Based on the evidence presented by opposing parties, a jury is faced with the dilemma of determining whether a particular lawsuit is frivolous or legitimate. The 1994 McDonald’s coffee lawsuit paved the way for public speculation of seemingly litigious lawsuits. The black and white version is that a customer sustained permanent injuries and someone had to pay the consequences. The gray line was left for the jury to determine: whether or not the customer or McDonald’s was negligent in the situation. In that particular case, the jury felt that the fast food chain carried the burden of responsibility more so than the injured party. A similar decision was met in the recent case of Henry Walker vs. Walmart. Continue reading
Tag Archives: ruling
Dr. Oz Beats Lawsuit Over Burned Feet
In April of 2012, Dr. Oz shared a home remedy for insomnia with his many TV viewers, called the “Knapsack Heated Rice Footsie”. You pour uncooked rice into the toes of a pair of socks, heat them in the microwave, then put the socks on and go to sleep. New Jersey resident, Frank Dietl was watching the show and decided to try the well-known doctor’s at-home remedy. Dietl suffered from neuropathy of the lower extremities as a result of his Diabetes, and sustained second and third degree burns to his feet as a result of Dr. Oz’s advice. Frank Dietl sued the doctor for neglecting his duty to warn viewers of the possible effects of attempting this alternative cure for insomnia. Read More