Judicial system should not allow ludicrous complaints

Warning: This column may require reading.

So, I was getting coffee at a McDonald's last week. Yeah, I know, a bad venue to purchase coffee from, but when you’re broke and desperately in need of caffeine, there are sacrifices that must be made.

Anyway, I was about to take a big swig of the stuff when something caught my eye. There was this big warning on the side of my coffee cup that read, "Caution: Coffee is Hot!"

Coffee? Hot? Next they’ll be telling us Big Macs have lots of cholesterol.

Where do they breed idiots that think coffee is anything but hot?

New Mexico, apparently.

You might not remember the story, but some lady in Albuquerque, N.M., purchased coffee at her local McDonald’s, spilled it on her lap and sued McDonald’s for both compensatory and punitive damages back in the early '90s. She was subsequently awarded approximately $3 million.

Now, before you run to the Golden Arches to shower yourself in scalding coffee, McDonald’s has gone to great lengths in order to prevent another such occurrence by plastering each coffee cup with the familiar warning. They’re not trying to save some of us from our stupidity (New Mexico, this means you), but they’re trying to reduce their liabilities.

What I don’t understand is why McDonald’s had to pay this lady $3 million for her own idiocy? Ronald McDonald most likely didn’t jump from the depths of the plastic balls in Play Land, sprint across the parking lot and throw a piping hot cup of coffee into her lap. So why she’d make so much bank?

Because our judicial system allows ludicrous complaints to be heard in court. Moreover, lawsuits like the McDonald’s coffee case create both a financial and time burden on our overworked court system.

And the freaky part about the situation is the McDonald’s coffee case is pretty tame when compared to some other lawsuits brought before a judge in the country.

For instance, a student sued the University of Michigan for approximately $850,000 because he received an F in his German class. Thankfully (or unfortunately, if you were hoping to use this case as a precedent), his lawsuit was unsuccessful.

Or the city of San Carlos, Calif., which filed a lawsuit against Ryan McDonell, a kid hit by a San Carlos city truck. The city apparently wanted to recover money for the driver’s medical expenses and worker’s compensation, along with money for repairs to the truck that bowled him over.

And my personal favorite: the Pennsylvania man who filed a lawsuit naming God as one of the defendants. You want to hear who ELSE he named as defendants (this list gets funny)? Try Presidents Reagan and Bush (minus the "W"), all of the major television networks, every state, every single American, every federal judge, and the 100th through 105th U.S. Congresses. This moron apparently felt that God was neglect in that he, as the supposed sovereign ruler of the universe, failed to punish the leaders of his church and nation for their wrongdoings, which ruined his life. The "wrongdoings" apparently stemmed from his 30-year court battle with his former employer that fired him back when the Beatles’ "White Album" was topping the charts in 1968.

Thankfully, the judge threw out the case. Because if God could actually be sued, I know I’d file a suit against him. Mainly for the lack of assistance he’s given the Cubs since 1908, the existence of Molly Shannon and for allowing certain musical groups in today’s culture to thrive. Like the Backstreet Boys (sorry sis, but you know it’s true).

But then there are also borderline cases that I find frivolous. For instance, people suing all these tobacco companies. I’m just curious as to who shoved the cigarettes down their throats? Joe Camel? The Marlboro Man? Raise your hand if you actually believe inhaling smoke could NOT be harmful to you, because I’m going to hit you repeatedly with a ball-peen hammer. You’re dumb. They’ve been putting those warnings on the side of cigarette boxes since the ‘70s.

OK, so maybe if you started smoking before they started stamping Surgeon General’s warnings on the sides of the boxes, you might have a case. The rest of you should save your breath. You might need it.

So what can we, as a society, do to prevent frivolous lawsuits? Well, I’ve come up with two solutions:

1) If deemed frivolous by a panel of judges, the plaintiff’s lawsuit shall be thrown out. Also, an extremity of said plaintiff’s body shall be severed. This would be extremely effective, but I’m willing to bet my right arm that the American Civil Liberties Union might have a problem with this solution.

2) We could continue allowing lawsuits of a frivolous nature to be heard, but in all lawsuits (including serious ones), should the plaintiffs not win the lawsuit, he should have to pay for court costs and legal fees of both sides.

This seems like it would be a more plausible solution. It’s a definite deterrent, and it’s lot less clean up too. If you had to pay for both lawyers fees (and those guys make a heinous amount of money in some cases), I’m willing to bet Mr. Looney Tunes in Pennsylvania would’ve thought twice about suing God or any other deity.

Either way, something has to be done about this growing problem. Otherwise someone’s going to sue the Exponent and myself because they weren’t warned that my columns required the physical act of reading. And then we’ll have to put a disclaimer before my column and …

Damn.

Matt Poston is a sophomore in the School of Management. He can be reached at opinions@purdueexponent.org

Judicial system should not allow ludicrous complaints

Public should stay informed of facts about anthrax

Critic urges everyone to buy 'best album ever'

Students need to research topics before writing letters

'Gator Chomp' makes student feel at home

Band pays respect to American flag

OPINIONS DESK PHONE:
(765) 743-1111 ext. 256

Opinions editor:
Tom McHenry

To send a letter to the editor, please email opinions@purdueexponent.org