By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
BMaker11 on 20 March 2015
Edit Thread
shikamaru317 said:
BMaker11 said:

Coffee should never be so hot that it causes severe 3rd degree burns that need skin grafts in order to recover. If you spill it, yes, it's your fault, but it shouldn't mutilate you. You wouldn't have even heard of the story if McDonald's would have just recognized the problem, but they dragged it out and that's why they paid millions.

MS did/is doing the same thing with the disc scratching. They've ignored the claim, said it was actually the consumer's fault (like what you just said) and MS is probably going to have to pay for it.

I wasn't referring to that case, but another one involving warning laels on lids. But I feel like we're getting off topic now. My initial point was that there are alot of frivolous lawsuits. Can't say for sure if that's the case with this lawsuit or not, but I know I never had any disc scratching issues with my original 360 model, nor did anyone else I know personally. There may be legitimate cases of stationary console disc damage, but I get the feeling they're pretty rare, most of the cases likely involve moving the console with a disc in the drive, which common sense should tell people not to do. If this case wins, yes some people that had legitimate disc scratching issues will get recompense, but MS will also have to pay a bunch of idiots who moved their consoles with a disc inside, which sucks for them. Fortunately they can afford it since they're a huge company.

I recognize what your intent was. It's just that you used a false analogy. In my initial response to you, I used to the phrase "it wasn't as frivolous as the media made it out to be", so I recognized that you were saying that both the coffee lawsuit and the scratched disc lawsuit were frivolous ones with someone trying to get a quick buck.

I just pointed out that it was a bad analogy because the coffee lawsuit wasn't frivolous and came to be for legitimate reasons and it was made worse for McDonald's because McDonald's ignored the claims. And MS is doing the same thing. So actually, I shouldn't say that it's a false analogy, since MS is pretty much in the same boat (for practical comparisons, it's actually a very good analogy!) But rather, the way you looked at it was false.

And if you were referring to warning labels on lids, it probably would have been easier to just say that =/. Because what the people who have been disagreeing with you have been referring to is the "McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit" (as you said it). Liebeck v. McDonald's is informally known as "the McDonald's Coffee Case" or "the Hot Coffee Lawsuit". No lids mentioned there lol