Jerry Jones Sued for Hot Seat

[supremecoltsfan300]

I want to respond to this threat regarding the overall rights on individuals being made whole due to being harm by others, and will get to that in a moment, but first want to respond the MacDonald's lawsuit by that little old lady that got serverly burn by a mere cup of coffee . . .

First off, thank God, we live in a country that allows us individuals to have an avenue to be made whole, (the courts) when another harms us . . . some my not like this avenue or thumb thier noses at it, but it is one of the greatest things we have in this country . . . the ability of the small not to have to pay for damages caused by another . . . a little guy who is damage by another should have an avenue to seek compensation, this is especially so when the big guy tells the little guy to go fry ice and I aint paying you a dime . . . well was is right is right and we have a system to correct this and allow another to have the other pay for damages caused by the former . . .

now lets look at the facts of the MacDonald . . . (you can skip to the summary below if you all wish for a shortly explanation)

MacDonalds, a fast food hamburger joint, decides it wants to make more money by getting into the breakfast industry, then into the drive though industry to make money faster . . . then they started to sell coffee to communters . . . and in effort to compete against their competitors, cranked up the thier coffee maker some 40 degrees F over the other coffee supliers (I think it was 40 or 50, I kind of forget as it has been about 20 years since the suit, but either way I remember numbers like 140 v 180 ro 140 v 190) . . . so MacDonalds was trying to get an edge on the competition by serving coffee at temps fo 180-190 in an effort to have their coffees be hotter once their customers get to work . . .

the problem was that, and common sense goes, their customers drank the coffee as they drove to work and MacDonalds should be aware of this situation. Indeed prior to the suit they recevied several hundred complaints that their customers were being burnt and many were settle out of court. So bottom line MacD was on notice that its coffee was causing is its customers to get burnt (beyond the common sense thinking that poeple will drink the coffee before getting to work) . .. but instead of taking notice of the complaints, MacD, through one of their spokesperson indicated that "we had more important things to deal with . . " or something along those lines , i forget now the exact language . . .

so bottom line instead of cranking down the coffee pots by 40 degrees to match is competitors, MacD decided to continue to leave the coffee overly hot even thought they were on full notice that the product was dangerous and caused injuries . . .

So for me, if someone finally decides to take MacDs all the way to court to put them in their place, i got no problem with it . . . The elderly lady recieved server burns and was in the hospital for many days . . . . and for all of you anti-court people, the end judgement was a portporional one, that is they found her partly responsible and reduced the judged accordingly . . .

A Quick Review on the MacD Case

1) MacD is a hamburger joint that wanted increase revenue by selling coffee

2) It further wanted to increase revenue by selling a liquid via a drive through

3) It further wanted to make money by beatting its competitors by cranking up the coffee by some 40-50 degrees

4) It recieved several hundred complaints that customers were burned because of item 3 above

5) It had "more importanting things to do" than to turn down the coffee maker temp

6) A elderly lady was serverly burned and sued MacDs and received a judgement which was adjusted in accordance to her liability in handling the coffee

you can say what you want about "frivilous" law suit, but when one puts out a product that one knows can be dangerous to its customers and does nothing about it, when one gets injuried down the road we should not complain if that individuals seeks reimbursement and damages for the injury

plain and simple as that

surely the national media will not go into this kind of detial but would rather just yell at the little old lady . . .

But in this McDonalds case, no one hurt the poor old lady. She did it to herself. She knowingly bought the coffee , aware that it was going to be hot. Anything can be dangerous if used improperly. If you spill it on yourself that's your fault. If you gulp it down, that's your fault. If you don't spill the coffee, and if you only take small sips while it's hot or wait to drink it until it's cooled, you'll never have an issue.

[ruksak]

The whole situation is somewhat confusing to me.

I only posted a link to one of several articles. In another, it said that the woman didn't realize that she was burnt until she went to the restroom. So, it may be that she has a medical condition that prevents her from feeling pain.

There was also this:

Wash said his client was uncertain how long she sat on the bench. When she discovered her burns, she sought treatment at a hospital and was released with what she was told were first-degree burns. Days later, Wash said, she became dizzy and returned to the hospital, where she learned that her burns were more serious.

http://www.washingto...bab19_blog.html

Again, I thankfully have no knowledge of third degree burns. But, it's curious that a hospital would tell her that the burns were minor then a few days later tell her that her burns were serious.

Is it typical that it takes hours/days for a third degree burn to be diagnosed?

wow...now that adds something to it, but raises more questions than it answers. I might assume she was overweight, maybe severely overweight?

I would also have concerns about whether or not she was on prescription pain killers and/or drunk.

[Yehoodi]

not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but my guess is that she just sat down on the bench and was burnt . . . as opposed to sitting there for say 10 mins and then getting burnt . . .

as for the poster who talked about bear feet, that is not on point, she indicated that she had long pants on and sat on the bench . . . so it was not like her bear skin came in contact with the hot bench thereby increasing the likelihood of a burnt over a clothed leg . . .

and as I indicated in post #39 above, the little guy has the right to be make whole, one of the beautiful things we have in this great national that was founded over 200 years ago . . . I not gonna sing "Battle Hymn of the Republic" now, and not making this a flag waving post, but the courts in this country are one of the great levelars we have . . .

we dont know all of the facts, but if she did just sit down and was immediately burnt, then to me the Cowborys should be responible to be compensate her . . . gross negligence or just mere negligence, the Cowboys make a seat, which we have not come to find out, causes injury when one comes in contact with the seat (its not like she had on some railing or something which is obviosuly not a seat, that cause the injury) . . . when you make a seat to be used by another and it dangerous, then you are responsible . . . it is as plan as that . . .

[JoKeR]

I was wondering if she had a medical condition and that or medication, prevented her from feeling the burn. If this is true, then JJ is liable. If what Ruksak said about the tempature of the bence is true, JJ is liable.

Ruksak makes a great point that the Cowboys made a poor choice in installing a black marble bench, something that's made to be sat on but also gets extremely hot in common conditions.

[supremecoltsfan300]

I was wondering if she had a medical condition and that or medication, prevented her from feeling the burn. If this is true, then JJ is liable. If what Ruksak said about the tempature of the bence is true, JJ is liable.

Ruksak makes a great point that the Cowboys made a poor choice in installing a black marble bench, something that's made to be sat on but also gets extremely hot in common conditions.

If she was under medication, how would JJ be liable? I don't understand how that works. Isn't that the same thing as say being drunk and slipping on stairs? You can't sue the owner there because you made yourself impaired. In both cases, the person is knowingly taking something that impairs their ability.

[Yehoodi]

But in this McDonalds case, no one hurt the poor old lady. She did it to herself. She knowingly bought the coffee , aware that it was going to be hot. Anything can be dangerous if used improperly. If you spill it on yourself that's your fault. If you gulp it down, that's your fault. If you don't spill the coffee, and if you only take small sips while it's hot or wait to drink it until it's cooled, you'll never have an issue.

but the issue comes down to what is the expectation of the comsumer . . . MacD cranked up the coffee maker by some 40-50 degrees over the other coffee company . . . and they were put on notice several times that this increase in temp causes injuries . . . but more importantingly its the expectation of the consumer . . . I have personally sipped, drank and spilled coffee on myelf many times (just my hand and chest only) but have never been burnt . . .and I have purchased coffee in many locations, so if I go to say 40 locations over my life to get coffee and do not get burnt, there is an expectation that when I got to location number 41, I should be able to handle the coffee in the same matter as with the first 40 locations, absent clear warnings to the contrary in location 41 . . .

but if location 41 provides coffee well above other companys (and knows it is doing it and that is dangerous to its customers), and I handle the coffee is same manner as the first 40 locations but this time get serverly burnt, then I have right to go after location #41 . . .

it is really a product liability issue . . . that is if you have an expectation that your customers will handle the produce in a certain way and know that that handling is dangerous, then you need to provide preventative measure lest you be deemed liable . . . one can not simply put out a dangerous product out into the market place and claim their liable ends at the drive through window . . .

EVERYBODY knows that many communters drink there coffee whilst driving, or at least at a minimun know that some its customers might handle/drink the coffee in the parking . . . and EVERBODY knows, that sometimes when one tries to pop a lid to add cream and sugars, those flimsy cups can distort, the lid comes off quickly and/or gets stuck, and the coffee will spill out of the cup that is jarred opened by a stuck lid and/or frim a distorting cup . . .this is basically what happened to that little old lady . . . whilst trying to pop the lid to add cream and sugar, the cup distorted/came apart and the coffee spilled on her lap . . . all she was trying to do was to simply pop the lid and add cream and sugar but was burnt, whereas she would of been less likely to be burnt, if at all, had MacD not had the coffee as hot and she only had coffee at a temp of the other companys . . .

we can blame the victim all we want, but when a person who sells a product knows that the product is dangerous if handled in the normal coarse of activity, and does nothing to prevent it, is responsible when a person down the road is injuried in a manner that was anticipated . . .

[GoColts8818]

I want to respond to this threat regarding the overall rights on individuals being made whole due to being harm by others, and will get to that in a moment, but first want to respond the MacDonald's lawsuit by that little old lady that got serverly burn by a mere cup of coffee . . .

First off, thank God, we live in a country that allows us individuals to have an avenue to be made whole, (the courts) when another harms us . . . some my not like this avenue or thumb thier noses at it, but it is one of the greatest things we have in this country . . . the ability of the small not to have to pay for damages caused by another . . . a little guy who is damage by another should have an avenue to seek compensation, this is especially so when the big guy tells the little guy to go fry ice and I aint paying you a dime . . . well was is right is right and we have a system to correct this and allow another to have the other pay for damages caused by the former . . .

now lets look at the facts of the MacDonald . . . (you can skip to the summary below if you all wish for a shortly explanation)

MacDonalds, a fast food hamburger joint, decides it wants to make more money by getting into the breakfast industry, then into the drive though industry to make money faster . . . then they started to sell coffee to communters . . . and in effort to compete against their competitors, cranked up the thier coffee maker some 40 degrees F over the other coffee supliers (I think it was 40 or 50, I kind of forget as it has been about 20 years since the suit, but either way I remember numbers like 140 v 180 ro 140 v 190) . . . so MacDonalds was trying to get an edge on the competition by serving coffee at temps fo 180-190 in an effort to have their coffees be hotter once their customers get to work . . .

the problem was that, and common sense goes, their customers drank the coffee as they drove to work and MacDonalds should be aware of this situation. Indeed prior to the suit they recevied several hundred complaints that their customers were being burnt and many were settle out of court. So bottom line MacD was on notice that its coffee was causing is its customers to get burnt (beyond the common sense thinking that poeple will drink the coffee before getting to work) . .. but instead of taking notice of the complaints, MacD, through one of their spokesperson indicated that "we had more important things to deal with . . " or something along those lines , i forget now the exact language . . .

so bottom line instead of cranking down the coffee pots by 40 degrees to match is competitors, MacD decided to continue to leave the coffee overly hot even thought they were on full notice that the product was dangerous and caused injuries . . .

So for me, if someone finally decides to take MacDs all the way to court to put them in their place, i got no problem with it . . . The elderly lady recieved server burns and was in the hospital for many days . . . . and for all of you anti-court people, the end judgement was a portporional one, that is they found her partly responsible and reduced the judged accordingly . . .

A Quick Review on the MacD Case

1) MacD is a hamburger joint that wanted increase revenue by selling coffee

2) It further wanted to increase revenue by selling a liquid via a drive through

3) It further wanted to make money by beatting its competitors by cranking up the coffee by some 40-50 degrees

4) It recieved several hundred complaints that customers were burned because of item 3 above

5) It had "more importanting things to do" than to turn down the coffee maker temp

6) A elderly lady was serverly burned and sued MacDs and received a judgement which was adjusted in accordance to her liability in handling the coffee

you can say what you want about "frivilous" law suit, but when one puts out a product that one knows can be dangerous to its customers and does nothing about it, when one gets injuried down the road we should not complain if that individuals seeks reimbursement and damages for the injury

plain and simple as that

surely the national media will not go into this kind of detial but would rather just yell at the little old lady . . .

I knew someone would try to make this into a much bigger deal than it was which was a simple example of a lawsuit that most people feel is rather silly rather she was justified to file it or not.

[ruksak]

If she was under medication, how would JJ be liable? I don't understand how that works.

I think he typo'd and meant to say JJ would NOT be liable. And I agree. If she was inebriated than she has no case.

I was wondering if she had a medical condition and that or medication, prevented her from feeling the burn. If this is true, then JJ is liable. If what Ruksak said about the tempature of the bence is true, JJ is liable.

Ruksak makes a great point that the Cowboys made a poor choice in installing a black marble bench, something that's made to be sat on but also gets extremely hot in common conditions.

My only point was exactly that; Under no circumstances should a business provide seating that they know can become extraordinarily hot, more-so than a common bench. It screams to me that they were far more thoughtful of how fancy their seats looked rather than concern for practicality and safety. Texas is hot quite often and that sun has a harsh angle down there. I'm not sure when people could have been able to sit there? Are they "nighttime" seats? lol

To put it as simple as possible......it's just stupid to put those where they were. Stupid.

[JWF]

I do wonder why the genius engineers decided to build a bench exposed to the Texas sun A.) out of marble and B.) decided to make it black of all colors.

Im with Vance too...i find it odd the women didnt realize she was burned that badly until later on. I had a 2nd degree burn on my finger from it being exposed to a butane flame and i felt it right away...and it was indeed one of, if not the most painful experiences of my life.

[Yehoodi]

I knew someone would try to make this into a much bigger deal than it was which was a simple example of a lawsuit that most people feel is rather silly rather she was justified to file it or not.

Some may feel that it is silly, but I for one thank God that those same individuals are not the ones handling our court system . . . our court system (justice) is blind; and as such, all have equal opportunity . . . when I first heard of the lawsuit in the mid 90s I was on the side with individuals saying she was a gold digger/frivilous law suit, but then as the facts started to filter out here and there, then I was behind her right to sue . . .

I just drafted the post (and didn't meant to pick on you but you the first the post it and was easy for me to quote ur post, perhaps I should of made a fresh post) as I saw a lot of you razing the MacD lady . . . and was not sure how much of the facts your all knew about the case . . . as I initial was mad at her but change my tune as the facts came out, I was not so sure how much of the detials you all knew and wanted to provide to see if some of you would have the same conversation as I did. claiming frivilous intially but then realizing she had a vaild claim . . .

I think too often the media will spin the claims to frivilous, true partly due to us being a litigious society and therefore bring the raft on ourselves to a great deal, but when friends/poster, sit around talking at the local watering whole or our favorite internet web forum, there is nothing wrong with putting the media aside and devulging into the facts and coming to a conclusion on our own, or even try to convert one or two to another frame of thinking on the matter . ..

prehaps i went over board, and why i provided a shorter explanantion, but it is kind of a pet peve of my and just wanted to provide some background info for those who wish to read it . . .

btw, I am attorney by profession, now you all, in addition to me being a pats fan, have two reason to want kill me . . .

[Vance]

btw, I am attorney by profession, now you all, in addition to me being a pats fan, have two reason to want kill me . . .

Just asking, is your first language English?

[ruksak]

Some may feel that it is silly, but I for one thank God that those same individuals are not the ones handling our court system . . . our court system (justice) is blind; and as such, all have equal opportunity . . . when I first heard of the lawsuit in the mid 90s I was on the side with individuals saying she was a gold digger/frivilous law suit, but then as the facts started to filter out here and there, then I was behind her right to sue . . .

I just drafted the post (and didn't meant to pick on you but you the first the post it and was easy for me to quote ur post, perhaps I should of made a fresh post) as I saw a lot of you razing the MacD lady . . . and was not sure how much of the facts your all knew about the case . . . as I initial was mad at her but change my tune as the facts came out, I was not so sure how much of the detials you all knew and wanted to provide to see if some of you would have the same conversation as I did. claiming frivilous intially but then realizing she had a vaild claim . . .

I think too often the media will spin the claims to frivilous, true partly due to us being a litigious society and therefore bring the raft on ourselves to a great deal, but when friends/poster, sit around talking at the local watering whole or our favorite internet web forum, there is nothing wrong with putting the media aside and devulging into the facts and coming to a conclusion on our own, or even try to convert one or two to another frame of thinking on the matter . ..

prehaps i went over board, and why i provided a shorter explanantion, but it is kind of a pet peve of my and just wanted to provide some background info for those who wish to read it . . .

Well, you have a valid point. If they wished to increase sales by purposely heating their coffee well above normal range, than perhaps it would've been prudent to provide equally higher quality cups for their higher quality coffee? Noooo....that would hurt the 'ol bottom line. So, they skirted the obvious counter measure and got burned....so to speak.

[GoColts8818]

Some may feel that it is silly, but I for one thank God that those same individuals are not the ones handling our court system . . . our court system (justice) is blind; and as such, all have equal opportunity . . . when I first heard of the lawsuit in the mid 90s I was on the side with individuals saying she was a gold digger/frivilous law suit, but then as the facts started to filter out here and there, then I was behind her right to sue . . .

I just drafted the post (and didn't meant to pick on you but you the first the post it and was easy for me to quote ur post, perhaps I should of made a fresh post) as I saw a lot of you razing the MacD lady . . . and was not sure how much of the facts your all knew about the case . . . as I initial was mad at her but change my tune as the facts came out, I was not so sure how much of the detials you all knew and wanted to provide to see if some of you would have the same conversation as I did. claiming frivilous intially but then realizing she had a vaild claim . . .

I think too often the media will spin the claims to frivilous, true partly due to us being a litigious society and therefore bring the raft on ourselves to a great deal, but when friends/poster, sit around talking at the local watering whole or our favorite internet web forum, there is nothing wrong with putting the media aside and devulging into the facts and coming to a conclusion on our own, or even try to convert one or two to another frame of thinking on the matter . ..

prehaps i went over board, and why i provided a shorter explanantion, but it is kind of a pet peve of my and just wanted to provide some background info for those who wish to read it . . .

btw, I am attorney by profession, now you all, in addition to me being a pats fan, have two reason to want kill me . . .

I'll say this again you are way over blowing something that was sighted as an example of again what most people feel is a silly lawsuit if you disagree fine can we stop the over kill now?

[Yehoodi]

Just asking, is your first language English?

Yes . . . but I don't always spend the time proof reading my longer posts . . .

[ruksak]

I'll say this again you are way over blowing something that was sighted as an example of again what most people feel is a silly lawsuit if you disagree fine can we stop the over kill now?

He was just stating that there was indeed more cause to the litigation than what was immediately apparent. I agree though, she should've just took it upon her own responsibility and dropped it.

[ruksak]

Just asking, is your first language English?

Why would you ask that? He seems as fluent as you or I.

[Nadine]

There has not been much detail released about this other than , it happened last year.

I'm curious as to how she's going to prove that she ever even sat on that bench. Maybe her injuries were from something else hot she sat on.

I was in Ireland at the Cliffs of Moher a few years ago and was astounded that there were no railings ...........there were some signs saying you should not go to the edge (which people were doing anyway)

I thought to myself........this would not happen in America.

Maybe if a child sat on the bench.......I might think this was a public hazard.

[Yehoodi]

I'll say this again you are way over blowing something that was sighted as an example of again what most people feel is a silly lawsuit if you disagree fine can we stop the over kill now?

Certainly, all that I was trying to do was to point out that the those people who claimed as silly were very likely not fully informed of all the facts (or choose to have selective viewing) and if they had seen all of the facts they very likely would of had a different opinion . . . alas, when that happens and other quote the same, it at times can require a refreshment of the situation . . .

[Vance]

Why would you ask that? He seems as fluent as you or I.

Just wondering.

[Yehoodi]

There has not been much detail released about this other than , it happened last year.

I'm curious as to how she's going to prove that she ever even sat on that bench. Maybe her injuries were from something else hot she sat on.

I was in Ireland at the Cliffs of Moher a few years ago and was astounded that there were no railings ...........there were some signs saying you should not go to the edge (which people were doing anyway)

I thought to myself........this would not happen in America.

Maybe if a child sat on the bench.......I might think this was a public hazard.

yes it did happen a while back, in 2010, which makes me think that she may have been contacting the Cowboys to get money from them directly . . . and perhaps the negoiations fell through and she decided to go to court . . .

the article did not state how long she was on the bench . . . intially for me, the length of time she was on the bench is a factor . . . in looking at the severity of the injury my guess is that she sat down and got burnt nearly immediately and then got off, which for me would indicate culpability on the part of the Cowboys . . . if for some reason she sat on the bench for say 5 mins and was burnt it may change things for me . . .

it will be interestingly to see how long she was on the bench before she got burnt, realized it and got off . . .

again, as I indicated in prior posts, product liability, if she was immediately burnt (or within a few seconds) it is an indication that the seat was dangerous . . . specifically a seat that can not be sat on for more than 3 seconds . . . when the Cowboys provide a seat to their invitees (who by the way pay a money to be an invitee) and same is not a functioning seat then I can see there being a strain and string to attach some form of liability . . .

It may have been a harmless oversight by the Cowboys, who has ever heard of one being burnt by a seat, but they were the ones that provided the seat and if the claimant can make out a case if negligence, or other form of liability, it will be an interesting case to keep track of . . .

[ruksak]

Just wondering.

Are you a Russian trombone player? Just wondering.

[Nadine]

yes it did happen a while back, in 2010, which makes me think that she may have been contacting the Cowboys to get money from them directly . . . and perhaps the negoiations fell through and she decided to go to court . . .

the article did not state how long she was on the bench . . . intially for me, the length of time she was on the bench is a factor . . . in looking at the severity of the injury my guess is that she sat down and got burnt nearly immediately and then got off, which for me would indicate culpability on the part of the Cowboys . . . if for some reason she sat on the bench for say 5 mins and was burnt it may change things for me . . .

it will be interestingly to see how long she was on the bench before she got burnt, realized it and got off . . .

again, as I indicated in prior posts, product liability, if she was immediately burnt (or within a few seconds) it is an indication that the seat was dangerous . . . specifically a seat that can not be sat on for more than 3 seconds . . . when the Cowboys provide a seat to their invitees (who by the way pay a money to be an invitee) and same is not a functioning seat then I can see there being a strain and string to attach some form of liability . . .

It may have been a harmless oversight by the Cowboys, who has ever heard of one being burnt by a seat, but they were the ones that provided the seat and if the claimant can make out a case if negligence, or other form of liability, it will be an interesting case to keep track of . . .

It is just really hard for me to imagine being burned that quickly by a bench. I cannot imagine it. I've sat on hot seats before and immediately jumped up.......no harm.

I have touched bare skin to hot cookware and been burned immediately and knew it immediately.

That she didn't know it until later.........sounds like a sunburn

maybe she was nude sunbathing or something.

Never a black marble seat but still........I'd like to see this somehow demonstrated because I just cannot believe it.

But now I'm interested

[Vance]

Are you a Russian trombone player? Just wondering.

What indicated to you that I play trombone?

[funktacious2]

Must resist lame joke about girl's hot butt.

[JCPatriot]

It was hotter than a space heater on full blast, over 1000w. How long do you think you could sit on a space heater element?

Wattage does not directly correlate to temperature. There are components on circuit boards that will get hot enough to burn you if you run less than 1W through them. Conversely, there are aircraft windshield heaters that require 1000s of Watts just to maintain temperatures high enough to melt ice. There are several factors that go into predicting temperature rise as a result of power dissipation, and it can be difficult even for experienced engineers to accurately predict.

[ruksak]

Wattage does not directly correlate to temperature. There are components on circuit boards that will get hot enough to burn you if you run less than 1W through them. Conversely, there are aircraft windshield heaters that require 1000s of Watts just to maintain temperatures high enough to melt ice. There are several factors that go into predicting temperature rise as a result of power dissipation, and it can be difficult even for experienced engineers to accurately predict.

It was more a comment about the rate of energy transfer of black marble baking in the sun.

[southwest1]

Signs wouldn't be necessary if they hadn't chosen black marble as their material for the bench. That thing was so hot it only took seconds to burn her skin completely off.

The first item the judge is going to look at other than a copy of the medical bills and the next item is the visibility and number of signs posted informing patrons not to sit on these benches in the blazing hot sun. I work in a facility where rules are posted everywhere in an archival repository and if anyone questions are rules we say that you agreed to follow these rules when you signed in to use these documents. No one is immune from these rules not even the staff. We all follow them equally to protect the rare documents in question and preserve the patron access to these materials for subsequent generations.

No. You sue the person responsible for having improper settings on their water dial and/or heater. People successfully sue over this issue with regularity. A health club and a hotel were both targeted for litigation recently for this issue.

I will concede that a person can bring litigation to a court if they sustained severe burns, but a settlement would only be awarded if the victim can prove that the business in question knowingly defied standard safety protocol regulations resulting in unsafe temperatures and physical damage emerged as a direct correlation of intentional negligence. Believing negligence took place and proving it are 2 entirely different outcomes.

Yes. The owners are indeed liable for such a thing. I worked as a service manager for Kroger for many years. This was a regular occurrence and we covered these issues with regularity during our safety/liability meetings. We settled out of court for an undisclosed amount once because our automatic doors weren't working correctly and would begin to open normally, and then would stop and move slowly. A 12 year old broke her nose when she walked right into it.

I never meant to imply that businesses were immune from litigation of an kind only that your obsession with surface material (marble) makes a settlement in this case a forgone conclusion. It doesn't.

It's not only relevant, but it's the only reason she was burned so badly. People in this thread keep thinkin of how hot the sidewalk gets or the roof of their car. This bench was made out of a material often used as a heating stone because of it's high heat retention capabilities. Add to that the material was black, and we had a recipe for severe injury.

I am not disputing what marble can do in terms of absorbing heat in the direct sunlight. I am disputing your flawed argument of the substance the bench is made of. Signage is the issue not the marble material. It is an issue of safety through awareness not protection from a chemical compound.

I was actually implying that many others seem to perceive this humorous connotation from the description of someone "toasting their buns", as has been said in this thread. Ironically, I was actually pointing out how severe this injury is. "I dare you" was meant as a warning for those whom may not appreciate horrific gore. I wasn't being funny, sir.

Perhaps, your intent was strictly educational and not humorous Ruksak. Again, I will take you at your word, but "I dare you" conveys mockery not sympathy, compassion, and understanding regardless if any person had said "toasting your buns" or not.

You're being a bit hyper sensitive. My implication seemed obvious. Oh....and though I have an extended vocabulary, I do not speak like a politically correct robot.

In my previous statement to you I said this: I knew a guy in high school in high school who tragically received 3rd degree burns over his entire body. His life was never the same after that. He never married, he never had kids, he never raised a family. He was viewed as the modern day elephant man. Please refrain from joking about 3rd degree burns and skin graphs. It's sick, disgusting, and repulsive okay."

I had just informed you that I was close friends in high school with a person who sustained 3rd degrees burns over his entire body as a result of a fire and you state this: "You're being a bit hyper sensitive...I do not speak like a politically correct robot."

Tell me Ruksak, leader of the Forum peace movement, who exactly is being insensitive in this particular scenerio? Now, I will take full responsibility for misinterpreting your original intent behind those remarks Ruksak and I am sorry for mischaracterizing your true meaning behind those words. But, please don't have the audacity to state that I am being hyper sensitive about skin graphs sir. Thank you.

[JCPatriot]

It was more a comment about the rate of energy transfer of black marble baking in the sun.

But even that is flawed. Just because the bench may absorb 1kW from solar radiation does not mean that it will in turn transfer energy to somebody's legs at the same rate.....especially through clothing which serves as a thermal insulator. There is no way that you can make a reliable comparison to sitting on a space heater element based on wattage alone.

[Poster X]

Depends on how hot the bench was. The time it takes to get a serious burn tends to decrease dramatically the further above 120 degrees it gets. Could have only been a matter of a couple of seconds of exposure but I somehow doubt it.

If it's over 100 degrees outside, and the bench is sitting in direct sunlight there is no way I'm going to sit down.

[Gavin]

she had to sit there a while I have no doubt

[ruksak]

But even that is flawed. Just because the bench may absorb 1kW from solar radiation does not mean that it will in turn transfer energy to somebody's legs at the same rate.....especially through clothing which serves as a thermal insulator. There is no way that you can make a reliable comparison to sitting on a space heater element based on wattage alone.

http://www.marblehea...technology.html

Just as an example of the heat retention efficiency of marble. I'll look for the link again for the sourcve I was reading, which compared the heat retention capabilities of marble to a 1000w space heater. I mistakenly did not post a link to the source in an earlier post.

In my previous statement to you I said this: I knew a guy in high school in high school who tragically received 3rd degree burns over his entire body. His life was never the same after that. He never married, he never had kids, he never raised a family. He was viewed as the modern day elephant man. Please refrain from joking about 3rd degree burns and skin graphs. It's sick, disgusting, and repulsive okay."

I had just informed you that I was close friends in high school with a person who sustained 3rd degrees burns over his entire body as a result of a fire and you state this: "You're being a bit hyper sensitive...I do not speak like a politically correct robot."

Tell me Ruksak, leader of the Forum peace movement, who exactly is being insensitive in this particular scenerio? Now, I will take full responsibility for misinterpreting your original intent behind those remarks Ruksak and I am sorry for mischaracterizing your true meaning behind those words. But, please don't have the audacity to state that I am being hyper sensitive about skin graphs sir. Thank you.

You misunderstood my original statement that you found "offensive". "I dare you" (to google images of 3rd degree burns) did, in no way whatsoever, present itself as disparaging or insensitive to burn victims. To insinuate anything different is nuttier than squirrel poo.

I was actually making a point FOR victims of such burns, and also stating my case for it to not be discussed as something "funny".

Also;

But, please don't have the audacity to state that I am being hyper sensitive about skin graphs sir.

Again, you misunderstood me and I have no idea how.

I was referring to the way you wished to reword what I "should have said". My comment was in no way directed toward what your friend went through. I'm not sure why you keep receiving my comments as "offensive"?

The entire crux of my argument here has been, and continues to be, making a driving point out of how serious this woman's injuries were and how ridiculous I find it to be that there even exists a public bench capable of such burns.

I am not disputing what marble can do in terms of absorbing heat in the direct sunlight. I am disputing your flawed argument of the substance the bench is made of. Signage is the issue not the marble material. It is an issue of safety through awareness not protection from a chemical compound.

What the bench was made of, as well as the color chosen, has everything to do with why such terrible burns were suffered. Akin to making a sidewalk out of rusty nails and broken glass, signs wouldn't be necessary if they hadn't chosen such an asinine material and color for a bench to be posted in the blazing hot Texas sun.

I said this earlier; When, exactly, are people supposed to sit on these benches?

[Yehoodi]

It is just really hard for me to imagine being burned that quickly by a bench. I cannot imagine it. I've sat on hot seats before and immediately jumped up.......no harm.

I have touched bare skin to hot cookware and been burned immediately and knew it immediately.

That she didn't know it until later.........sounds like a sunburn

maybe she was nude sunbathing or something.

Never a black marble seat but still........I'd like to see this somehow demonstrated because I just cannot believe it.

But now I'm interested

yes I will be interested to see how it pans out . . . we may never heard/read all the facts as the Cowboys might settle this case . . . but something does seem amiss . . . like the MacD case, it seems merky at the start, one does not know if we will get more facts like we did with the MacD case . . .

It seems strange to me that a seat could get that hot . . . but i do know that men fighting in North Africa in WW2 could fry an egg on a tank . ... surely that was the desert and metal . . . but the metal wasn't black like instant seat . . . my intial guess is that she sat down then got up . . . it doesn't make sense that she sat on the seat for more than a few seconds, becuase if one is getting a sever burn over a period of time, one would have enough time to think and process the increase pain heading toward the burn to get up in time . . .

we'll just have to wait and see . . .

[Yehoodi]

http://www.marblehea...technology.html

Just as an example of the heat retention efficiency of marble. I'll look for the link again for the sourcve I was reading, which compared the heat retention capabilities of marble to a 1000w space heater. I mistakenly did not post a link to the source in an earlier post.

Ruksak, great point about the heat retention of marble . . . i was just thinking about the color only, as black is the color that least reflex suns rays and therefore will retain more heat than other colors . .. but combine with the retention of stone, specifically marble in this case, one only wonders if the black marble seat was as hot at the allies and axis tanks in the desert in ww2 . . . or even in the ball park . . . we know metal can get hot enough to be equal to a hot plate to fry eggs, if the seat was that hot then I can see how she would have been burnt immediately . . . if so, she basically sat on a hot frying pan . . . and whether one has pants on or not, if you sit on a hot frying pan, things are not good . . .

[ColtsPacersfan]

Only in America can you sue over stupid things and you will probably win. How can you not know the bench is hot? I know with me, when I get burned or something is hot. I pull myself away from whatever it is fast and I don't suffer any kind of burns. But that is just me, and what do I know? Also the sun is hot and Texas they have hot summers. Another low life, trying to steal and get easy money. I can't stand low lives that is always out for easy money. Maybe I can sue the sun though? Sometimes I get sunburned during the summer. I shall sue the sun.

[Qwiz]

I wonder if Jason Garrett will have a go at this seat if the Cowboys don't get to the Super Bowl this year.

[bavanlan]

yes it did happen a while back, in 2010, which makes me think that she may have been contacting the Cowboys to get money from them directly . . . and perhaps the negoiations fell through and she decided to go to court . . .

I'd put my money on a 2 year SOL.

[Yehoodi]

I'd put my money on a 2 year SOL.

good point you might be right, she wanted to get it before her rights expire . . .

[bavanlan]

good point you might be right, she wanted to get it before her rights expire . . .

Yep.

heck, most of my settlements (though not Tort) come the closer we get to a trial.

[ruksak]

I wonder if Jason Garrett will have a go at this seat if the Cowboys don't get to the Super Bowl this year.

Garrett's been sitting on that bench for about a year now.

[Yehoodi]

Yep.

heck, most of my settlements (though not Tort) come the closer we get to a trial.

Yes, trials can do that . . . I dont do trials, but handle mostly appeals . . .