.
.
.
This is an Obituary for Common Sense that purportedly first appeared in the London Times – though I can find no proof that it was ever actually published there.
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:-Knowing when to come in out of the rain; – Why the early bird gets the worm;- Life isn’t always fair; – And maybe it was my fault. Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies, don’t spend more than you can earn and adults, not children, are in charge.
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn’t defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife Discretion, his daughter Responsibility, and his son, Reason. He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights,I Want It Now, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I’m A Victim. Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
Common Sense will ALWAYS be tempered by human imperfection.
Sometimes, it helps to cut ourselves some slack and remember how absolutely fickle and nonsensical we can be.
That said, sometimes people DO have rights they should fight for, sometimes we DO deserve prompt action, sometimes someone else REALLY IS to blame, and sometimes we really ARE victims.
Thanks for making my point about current victim mentality so quickly. I knew I could count on you.
The word “sometimes.” Is that too subtle a qualification for you, GW?
Surely you’re not saying that:
People NEVER have rights they should fight for;
People NEVER deserve prompt action;
We are ALWAYS the ones to blame for what happens to us?
Really? Those are EXTREME-ass positions! I thought anon’s response was very tempered and balanced.
For liberals “sometimes” becomes the justification by which rules are made which transgress on freedom.
You’ll note, Mr. Willis, that I said “sometimes”. See that word up there? Sometimes. Sometimes, people truly are victims.
If you can’t acknowledge that simple reality…oh F-it, just keep on posting your over-generalized drivel.
I just remembered that that is a favorite tic of Geoff’s – the “thanks for making my point so quickly” – while showing that he didn’t really understand or think about what you said, except for the fact that you disagreed with him to an extent.
anon’s comment did express the victim mentality quite well.
Is it something about “conservatism” and reading comprehension?
Okay then you’re on board with the
“People NEVER have rights they should fight for;
People NEVER deserve prompt action;
We are ALWAYS the ones to blame for what happens to us”
even if Geoff hasn’t bitten yet. Good to know.
Hey, I thought you were mortally offended by my 9/11 post. Back so soon?
I chose to ignore your 9/11 post finding the headline definitionally offensive. You could have made your point without attacking the memory of almost 4000 dead.
I wasn’t talking to you, I was talking to Junior. And anyone who read the thing knows I wasn’t attacking the memory of …
Wait? Almost 4000? What are you referring to?
Anyway, I most certainly wasn’t attacking their memory and I made that clear.
” Back so soon?”
I did not say that I would not post. Did you see on Lib OC where I called the conservative SJC councilmember a “stupid dumb f**k”? SDFs come in all stripes – liberal, conservative and indies.
“Is it something about “conservatism” and reading comprehension?”
Is it something about “liberalism” that prompts lame insults which intentionally miss the point?
Bingo. INTENTIONALLY MISSING THE POINT. I leave it to the jury to discern who’s doing that – Vern and Anon, or Geoff and Junior.
Vern defending common sense. How many DUIs did you get before you went to jail? Plu-ease
What a bunch of simplistic nonsense, chock full of the crap that right-wing nut cakes use to justify their “angry” feelings.
Take this gem for instance;
“Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.”
Oh, how the conservatives LOVE this fable, they don’t know ANY of the FACTS, but that doesn’t stop them from using this tale to bash our legal system, lawyers and the plaintiff.
Here’s a few FACTS about the case;
“… McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding (185 degrees)– capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. 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, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds’ knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
….Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Plaintiffs’ expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck’s spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds’ coffee sales.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 — or three times compensatory damages — even though the judge called McDonalds’ conduct reckless, callous and willful.
No one will ever know the final ending to this case.
The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.”
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
You are right anonster, it was McDonald’s serving coffee that was too hot that was the problem and not the driver violating the laws against distracted driving drinking her coffee while driving, not putting her coffee in a spill proof mug, spilling it on herself, wearing clothes that would absorb hot coffee when trying to do several things at once – all of those things were in McDonald’s control and are McDonald’s fault. The victim’s mentality says that someone has to be at blame and it can never be the individual – unluckily for us, jurys are made up of folks like you anonster.
Jury held she was 20% responsible, Geoff. As always we are left wondering if you actually read the whole comment you responded to.
Vern, cut out the “do you read the comments” stuff. Yes, I read them – “SHOCK” but I disagree.
Well, you know, it’s just the impression you give – it seems like you missed all the “SOMETIMES” in anon’s first comment, and some of the facts in anonster’s comments – such as that the jury found Liebeck partly responsible.
Maybe it’s just inevitably the impression you give, when you usually have your mind made up that the truth is ALWAYS on one side and never in between.
Yes, yes. When Liebeck got up in the morning, she should have told herself, “Ya know, I just might spill 185-degree coffee on me today…I better wear leather pants.”
You completely ignore the fact that the jury found Liebeck partially liable. But McDonalds history with hot coffee burns was too powerful to ignore. It’s no coincidence that coffee THAT hot caused so many incidents. THAT is McDonald’s responsibility. And we’re not hearing about cases of third-degree burns caused by 185-degree coffee anymore, are we?
Or how about “I am holding a hot substance just above my thighs and genitals while trying to operate a two ton dangerous weapon and it doesn’t really matter that it is illegal to drink and drive and I will take the risk that I am going to hurt myself.
Let me repeat this one more time and then maybe it will sink in…THE JURY FOUND HER PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE AND REDUCED THE AWARD ACCORDINGLY. Got it?
Yes, I am a lawyer, I understand the concept of contributory negligence. I just have trouble finding her less than 100% responsible for her own injuries caused completely by her own actions. I was tramping around New Zealand in a Volcano with sulpheric acid pits and bubbling molten mud – there were no signs warning me that if I jumped into the sulpheric acid I would dissolve or that if I fell into molten mud I would be badly burned or killed. It was my responsibility not to do something stupid and it was not the property owners fault if I was an idiot. Here, we want to wrap everyone in bubblewrap and take all of the risk out of life, even if it means that 300,000,000 people drink lukewarm coffee because of the actions of one idiot.
150 degree coffee is plenty hot. In fact, I actually let it cool down a little after that…
“I am holding a hot substance just above my thighs and genitals while trying to operate a two ton dangerous weapon and it doesn’t really matter that it is illegal to drink and drive and I will take the risk that I am going to hurt myself.”
Geoff, thank you for making my point about conservatives not knowing ANY of the FACTS yet trying to use this case as an example of frivolous lawsuits. I knew I could count on you.
No one deserves 3rd degree burns/hospitalization simply because they spilled their coffee.
“… there were no signs warning me that if I jumped into the sulpheric acid I would dissolve or that if I fell into molten mud I would be badly burned or killed.”
Great analogy Geoff, jumping into a volcano and spilling coffee on your lap are so similar, I am awed by your mental prowess.
Although, a bit of advice; “I am a lawyer” … you might want to keep that tidbit under-your-hat.
Bullshit Geoff, obviously you were too LAZY to go to the website I provided,but if you had you would have known that Ms. Liebeck WASN’T driving the car, but was a passenger and that McDonald’s own research showed that they KNEW that their customers were drinking their coffee while driving.
Here’s the ENTIRE article Mr. Lawyer (eye roll):
“There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds’ scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding — capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here’s the whole story.
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car when she was severely burned by McDonalds’ coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. 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, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds’ knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds’ quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the “holding temperature” of its coffee.
Plaintiffs’ expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck’s spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a “warning” but a “reminder” since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds’ coffee sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 — or three times compensatory damages — even though the judge called McDonalds’ conduct reckless, callous and willful.
No one will ever know the final ending to this case.
The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.”
—–
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. © 1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of California
—–
Brought to you by – The ‘Lectric Law Library
The Net’s Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
http://www.lectlaw.com
Thanks for the details on that old chestnut, anonster, I always wondered about that. This makes a lot more sense out of why she sued and got that award.
Do we know WHY McDonald’s used to serve their coffee at such an extremely high temperature – 185 degrees? Did they somehow save money that way, or was it just a very dumb and dangerous policy?
It was primarily driven by customer demands that were upset when their coffee was too cool by the time that they got back to the office. Miracle that those folks don’t sue now saying that McDonalds owes them for lukewarm coffee.
Is that a fact? Well I’m glad they changed that policy, whatever it took to get them to do it. Better secretaries crank up their microwaves than end up getting skin grafts on their crotches.
I guess the problem that I have Vern is that we have to mandate laws that reduce to the lowest common denominator. 100 in 300,000,000 burn themselves when they don’t treat hot liquids with the right respect and take responsibility for their own actions. I don’t believe that we need to protect 100 people from their own stupidity by making the producer of the hot liquid liable.
Do you listen to yourself? Do you really believe this crap that you spew? Jeez.
Yes, and I actually live by principles of self responsibility. The fact that you don’t get this means that you view yourself as a pawn in a world where it is the responsibility of everyone but yourself to make sure that no harm comes to you and that you have the RIGHT to be protected from your own stupid actions.
Hey Rapscallion, do you believe that it is the responsibility of “everyone” but yourself to make sure that no harm comes to you?
Really, Geoff…about 99% of the time the problem with your arguments is the ridiculous absolutism of them. That ain’t the way the world works.
I wonder if Geoff’s mother or if one of his kids had been so “stupid’ as to accidentally spill coffee on their lap that resulted in an eight day hospital stay if he he’d feel the same way. People like Geoff are always so sure that it will never happen to them.
Thankfully the jury and the judge were much smarter than Geoff, they recognized that merely spilling coffee on yourself SHOULDN’T be a life threatening event.
Obituary For Common Decency
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/09/fk-september-11/
Ah! Good one! Masterpiece, that.
He died when the people of the 60’s were born and when women starting burning the very thing that kept their boobs up and men wore pink pants….It all went out the window. And today the very people who murdered common sense are now running the country….
But Maybe, just maybe, he is hiding and waiting for the idiots to ask for his help!
*OK….a Common Sense survey: How many peoplel that drive with a cell phone stuck in their ear, text, drink hot coffee in an open cup, put on make-up at a traffic light, read the latest text messages from their 10 year old at school, spill food on their laps or try to change the selections on their pre-set radios……..stuff like that!
Why are they not being ticketed for “distracted driving”?
Nay sayers are invited….can’t wait to see who these folks are!
Common sense is oxymoron!
Sense is directly proportional to IQ so it cant be common!
However, stupidity is common!
Sense is the exception to rule!
*Harry Lime….please leave the stag. Exit stage left….please! Eccentric is for thsoe who have a net worth of over $3 million dollars. If you qualify please go immediately to another web site which can understand self-congraulatory behavior.
It’s pretty clear that Geoff represents corporate interests and possibly insurance companies. Otherwise, why is the old McDonald’s story here? As has been pointed out, it’s commonly misrepresented. Geoff should look up the principles of negligence, which turn on forerseeability, and it seems rational to think that if a company sells scalding hot liquid in cups that easily pop open, that someone will suffer serious burns that require skin grafts. (Geoff’s blatant lying about the facts indicates, as a jury instruction states, that he’s to be mistrusted on anything else he says.)
But then, that would be holding corporations responsible for their actions, and that’s not so appealing, right, Geoff? remember Chris Cox, the corporate whore who Bush appointed head of the SEC and managed to miss all of Madoff’s crimes? Cox, you may know, was a proselytizer for corporate immunity from lawsuits. As is Mitt Romney who now makes that a special talking point. Apparently, if corporate interests are shielded, we’ll all have great jobs and the invisible hand of the marketplace will make everything all hunky dory, even if it means drinking poisoned water and inhaling toxic fumes.
By the way, the stuff about not being able to defend yourself, and a burglar suing for assault, is just the same old basic bullshit we’ve heard for years from the aggrieved right wing citizenry. Just stop it already.
Geoff, in a masterpiece of obfuscation, said: “Yes, and I actually live by principles of self responsibility. The fact that you don’t get this means that you view yourself as a pawn in a world where it is the responsibility of everyone but yourself to make sure that no harm comes to you and that you have the RIGHT to be protected from your own stupid actions.”
Sure you do, Geoff. I bet when one of your corporate clients gets sued, that you go right to telling them how it was their fault.
Your massive overstatements, so typical of the right wing, are stunning in their disproportionality. Let’s say that you are walking down the street, looking around for a street number, and you fall into a hole left by workmen with no cones or any other warning around it. Following your logic, you’re to blame for looking around, correct? But I’m sure that if you broke your leg, you’d be looking for a good plaintiffs’ lawyer in a heartbeat.
Your philosophy is a thin disguise for allowing people to be damaged by the malfeasance of the rich and powerful, and then blaming the victim. At least admit it.