Red Bull Sucessfully sued for not giving customers 'Wings'

[bluelegend]

I love redbull but damn I don't qualify for a refund

[Energon]

This is the reason why you buy Peanut butter and it says 'May contain nuts' or purchase a Boomerang and it says 'Warning product may return'. In both cases most people would say 'well i should bloody hope so', but in America it was a bit silly of Redbull to use that campaign there.

They should have altered it in such a litigious country and came up with something different, or at least put in some small print saying 'This jar of liquid treacle does not in fact give one wings' lol.

[Donald Hellscream]

Its not like anyone is gonna be rich from the bullshit, I know Redbull put several million aside to reimburse retarded costumers but since those several million is split between a lot of fucking people the net gain per person is miniscule.

[nocendi]

You might've heard where that woman successfully sued because she spilt hot coffee on her lap? East Texas. Smart lawyers struggle to get their cases moved there even if the thing they are suing over happened in Delaware.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjyfUeSCUAASAhZ.jpg

http://www.neufeldlawfirm.com.php53-.../images-2.jpeg

These are the injuries she suffered from coffee served at over 90c in a paper cup with a loose lid in a drive through, which was a violation of health codes McDonalds had been reprimanded and punished for multiple times before.

All she actually sued for was approximately $10k to cover her medical bills. The fact that the jury ended up slapping McDonalds with massive punitive damages (around $600k in total, the case eventually settled for around $400k), wasn't her idea, not her "fault".

And you know what?

McDonalds deserved to lose that case.

Also; East Texas and New Mexico are not the same thing.

[AeneasBK]

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjyfUeSCUAASAhZ.jpg

http://www.neufeldlawfirm.com.php53-.../images-2.jpeg
<snip>

Yeah I remember that case from when it happened, wasn't till years later that some of the context came to light, she was just "the woman who sued Maccy D's for selling hot coffee" until then.

[Quibble]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...fund/16959529/ (Considerably more legitimate source imo but Dailymail was correct)

You guys can link all the websites you want, I still find this to be to stupid and doubt it is real..

Why 13million? it's an insanly low number, red bull sells 4.5billion cans yearly, this is way more than 13m. Especially over a 10 year period..

[Kalis]

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjyfUeSCUAASAhZ.jpg

http://www.neufeldlawfirm.com.php53-.../images-2.jpeg

These are the injuries she suffered from coffee served at over 90c in a paper cup with a loose lid in a drive through, which was a violation of health codes McDonalds had been reprimanded and punished for multiple times before.

All she actually sued for was approximately $10k to cover her medical bills. The fact that the jury ended up slapping McDonalds with massive punitive damages (around $600k in total, the case eventually settled for around $400k), wasn't her idea, not her "fault".

And you know what?

McDonalds deserved to lose that case.

Also; East Texas and New Mexico are not the same thing.

Liebeck vs. McDonalds is the case, and it is still regarded by many as a frivolous lawsuit.

The main reason being that hot coffee is supposed to be hot, McDonald's coffee isn't any hotter than a typical coffee, the cup had a warning on it, a typical person knows that if you spill hot coffee on yourself you will get burnt, and a retailer shouldn't be held responsible for a customer's mishandling of their product regardless of how much injury was caused if it can be reasonably assumed that a customer should know how to handle it properly.

Contributory negligence was applied, in that Liebeck was deemed to be partially responsible for the incident, with many people believing that she should have been held 100% responsible for not having the wit to work out that you don't put a hot cup of coffee in your lap.

[Cybran]

[Mormolyce]

They weren't sued over the expectation that it would give people wings, it was for unproven claims of increased energy performance.

That is quite a different story.

[zealo]

While i might not agree with the act of suing them for something that is obvious to anyone with a working brain, it is indeed false advertising.

[Tzalix]

That is quite a different story.

It is the story. The wings bit is sensationalism.

[CptEgo]

It is the story. The wings bit is sensationalism.

That makes alot more sense.

[Zerael]

East Texas is an area where you can sue someone and the jury will side with the claimant 90% of the time no matter what.

You might've heard where that woman successfully sued because she spilt hot coffee on her lap? East Texas. Smart lawyers struggle to get their cases moved there even if the thing they are suing over happened in Delaware.

Liebeck vs. McDonalds is the case, and it is still regarded by many as a frivolous lawsuit.

The main reason being that hot coffee is supposed to be hot, McDonald's coffee isn't any hotter than a typical coffee, the cup had a warning on it, a typical person knows that if you spill hot coffee on yourself you will get burnt, and a retailer shouldn't be held responsible for a customer's mishandling of their product regardless of how much injury was caused if it can be reasonably assumed that a customer should know how to handle it properly.

Contributory negligence was applied, in that Liebeck was deemed to be partially responsible for the incident, with many people believing that she should have been held 100% responsible for not having the wit to work out that you don't put a hot cup of coffee in your lap.

I suggest you take a bit of time to educate yourself on Tort Reform and the realities of that case, damage caps, and the election/lobby system

That lawsuit was anything but frivolous, but it was painted that way in the media for a reason. FYI, McDonalds Coffee was negligently keeping the coffee way hotter than is safe for human consumption, and McDonalds was considered at fault for it.

If something really bad happens to you, the last thing you want to do is get it tried in Texas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgirwfnQqeM

(Couldn't find a non subtitled version but the audio is in english)

[Kalis]

I suggest you take a bit of time to educate yourself on Tort Reform and the realities of that case, damage caps, and the election/lobby system

That lawsuit was anything but frivolous, but it was painted that way in the media for a reason. FYI, McDonalds Coffee was negligently keeping the coffee way hotter than is safe for human consumption, and McDonalds was considered at fault for it.

If something really bad happens to you, the last thing you want to do is get it tried in Texas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgirwfnQqeM

(Couldn't find a non subtitled version but the audio is in english)

I have studied English Common Law, the case is regarded as frivolous by many people within the legal profession, and it is irrelevant that McDonald's was found guilty as the point of the argument for claiming it is frivolous is that they shouldn't have been found guilty.

Most coffee retailers kept, and continue to keep, their coffee hotter than is safe for immediate human consumption, as that is how people typically make their coffee. The issue is the percentage with which she was held responsible, with many claiming that she should have been held 100% responsible as she didn't take reasonable precautions that a typical person would do when handling a cup of coffee, and not the 20% that she was found to be responsible.

[PickleballAce]

Compensation culture is one thing we can 'thank' America for. Ridiculous.

Hey, it's not our fault we're smart enough to effortlessly extract money from wealthier entities!

[Zerael]

I have studied English Common Law, the case is regarded as frivolous by many people within the legal profession, and it is irrelevant that McDonald's was found guilty as the point of the argument for claiming it is frivolous is that they shouldn't have been found guilty.

Most coffee retailers kept, and continue to keep, their coffee hotter than is safe for immediate human consumption, as that is how people typically make their coffee. The issue is the percentage with which she was held responsible, with many claiming that she should have been held 100% responsible as she didn't take reasonable precautions that a typical person would do when handling a cup of coffee, and not the 20% that she was found to be responsible.

I completely agree with you that she has to bear some part of the blame. but I don't see the "Everyone else is doing it!" as a solid defense McDonalds had to change practices and it was, truly, dangerous. Sure, she spilled it on herself, so she gets part of the blame. What if she had tripped and it landed on someone's face? Legally speaking, it was considered negligent to offer coffee that hot, and I don't disagree with that.

The point is a frivolous lawsuit this was not; no matter what lawyers think of this, as there was clear negligence on McDonalds part as was evidenced during the trial.

Again though, this is just a specific case, the documentary also goes into other cases that showcase the problem with "citizen" groups and campaigning around the idea of "frivoulous" lawsuits.

A frivolous lawsuit is frivolous if it is started with very little chance of either proceeding to trial or being won because tort will be extremely difficult to prove. As soon as a Motion to Dismiss is denied by the presiding authority and the trial date is set, it becomes really difficult in my opinion to consider a lawsuit frivolous.

In truth, the court just disagreed with that notion by agreeing to set a trial date, considering there is sufficient evidence that the lawsuit is not, in fact, frivolous, and that there very well may have been contributory negligence on the part of the accused

[Deleted]

Liebeck vs. McDonalds is the case, and it is still regarded by many as a frivolous lawsuit.

The main reason being that hot coffee is supposed to be hot, McDonald's coffee isn't any hotter than a typical coffee, the cup had a warning on it, a typical person knows that if you spill hot coffee on yourself you will get burnt, and a retailer shouldn't be held responsible for a customer's mishandling of their product regardless of how much injury was caused if it can be reasonably assumed that a customer should know how to handle it properly.

Contributory negligence was applied, in that Liebeck was deemed to be partially responsible for the incident, with many people believing that she should have been held 100% responsible for not having the wit to work out that you don't put a hot cup of coffee in your lap.

except A, not a frivolous law suit, B, they served too hot coffee that was the thing, It was by and of it self, even inside its cup, Dangerous.
and you know, today, they serve their coffee colder, and in better cups.

[Deleted]

It really is sad that people can make money (especially quite a lot of it) with such things.

[belfpala]

Class action lawsuits often make my head scratch. Sometimes I'll open my mail and have a letter like:

"You were an account holder with ABC Company during the time period of XYZ. A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit regarding ABC company's handling of certain fees. As a member of the class, you are entitled to compensation. Check enclosed."

Go to look at the check... it's for something stupid, like $2.74

In this particular one, I'm guessing Red Bull just decided it would be cheaper to make it go away than to fully litigate.

...and the lawyers make out like bandits.

[Belize]

Thanks for the tip! I mean, that sound horrible. What a bunch of assholes.

Just don't move to Beaumont. Fucking stupid ass town. *Grumbles about where he lives*

- - - Updated - - -

HOLY SHIT! Wait wait wait. Does that mean I can sue Buffalo Wild Wings since their chicken wings are neither wild nor buffalo!?

If you'll excuse me, I have a lawyer to call.