Old Lady and McDonald

Just browsed through some earlier posts about a mom who bought juice from Walbaum, which was out of expiration date, resulted in her child’s diarrhea. I don’t disagree some of the posts there. This is not a frivolous case.

Under UCC, there is an implied warranty for any goods for sale. Implied warranty means goods have to be usable. There is no comparative fault from the plaintiff said but rather a strict liability requirement.

This should also be distinguished from the McDonald case. You all heard about the story that an old woman burnt by coffee that was too hot. First of all, this is not a frivolous case either. There is evidence that before the case there are more than 700 people got burnt by coffee from McDonald. There is also evidence that McDonald intentionally kept coffee hot enough to inflict third degree burn. In the case, the old woman suffered the third degree burn and permanent disfigurement. She asked $11000 from McDonald for hospital bills but got refused. Her lawyer demanded a settlement for $90000 but also got refused. That is why the law suit was brought about. Originally the jury found for the plaintiff with damage of $2.7M. The large amount was meant to deter McDonald’s malice conduct. The judge reduced that amount to $640000, because of the old lady’s contributory negligence. She put the coffee in between her sighs and tried to open the top of the cup, while driving.

所有跟帖： 

• 關鍵在於商家是否有“有意”出售過期食品 -1266- ♀ (382 bytes) () 11/04/2005 postreply 01:36:31

• 回複：關鍵在於商家是否有“有意”出售過期食品 -66196- ♀ (454 bytes) () 11/04/2005 postreply 14:26:13