WTF???

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

Google Lawsuit

 

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (KABC) -- A Southern California woman hit by a car while crossing a busy street is suing Google Maps. Meantime, another local woman wrongly linked to the case spoke out Tuesday night.

 

The injured woman, from Northridge, claims Google owes her $100,000 after she was hit on a street that the map indicated was safe to cross on foot. Now a Santa Monica woman mistakenly linked to the case is being harassed.

 

The woman suing Google is in her 20s and lives in Northridge. She's seeking more than $100,000 for medical bills, lost wages and punitive damages. Another woman with the same name who lives and works in Santa Monica said she's becoming the target for those who are lashing out against the plaintiff.

 

Lauren Rosenberg wants the world to know -- she is a publicist with a reputable business and she is not suing Google.

 

"I am not 'that' Lauren Rosenberg," said the Lauren Rosenberg who is not suing Google.

 

Call it a case of mistaken identity. Lauren says she's been hounded by nasty e-mails, Facebook messages and phone calls ever since the news broke about a woman with the same name who was struck by a car while following a Google walking route.

 

"Is it not just easier to say you had a lapse in judgment than to blame Google or the driver?" said Lauren, quoting from one online post.

 

According to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Utah, the other Lauren Rosenberg -- the plaintiff -- says she used her phone in January 2009 to download walking directions from one end of Park City, Utah, to the other.

 

The suit claims Google Maps led her to walk on a snow-covered four-lane boulevard without sidewalks that was "not reasonably safe for pedestrians."

 

The suit also says Rosenberg believed she could reach a sidewalk on the other side of Deer Valley Drive, and when she tried to cross the boulevard she was struck by a speeding car.

 

The plaintiff's attorneys said: "We think there's enough fault to go around, but Google had some responsibility to direct people correctly or warn them. They created a trap with walking instructions that people rely on. She relied on it and thought she should cross the street."

 

Many critics accuse Rosenberg of lacking common sense and ignoring her own safety. The Santa Monica Lauren Rosenberg just hopes people will stop wrongly accusing her.

 

"I'm a publicist who needs a publicist and my blog is 'Everybody Needs a Publicist' so -- here it is I'm living my own words, I guess," said Lauren.

 

Google released a statement Tuesday: "We haven't yet been served, so we can't comment on the specifics of this case before we've had a chance to review the suit."

 

Google also said that since 2008, when Google Maps was launched, the company has provided a disclaimer on every software version for both desktop computers and mobile devices.

[Apathy]

I saw this earlier and couldn't believe what I was reading. People nowadays will sue for the stupidest reasons like the chick who sued McDonalds for serving HOT coffee and it burnt her lip.

[carlfense]

I saw this earlier and couldn't believe what I was reading. People nowadays will sue for the stupidest reasons like the chick who sued McDonalds for serving HOT coffee and it burnt her lip.

This Google case will be a loser.

 

The McDonalds case result was actually much more reasonable than the media would have you believe. I'll post the case if you'd like.

[Apathy]

I saw this earlier and couldn't believe what I was reading. People nowadays will sue for the stupidest reasons like the chick who sued McDonalds for serving HOT coffee and it burnt her lip.

This Google case will be a loser.

 

The McDonalds case result was actually much more reasonable than the media would have you believe. I'll post the case if you'd like.

I understand that McDonalds now has "Caution very hot" on their cups now but seriously who goes to any restaurant or fast food joint and sues because their coffee was hot???? People who lack common sense are the ones who you see in these lawsuits.

 

But by all means if you want to post that case if you want but I'll still stamping "MORON" on her forehead

[Husker_x]

I saw this earlier and couldn't believe what I was reading. People nowadays will sue for the stupidest reasons like the chick who sued McDonalds for serving HOT coffee and it burnt her lip.

This Google case will be a loser.

 

The McDonalds case result was actually much more reasonable than the media would have you believe. I'll post the case if you'd like.

 

Got a summary?

[carlfense]

I saw this earlier and couldn't believe what I was reading. People nowadays will sue for the stupidest reasons like the chick who sued McDonalds for serving HOT coffee and it burnt her lip.

This Google case will be a loser.

 

The McDonalds case result was actually much more reasonable than the media would have you believe. I'll post the case if you'd like.

 

Got a summary?

Here's a decent 1 minute summary:

The Real Story Behind the McDonald's Coffee Case

The case involving a spilled cup of coffee at McDonald's has been touted for years as an example of how far awry our justice system has gone. "Everyone knows coffee is hot! How can you sue someone over that?" has been a common refrain, as we shake our heads and wonder what the plaintiff was thinking. Why should McDonald's pay for a self-inflicted injury everyone should know to expect? Most of us, however, have not heard all the facts of the case. McDonald's internal policies required coffee to be kept at the unconsummable and unsafe temperature of 185 degrees. Liquid at this temperature is prevented from cooling quickly, increasing the severity of any injury caused by coming into contact with it. McDonald's was completely aware of this danger and had received numerous (around 700) complaints about the coffee causing third-degree burns before this particular plaintiff was injured. This plaintiff did not suffer minor injuries - she required hospitalization, debridement, and skin grafts as a result of the spill. She was not "drinking and driving" or opening a cup in a moving vehicle. She was a passenger in a stopped car simply trying to add cream and sugar. She was not overly litigious, asking for only $20,000 to compensate her for her injuries. McDonald's refused to offer anything. At trial, she was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages (reduced to $160,000 due to her own partial fault for the injuries) and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The punitive damage amount was later reduced. The plaintiff was not "gaming the system" or pushing her own responsibility onto others. She simply sought reasonable compensation from injury caused by a product knowingly kept at a dangerous temperature. As you hear stories about "ridiculous verdicts" and plaintiff's abusing our legal system, take a few moments to learn the real facts of a particular case before making up your own mind. Please follow the link above to a more in-depth article reviewing the case.

Kauffman Law

 

There might be better summaries out there. This is the best I could come up with on a hurried google search. I remember reading an excellent article about it a few years back.

[carlfense]

I saw this earlier and couldn't believe what I was reading. People nowadays will sue for the stupidest reasons like the chick who sued McDonalds for serving HOT coffee and it burnt her lip.

This Google case will be a loser.

 

The McDonalds case result was actually much more reasonable than the media would have you believe. I'll post the case if you'd like.

I understand that McDonalds now has "Caution very hot" on their cups now but seriously who goes to any restaurant or fast food joint and sues because their coffee was hot???? People who lack common sense are the ones who you see in these lawsuits.

 

But by all means if you want to post that case if you want but I'll still stamping "MORON" on her forehead

It's not quite as simple as that and if it was that simple she wouldn't have received punitive damages.

[carlfense]

A little more in depth summary:

The Truth About That McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit

 

It came up in a conversation I had the other day: the lady who sued McDonald's because her coffee was too hot. It's always the example tossed out by people whenever there is a discussion about frivilous lawsuits.

Now, there are frivilous lawsuits filed everday. But the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit is not a very good example.

 

Here's what most people know about the case:

 

1. Women gets McDonald's coffee from drive-thru window

2. She spills it on herself; OW, it burns!

3. She sues McDonalds

4. She wins at trial

 

Ok. That's an accurate summary of the facts. But it's woefully incomplete.

 

The thing people need to focus on is #4. She won. That should be a clue that there's more than what meets the eye. Why did she win? Was the jury of twelve people comprised of total idiots? Was the judge a moron?

 

In reality, when the jury was selected, all they knew before the trial was #1, #2, and #3. To many of them at the time, it seemed like a pretty straightforward case in McDonald's favor. So what happened between jury selection and verdict time?

 

Well, the evidence came out. ALL the evidence.

 

Consider: The victim -- Mrs. Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico (age 79) -- did not do anything unusual to contribute to her injuries. She was a passenger in her grandson's car. She ordered the coffee. It came in a styrofoam cup. She placed it between her legs, so she could open the lid and put in cream and sugar. The coffee spilled.

 

Oh, her injuries? Well, the coffee seeped through her sweatpants. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck also underwent debridement treatments.

 

Put bluntly, the coffee literally burned a grandmother's genitals off..... through her clothes.

 

So, by now you're wondering one of two things: Either Mrs. Liebeck's genitalia/legs/etc were made of tissue paper.... or maybe, just maybe, something was unusual about the coffee.

 

And now we get to the heart of the matter -- the thing most people aren't aware of.

 

The McDonald's coffee wasn't merely "hot"; it was scalding.

 

McDonalds (at that time) served its coffee 50-60 degrees hotter than that of normal coffee served in your house or breakroom. Its temperatures ranged as high as 190 degrees.

 

Now, the thing about liquids is, if you lower the temperature, the effect of burns reduces exponentially. In other words, liquids at 180 degrees would give full thickness burns to human skin in two to seven seconds. But liquids at 155 degrees? Not nearly as bad.

 

In other words, if Mrs. Liebeck's coffee was 155 degrees -- still much hotter than home or office coffee (and about the temperature that other fast food places serve coffee) -- and she had spilled it? Yeah, it would have hurt. Anything over 140 degrees is a burn hazard. But it wouldn't have gone through her sweatpants and burned off her hoo-ha.

 

Another important point: this wasn't a one-time event. This wasn't a McDonald's worker who strayed from McDonald's coffee prep techniques. No. McDonald's coffee was served at 180-190 degrees as a matter of policy.

 

So, while reasonable people would expect hot coffee (and McD's, at that time, did have a "hot" warning on the coffee cups), they certainly weren't expecting coffee that hot. And, reasonably, McDonalds owed a duty to its patrons to warn them -- not of the obvious ("the coffee will be hot") -- but of the not-obvious ("no, we mean much much hotter than you would think, people").

 

McDonald's food quality people testified that they knew the coffee was being served at scalding temperatures. They knew that it was being served at temperatures higher than other fast food places and coffee shops. It was a planned, discussed, and implemented executive decision to do that.

 

And they knew that many of their customers probably didn't realize that their coffee was going to be that much hotter. But they didn't give thought to repercussions.

 

Even when people started complaining that the coffee was burning their mouths, they didn't do anything.

 

So, in that light, the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit wasn't frivilous. Yes, everybody knows that coffee from a fast-food place will be hot. But I wonder how many people (back in 1992, when this happened) knew that McDonald's coffee was that much hotter, or knew the consequences of it being that much hotter? Probably not many. But McDonald's knew, and certainly had an obligation -- legal, if not moral -- to warn its customers.

 

I'm not the slightest bit put off that Mrs. Liebeck sued. She had a legitimate -- not "frivilous" -- complaint.

 

And I'm not surprised the jurors found in the her favor.

 

(Needless to say, McDonald's coffee, while still very hot, isn't served at 190 degrees anymore)

 

link

[Husker_x]

That summary totally changed my opinion on the case, that is, grandma really wasn't an idiot opportunist filing for nothing.

[carlfense]

That summary totally changed my opinion on the case, that is, grandma really wasn't an idiot opportunist filing for nothing.

Yeah. I was quite outraged by the case when I heard about it on the news. Now that I actually looked at the facts a little bit . . . it was fairly reasonable.

 

The part that gets me is that she tried to get McDonalds to settle for just the amount of her medical bills . . . and McDonalds flat refused to pay a cent even though they knew they were serving coffee at totally unsafe temperatures. That makes me have little sympathy for them when they get hammered with punitive damages.

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

That summary totally changed my opinion on the case, that is, grandma really wasn't an idiot opportunist filing for nothing.

Same here. Thanks for the summary carlfense

[knapplc]

Hang on a minute. The fact that a jury found in her favor means nothing - it means the plaintiff's attorney was more persuasive than the defendant's. That's about it.

 

Proper brewing temperature for coffee is between 195 and 205 degrees. Any lower than that and you're making swill, and you deserve to drink swill if you don't know this. The assertion that 185-degree coffee is "unsafe" is ridiculous. It's unconsummable, sure, but not unsafe for a person who knows coffee. While it's possible that "reasonable people" (a wonderfully ambiguous phrase I run across every day at my job) would presume that coffee at 190 degrees is "too hot," an expert in the field (say, a barista from your local coffee house) would know that this is not an unusual temperature for coffee - it's nearly the perfect temperature.

 

On top of that, the woman put the coffee in her crotch to add cream. In a car. I don't know what her car seats were like, but the bucket seats in every car I've owned since about 1985 tilt backwards at about 15-25 degrees. What the defendant's attorney was - bafflingly - unable to get across to the jury is that what the woman was doing was inherently unsafe, whether that coffee was 120 degrees or 220 degrees. I very much disagree that she "did not do anything unusual to contribute to her injuries." Putting hot coffee on an unstable surface tilting dangerously toward your body - a very sensitive part of your body, no less - is unusual. Or at least it should be, to a reasonable person.

 

Finally, there is no doubt in my mind that had the plaintiff not been a kindly, sweet little old lady, it would have been far more difficult for her attorney to convince the jury that she was a completely innocent victim. Put any one of us at that table and the jury is going to be far less sympathetic.

 

Nothing I've read about this case has ever convinced me that this woman was wronged by McDonald's to such an extent that she should have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.

[carlfense]

Hang on a minute. The fact that a jury found in her favor means nothing - it means the plaintiff's attorney was more persuasive than the defendant's. That's about it.

 

Proper brewing temperature for coffee is between 195 and 205 degrees. Any lower than that and you're making swill, and you deserve to drink swill if you don't know this. The assertion that 185-degree coffee is "unsafe" is ridiculous. It's unconsummable, sure, but not unsafe for a person who knows coffee. While it's possible that "reasonable people" (a wonderfully ambiguous phrase I run across every day at my job) would presume that coffee at 190 degrees is "too hot," an expert in the field (say, a barista from your local coffee house) would know that this is not an unusual temperature for coffee - it's nearly the perfect temperature.

 

On top of that, the woman put the coffee in her crotch to add cream. In a car. I don't know what her car seats were like, but the bucket seats in every car I've owned since about 1985 tilt backwards at about 15-25 degrees. What the defendant's attorney was - bafflingly - unable to get across to the jury is that what the woman was doing was inherently unsafe, whether that coffee was 120 degrees or 220 degrees. I very much disagree that she "did not do anything unusual to contribute to her injuries." Putting hot coffee on an unstable surface tilting dangerously toward your body - a very sensitive part of your body, no less - is unusual. Or at least it should be, to a reasonable person.

 

Finally, there is no doubt in my mind that had the plaintiff not been a kindly, sweet little old lady, it would have been far more difficult for her attorney to convince the jury that she was a completely innocent victim. Put any one of us at that table and the jury is going to be far less sympathetic.

 

Nothing I've read about this case has ever convinced me that this woman was wronged by McDonald's to such an extent that she should have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.

There is more to it than that. Medically speaking, 190 degree coffee IS physically unsafe. Just because it's recommended that it be brewed at that temperature does NOT mean that it is safe to serve at that temperature.

 

McDonald's tried to argue that no one drinks their coffee in the car on their way home. They said that they served it that hot so that it would stay warm until the customer could consume it at home . . . but that was contradicted both by common sense (everyone drinks coffee in their car) and by McDonald's own internal memos saying that it was kept at the unsafe for consumption temperature because it stayed fresh longer. Basically, McDonald's was endangering customers so they wouldn't have to brew that extra pot of coffee each day.

 

I have no sympathy whatsoever for McDonalds in this case. If the 700 warnings before this case and the very reasonable settlement offer don't warn you . . . you deserve punitive damages.

[knapplc]

What is "physically unsafe?" Coffee served at 150 degrees is too hot to drink and can scald. You really can't comfortably drink coffee that's much over 130 degrees, and I know for a fact that every place I buy coffee serves it to me over 130. It's not like they were serving coffee that was above and beyond reasonable. One of the jurors even said that McDonald's - by serving coffee at a standard brewing temperature - was showing a callous disregard for their customers.

 

The reason this case gets lambasted is that every Starbucks, every Peets, every Caribou Coffee, every Tim Horton's and every locally-owned corner coffee shop in the country brews coffee this hot, and serves it within 10-20 degrees of this temperature. Every one. To award millions of dollars to a woman who willingly put a beverage synonymous with searing heat between her legs in a car is outrageous, no matter how stupid McDonald's defense was.

 

I'm not going to argue that McDonald's wasn't stupid. They were, astoundingly so, when they didn't settle this. They'd settled cases like this before; perhaps they were just tired of it and wanted to try to make a stand. They gambled and lost, and it looks like a lot of the reason they lost was they were up against the wrong jury and the wrong attorney.

[carlfense]

What is "physically unsafe?" Coffee served at 150 degrees is too hot to drink and can scald. You really can't comfortably drink coffee that's much over 130 degrees, and I know for a fact that every place I buy coffee serves it to me over 130. It's not like they were serving coffee that was above and beyond reasonable. One of the jurors even said that McDonald's - by serving coffee at a standard brewing temperature - was showing a callous disregard for their customers.

 

The reason this case gets lambasted is that every Starbucks, every Peets, every Caribou Coffee, every Tim Horton's and every locally-owned corner coffee shop in the country brews coffee this hot, and serves it within 10-20 degrees of this temperature. Every one. To award millions of dollars to a woman who willingly put a beverage synonymous with searing heat between her legs in a car is outrageous, no matter how stupid McDonald's defense was.

 

I'm not going to argue that McDonald's wasn't stupid. They were, astoundingly so, when they didn't settle this. They'd settled cases like this before; perhaps they were just tired of it and wanted to try to make a stand. They gambled and lost, and it looks like a lot of the reason they lost was they were up against the wrong jury and the wrong attorney.

 

Any evidence of this? Not that I don't believe you . . . but I'd like to see something a little more solid.

 

Edit: This seems to contradict what you are saying.

When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for comparison.

 

After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees.