| Submit your comments on this article | |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- | |
| Tort Reform Reminder: Spilled Decaf Costs Starbucks A Lot Of Beans | |
| 2006-08-17 | |
| (CBS/AP) NEW YORK A Manhattan lawyer won $310,000 from Starbucks because of a cup of hot decaf spilled on her foot. The jury's verdict was handed down in April and upheld yesterday by State Supreme Court Justice Emily Jane Goodman. The 42-year-old attorney, Alice Grifffin, says she bought a large decaf on February 10, 2004 from a Starbucks on Seventh Avenue. She says the clerk did not put an insulating sleeve on the cup, and slid the coffee on the counter so it fell on her foot. A total innocent, of course. In explicably attacked by an e-vil Starbucks barista. Griffin testified the hot coffee scalded her toes leaving her with nerve damage to her foot. Ah, brain damage. Starbucks says it regrets her pain, but it says the company will appeal the jury verdict if a better settlement can't be reached. How pathetic that this insane judgement stands. Let's elect Edwards so we can all get in on the scams. There's plenty of room (and moola) for everybody, right? Fucking scum corporations. A settlement in every
| |
| Posted by:Flavinter Phung9488 |
| #10 Starbucks should pay her, but part of the deal should be she never enter another Starbucks again or drink any of their products. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-08-17 13:45 |
| #9 Oldcat, you might also institute a 2 minute cooling off period so people have to wait for their coffee to be properly cool so they can handle it safely. PUt the ladies face on the little wrap-around insulating sleeves with an explaination of new policies. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-08-17 12:44 |
| #8 “large decaf”? I recently had to drop someone off at Oakland Airport and stopped by Starbucks in Berkley on my way home. The young man working at Starbucks took great pleasure in explaining a “Large” was actually called a “Venti” in Starbucks lingo. Based on that, they should throw this stupid case out AND EXECUTE THE LAWYER(s). |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-08-17 12:31 |
| #7 I'm always suprised at how easy it is to pick a jury of 12 retards to give judgements like this. Not a promising testament to mankind. Couple this with the scores of comparatively miniscule settlements that working class people recieve every day for horrible, permanent injuries at work or in their cars. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-08-17 11:28 |
| #6 If I ran Starbucks, I'd double the prices in Manhattan until the 310000 is repaid, with posters of the woman and her lawyer in every store saying why the prices are higher. |
| Posted by: Oldcat 2006-08-17 10:20 |
| #5 Considering how many moonbats I see at my local Starbucks, I'm just not sure who to root for here. A plague on both their houses.(Although I'm a firm believer in tort reform) |
| Posted by: charger 2006-08-17 09:54 |
| #4 Decaf. Why bother? |
| Posted by: Flaigum Whelet4630 2006-08-17 09:42 |
| #3 No sympathy here for either party. Yes, they do make it too hot* and yes as a grown adult you are responsible for the proper handling of the material you know full well is not benign. * if you need it that hot, youÂ’ve already burned off your taste buds and its just a status issue for you. Come on, if it can inflict 2nd and 3rd degree burns on open flesh, what do you think it's done to your oral cavity. Heh. |
| Posted by: Glurt Flavitch2274 2006-08-17 09:31 |
| #2 It was not too hot to drink but too hot for her foot? Too bad lie detectors are not standard court equipment. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-08-17 08:51 |
| #1 Wonder how much she will donate to the Democratic party? My distaste for lawyers is partially based on the fact they are huge financial supporters of the Democratic party. I wonder how many jobs this lady just killed? That is another reason to hate lawyers the legal profession are job and business killers. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-08-17 08:40 |