Wasn't that also a point in the case?