TIL In the Hot Coffee lawsuit against McDonalds,punitive damages were given due to McDonalds intentionally overheating coffee to save money on refills - eviltoast

During the trial it was revealed that McDonald’s knew that heating their coffee to this temperature would be dangerous, but they did it anyways because it would save them money. When you serve coffee that is too hot to drink, it will take much longer for a person to drink their coffee, which means that McDonald’s will not have to give out as many free refills of coffee. This policy by the fast food chain is the reason the jury awarded $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages in the McDonald’s hot coffee case. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant for their inappropriate business practice.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I did, it seems like you skipped most of the article and jump straight into criticisms, most of which have been largely debunked. There has never been any credible accusation of Mother Teresa stealing money from her hospice to give to the Vatican.

    • jarfil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There has never been any credible accusation of Mother Teresa stealing money from her hospice to give to the Vatican

      That’s a funny way of saying that she sent over 90% of donations directly to the Vatican, instead of putting them towards hospice work. Sure, she didn’t “steal from her hospice”… the money didn’t even reach the hospice in the first place!

      But hey, she managed to spare some change to fund monasteries over Europe, and followed Mahatma Gandhi’s steps in “no painkillers for thee, but all of them for me”.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You do know that in India, especially at the time, there was a ban on painkillers. Morphine wasn’t even allowed for medicinal uses, so it’s not that she kept the painkillers for herself, it’s that she didn’t have them to begin with.

        You’re quoting “Hell’s Angel” which has been pretty thoroughly debunked as bullshit

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t seem to know there is more than one kind of painkiller (US, land of the opioids, amirite?). India had banned oral opium, not for medical use; they didn’t join the Metamozole banning stupidity until 2013, just in time for other countries to start legalizing it as a way to combat opioid addictions (coincidentally, the opioid epidemic in the US started about when Metamozole got banned… surely no relation).

          Saint Mother Teresa, kept giving her patients acetaminophen, several orders less effective than any of the alternatives she had available.

          You’re quoting “Hell’s Angel” which has been pretty thoroughly debunked as bullshit

          Haven’t read that, and don’t plan on doing so. If what I’m saying, based on public sources, happens to match what’s written in there, then you might want to revisit your definition of “pretty thoroughly debunked as bullshit”.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Except if you checked the “public sources”, you’d see you’re literally just regurgitating the hit piece done by Hitchens, and absolutely nothing from the real history.

            Additionally, Morphine, as I said, was illegal at the time. Her tylenol was the best she could do at the time.

            • jarfil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              you’re literally just regurgitating the hit piece done by Hitchens

              Not sure which sources are you regurgitating, since Morphine was legal for medical use, and you completely glossed over Metamizole.

              Sounds like the “War on Drugs” talking points, that have so effectively spread illegal (and highly profitable) opioid abuse in the US.

                • jarfil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It was India in the 1950’s dude

                  Precisely, dude:

                  • Metamizole, invented in the 1920s, legal in India until 2013
                  • Mother Teresa started her cult in 1950
                  • India didn’t restrict opium use until 1984
                  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    1884 maybe…

                    Sides, what makes you think she even had this. The Indian Governement’s always been strict and it’s not like they’re giving this Nun from another country access to top of the line medicine. Especially when her patients are people so far gone that hospitals literally will not take them, because no one’s ever heard of Pallative Care, because Theresa’s in the middle of inventing the concept!