Now there's a hot tea case.

jpr62902 · Nov 4, 2010

But the result is much different: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...314ac2-8f02-4b90-8829-501640f40e04/10/hilite/

I haven't seen the trial court's decision yet, but from what I gather in the 2nd Circuit's decision, the plaintiff's experts didn't pass some initial evidentiary tests, so they were not admitted and Starbucks wins on summary judgment.

muleman · Nov 4, 2010

There is too much lobbying in congress to ever reform some of these frivolous lawsuits. Why have we as a nation gotten so far away from personal responsibility? Blaming all your troubles on someone else comes from not looking in the mirror and accepting your part in things that happen.

jpr62902 · Nov 4, 2010

muleman said:
There is too much lobbying in congress to ever reform some of these frivolous lawsuits. Why have we as a nation gotten so far away from personal responsibility? Blaming all your troubles on someone else comes from not looking in the mirror and accepting your part in things that happen.

Hold on, MM.

First, Starbucks won this case on summary judgment -- that means it never went to trial. Tort reform wouldn't change that result.

Second, what plaintiff are you referencing that is blaming "all [their] troubles" on someone else?

Finally, shouldn't personal responsibility also include corporate responsibility?

joec · Nov 4, 2010

Now this is a state court correct Sam? If so the states have the power to put laws in effect to stop a frivolous law suite I would assume. Not many suites by individuals wind up in Federal courts unless I've missed something. Tort reform is a state responsibility if I'm correct not a federal one. This would apply to a business as well as individuals I would also assume.

loboloco · Nov 4, 2010

This has a little more info on the original suit.

www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/appeals_court_upholds_dismissal_5AcpYGqWNIOj167MH04vvI

Appeals court upholds dismissal of $3M Starbucks suit

By BRUCE GOLDING
Last Updated: 4:02 PM, November 4, 2010
Posted: 4:00 PM, November 4, 2010
Comments: 27
http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php...0540439074NXC&pre=http://www.nypost.com/&tt=0 http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php...0540439074NXC&pre=http://www.nypost.com/&tt=0 More

Print
Maybe it’s time to switch to iced.
An appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a $3 million suit against Starbucks by a Manhattan granny who had to be hospitalized after spilling a “Venti”-sized cup of tea on her foot.
Rachel Moltner charged the Seattle-based beverage business with negligence for serving the piping-hot brew inside a pair of paper cups that toppled over when she removed the lid to add some sugar.
But on Tuesday, three judges at the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan unanimously cited a 2003 decision in a similar case that found, “‘Double cupping is a method well known in the industry as a way of preventing a cup of hot tea from burning one’s hand.”

Rachel%20Moltner%20%2877%29%20suing%20Starbucks155907--300x300.jpg

Daniel Shapiro
Rachel Moltner.

Moltner’s lawyer, David Jaroslawicz, said he would ask the entire court to review the ruling.
Jaroslawicz said a pre-trial investigation revealed that Starbucks instructs its baristas not to “double cup” drinks, and also introduced a new, tighter-fitting lid shortly before Moltner’s February 2008 mishap.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/...ismissal_5AcpYGqWNIOj167MH04vvI#ixzz14NNIyVyw

jpr62902 · Nov 4, 2010

joec said:
Now this is a state court correct Sam? If so the states have the power to put laws in effect to stop a frivolous law suite I would assume. Not many suites by individuals wind up in Federal courts unless I've missed something. Tort reform is a state responsibility if I'm correct not a federal one. This would apply to a business as well as individuals I would also assume.

The case was originally filed in state court but removed to federal court on Starbucks' motion. The Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York then granted Starbucks' motion for summary judgment. This ruling was affirmed by the US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Tort reform can be effected on both state and federal levels.

muleman · Nov 4, 2010

No particular case in my comment. Just that folks want to sue for things that can rightly be called accidents. Scalding yourself with a drink in your hand is a far cry from someone slamming into your vehicle at an intersection.

joec · Nov 5, 2010

jpr62902 said:
The case was originally filed in state court but removed to federal court on Starbucks' motion. The Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York then granted Starbucks' motion for summary judgment. This ruling was affirmed by the US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Tort reform can be effected on both state and federal levels.

Thanks for the answer as I always found that a bit confusing. I've not heard of any person vs person, or doctor vs patient suites going to a federal court and never though about companies vs person.

jpr62902 · Nov 5, 2010

joec said:
Thanks for the answer as I always found that a bit confusing. I've not heard of any person vs person, or doctor vs patient suites going to a federal court and never though about companies vs person.

Actually, it's diversity jurisdiction. Say you, a Kentucky resident, come to Cincy for surgery and the Ohio doc screws you up sumpin' fierce. You can sue in federal court if the damages meet the jurisdictional requirements (75k?) since the opposing parties are from different states.

joec · Nov 5, 2010

jpr62902 said:
Actually, it's diversity jurisdiction. Say you, a Kentucky resident, come to Cincy for surgery and the Ohio doc screws you up sumpin' fierce. You can sue in federal court if the damages meet the jurisdictional requirements (75k?) since the opposing parties are from different states.

Thanks again I wasn't aware of that either, but then I've never studied law other than the constitution in Civics classes in school years ago.

Cowboy · Nov 5, 2010

I dont know much about the law or the courts but I,m glad to see the outcome of this case xcept that as normal only the attorneys benefitted from this . :hammer:

Just means 1000,s of more hours of stupid ass TV ads trying to get people to file bullshit lawsuits . No offence meant to all lawyers & attorneys just the ambulance chasers :hammer:

alaska120 · Nov 5, 2010

You mean...that coffee... was HOT?
How dare Starbucks for making hot coffee!
Same lines as the McDonalds' suit.
Hot coffee and hot cocoa are...well...hot.

Now there's a hot tea case.

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer

muleman

Gone But Not Forgotten

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer

joec

New member

loboloco

Well-known member

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer

muleman

Gone But Not Forgotten

joec

New member

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer

joec

New member

Cowboy

Wait for it.

alaska120

Mayor McCheese