Lady wants $170k for spilled coffee.
Jun 2, 2013, 4:35 pm
#61
Formerly known as CollegeFlyer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JRA
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA PLT, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 6,716
Am I the only one who thinks it would actually be a good outcome for the traveling public if the airline started using spill-proof cups when serving hot beverages on planes?
Jun 2, 2013, 4:55 pm
#62
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton ♦ , Hyatt Carbonado, Wyndham ♦, Marriott PE, "Stinking Bum" elsewhere.
Posts: 5,001
Any other poster commented that liquid hot enough to scald could be used as a weapon. I agree. We should err on the side of safety.
After all, even if it prevents only one injury, it's worth it, right?
I see iced coffee in your future.
Jun 2, 2013, 5:07 pm
#63
Join Date: Aug 2011
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 8,634
It probably is a good idea, but a better idea is to ban all hot beverages and soups because the safety issue would be completely resolved by that action.
Any other poster commented that liquid hot enough to scald could be used as a weapon. I agree. We should err on the side of safety.
After all, even if it prevents only one injury, it's worth it, right?
I see iced coffee in your future.
Any other poster commented that liquid hot enough to scald could be used as a weapon. I agree. We should err on the side of safety.
After all, even if it prevents only one injury, it's worth it, right?
I see iced coffee in your future.
Jun 2, 2013, 6:10 pm
#64
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA; Philadelphia, PA
Programs: OZ Diamond
Posts: 6,140
It probably is a good idea, but a better idea is to ban all hot beverages and soups because the safety issue would be completely resolved by that action.
Any other poster commented that liquid hot enough to scald could be used as a weapon. I agree. We should err on the side of safety.
After all, even if it prevents only one injury, it's worth it, right?
I see iced coffee in your future.
Any other poster commented that liquid hot enough to scald could be used as a weapon. I agree. We should err on the side of safety.
After all, even if it prevents only one injury, it's worth it, right?
I see iced coffee in your future.
LAX
Jun 2, 2013, 7:02 pm
#65
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Our Nation's Capital
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott BonVoy LT Titanium Elite, National Executive Elite
Posts: 832
Originally Posted by LAX
Really? What about hot meals on flights that still them? What else that can potentially injure pax onboard should be eliminated?
LAX
LAX
Therefore, let's ban the airlines themselves.
Jun 2, 2013, 7:57 pm
#66
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: body: A stone's throw from SFO, mind: SE Asia
Programs: Some of this 'n some of that
Posts: 17,263
[/tongue-in-cheek]
Jun 2, 2013, 8:13 pm
#67
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton ♦ , Hyatt Carbonado, Wyndham ♦, Marriott PE, "Stinking Bum" elsewhere.
Posts: 5,001
Jun 2, 2013, 8:58 pm
#68
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: body: A stone's throw from SFO, mind: SE Asia
Programs: Some of this 'n some of that
Posts: 17,263
Jun 3, 2013, 12:46 pm
#69
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: DEN
Programs: Recovering after 7 years of UA 1K, Still UA Silver (Which means nothing), Marriott Lifetime Plat Pre
Posts: 1,950
Just saw this, a PAX is suing UA due to another passenger opening peanuts on board.
http://www.9news.com/news/article/33...g-airline-sued
Similar in my mind as both incidents were caused by a passenger and not United. However it sounds like the FAs were unwilling to announce not to consume peanuts on board. I have heard that announcement on many flights.
http://www.9news.com/news/article/33...g-airline-sued
Similar in my mind as both incidents were caused by a passenger and not United. However it sounds like the FAs were unwilling to announce not to consume peanuts on board. I have heard that announcement on many flights.
Jun 4, 2013, 10:39 am
#70
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,265
Why did she not wear a mask the whole time if she was allergic to to "other people eating peanuts"?
Of course the much larger number of people who is allergic to cat and dog hair has no say when the mutt huggers bring their emotional support creatures. Then the allergy counts as mere 'inconvenience'
.
Jun 4, 2013, 4:47 pm
#71
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 328
I would love to know how they come up with the dollar anounts in these suits. How do you calculate the value? Do they just throw darts at a money board and settle for a fraction of the over inflated amount?
Silly but there are some pro law suit folks that make a living by suing all the neighbors and contractors in a local community.
Silly but there are some pro law suit folks that make a living by suing all the neighbors and contractors in a local community.
Jun 4, 2013, 6:23 pm
#73
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: MEL
Programs: VAG
Posts: 1,865
.. where the over-entitled allergic person conveniently threw the fit on the return trip, to make up for the spending down there.
Why did she not wear a mask the whole time if she was allergic to to "other people eating peanuts"?
Of course the much larger number of people who is allergic to cat and dog hair has no say when the mutt huggers bring their emotional support creatures. Then the allergy counts as mere 'inconvenience'.
Why did she not wear a mask the whole time if she was allergic to to "other people eating peanuts"?
Of course the much larger number of people who is allergic to cat and dog hair has no say when the mutt huggers bring their emotional support creatures. Then the allergy counts as mere 'inconvenience'
.http://allergicliving.com/index.php/...of-peanutnuts/
and while there can certainly be ill effects when an entire planeload of people eats peanuts simultaneously, a single bag of peanuts won't cause the kind of reaction described.
On the other hand, a single person eating peanuts triggering psychosomatic symptoms and a panic attack? That's pretty darn plausible. But in this case, she should be the one reimbursing the airline for the cost of diverting the plane.
"I was just sitting in my seat, and then all of a sudden the air basically around me went away. I just stopped breathing,"
Uh huh. Not "it got harder and harder to breathe over a period of five to thirty minutes as my throat rapidly swelled", but "I just stopped breathing"?
I went googling, but couldn't find any reports of anyone dying, ever, from a peanut allergy without actually consuming peanuts.
Jun 5, 2013, 1:58 am
#74
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: SEA
Programs: AS MVP Gold75K
Posts: 850
Incident happened almost two years ago. What gets me is FA did not spill coffee on pax. I think if a passenger asks for coffee, is handed the cup, it is his/her responsibility and risk managing the cup. I don't have a problem with liability laws, but I do have a problem when all sense of personal responsibility is no longer required.
Soon after the break up the USSR, I opened an office there for a major oil company. We had a copier that needed supplies/maintenance. I went to the local vendor and they supplied a 3-page agreement. I sent it to Houston and received back a 17-page agreement from our fine legal group. It was hilarious trying to explain the cr*p the American Legal system forces us to put in contracts. The most ludicrous was the indemnity absolving us of liability if their worker hurts himself by his own actions. The lady I was negotiating with said this was the stupidest thing she ever heard of - "of course if he hurts himself, it's his own fault!" We've gotten used to lawyers subverting the simplest of common sense ideas, and the reason is the more they can subvert common sense, the more money they make.
Exploding toaster? Yeah, I see a problem. FA gives coffee to a passenger, who spills it because someone in front of her reclines, and she sues United 2 years later? Gimme a break. I'm not drinking room temperature coffee because some lady and her contingency-seeking bottom-dwelling lawyer think they can get money out of UA.
Soon after the break up the USSR, I opened an office there for a major oil company. We had a copier that needed supplies/maintenance. I went to the local vendor and they supplied a 3-page agreement. I sent it to Houston and received back a 17-page agreement from our fine legal group. It was hilarious trying to explain the cr*p the American Legal system forces us to put in contracts. The most ludicrous was the indemnity absolving us of liability if their worker hurts himself by his own actions. The lady I was negotiating with said this was the stupidest thing she ever heard of - "of course if he hurts himself, it's his own fault!" We've gotten used to lawyers subverting the simplest of common sense ideas, and the reason is the more they can subvert common sense, the more money they make.
Exploding toaster? Yeah, I see a problem. FA gives coffee to a passenger, who spills it because someone in front of her reclines, and she sues United 2 years later? Gimme a break. I'm not drinking room temperature coffee because some lady and her contingency-seeking bottom-dwelling lawyer think they can get money out of UA.
Straw man.
I believe both statements to be unfounded. Neither did the people make any such decision, it much more grew from a disproportionally strong court system and the interests of certain agents within it.
And 2nd all these claims that regulation or punitive damages make the life of people safer are merely perpetuated and never subject to hard experimental scrutiny. You are not less safe in a coffee shop in Europe and until recently they had not even liability and certainly no punitive damages.
And 2nd all these claims that regulation or punitive damages make the life of people safer are merely perpetuated and never subject to hard experimental scrutiny. You are not less safe in a coffee shop in Europe and until recently they had not even liability and certainly no punitive damages.
In the US, anyone can sue anyone else for anything -- no one "screens" initial filings. Frivolous suits (which this may or may not be) are disposed of with motions to dismiss in federal court and either motions to dismiss or demurrers in state court (depending on that state's rules of civil procedure).
It always amazes how some people condemn the American legal system without knowing the first thing about it.
It always amazes how some people condemn the American legal system without knowing the first thing about it.
Attorneys who bring frivolous lawsuits should be fined.
Jun 5, 2013, 5:38 am
#75
Senior Moderator; Moderator, Eco-Conscious Travel, United and Flyertalk Cares
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Fulltime travel/mostly Europe
Programs: UA 1.7 MM;; Accor & Marriott Pt; Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 17,832
This one has pretty much run its course and then some. As the case moves along and there are updates, we can look at reopening the thread.
l'etoile
UA moderator
l'etoile
UA moderator