Another woman sues Bacardi

[Toliver]

Link to the article

A bartender, who wasn't identified in either lawsuit, was pouring shots of Bacardi 151 when a customer lit a menu on fire and placed it in the stream of alcohol. The lawsuits say the bottle turned into a flame thrower and sent flaming rum everywhere.

Let me get this straight...So I'm pumping gas into my car and some idiot puts a lighted match to the stream of gasoline and there's a resulting explosion in which I'm injured and I'm supposed to sue the gasoline company for making a "defective and dangerous" product?

Hmm...I guess I'm a little slow. One would think the idiot with the lighted match would be the one to litigate against.

[KatieLoeb]

Idiot with the lighted menu doesn't have as deep pockets as a big corporation like Bacardi, does he?

The reminds me of the stupid old bat be-yotch that was driving with McDonald's approximately-the-temperature-of-molten-lava coffee between her legs and sued them for ensuing burns.

Jack Nicholson voice-overs aside, maybe driving with hot coffee between your knees isn't the brightest move. Ya' think???!!!???

If I recall correctly, the stupid bat won the lawsuit though. And McDonald's has pretty deep pockets. It's always the best strategy to sue the person/entity that can afford to pay you the most potential damages.

It's like Willie Sutton said when asked why he robs banks. "Because that's where the money is".

[Marmish]

Idiot with the lighted menu doesn't have as deep pockets as a big corporation like Bacardi, does he? 

The reminds me of the stupid old bat be-yotch that was driving with McDonald's approximately-the-temperature-of-molten-lava coffee between her legs and sued them for ensuing burns.

Jack Nicholson voice-overs aside, maybe driving with hot coffee between your knees isn't the brightest move.  Ya' think???!!!??? 

If I recall correctly, the stupid bat won the lawsuit though.  And McDonald's has pretty deep pockets.  It's always the best strategy to sue the person/entity that can afford to pay you the most potential damages.

It's like Willie Sutton said when asked why he robs banks.  "Because that's where the money is".

←

My husband was recently called for jury duty. During the downtime, the baliff told them that the cups in the McDonalds case were known to be defective and were used anyways and that's why the case went the way it did. I assume he knows what he's talking about.

I'm all for NOT suing for stupid reasons, but that's why there's a judge to throw it out of court.

[KatieLoeb]

Idiot with the lighted menu doesn't have as deep pockets as a big corporation like Bacardi, does he? 

The reminds me of the stupid old bat be-yotch that was driving with McDonald's approximately-the-temperature-of-molten-lava coffee between her legs and sued them for ensuing burns.

Jack Nicholson voice-overs aside, maybe driving with hot coffee between your knees isn't the brightest move.  Ya' think???!!!??? 

If I recall correctly, the stupid bat won the lawsuit though.  And McDonald's has pretty deep pockets.  It's always the best strategy to sue the person/entity that can afford to pay you the most potential damages.

It's like Willie Sutton said when asked why he robs banks.  "Because that's where the money is".

←

My husband was recently called for jury duty. During the downtime, the baliff told them that the cups in the McDonalds case were known to be defective and were used anyways and that's why the case went the way it did. I assume he knows what he's talking about.

I'm all for NOT suing for stupid reasons, but that's why there's a judge to throw it out of court.

←

OK - that's interesting. I hadn't heard anything about the cups being defective during the lawsuit.

I have noticed warnings on take out cups since then that now state the obvious -

CONTAINS HOT LIQUIDS!!

I still stand by my theory that most plaintiffs will head for the deepest pocket.

[Grub]

The cups weren't defective. McD served their coffe at a higher temperature than other chains, and there had been a number of earlier incidents with people getting burned from it, but McD refused to lower the temperature. After this case, I believe they did lower the temperature of their coffe.

A common misconception about this case is that the woman got a million bucks from it, but that's not true. The idiot jury did award her something in that range, but the judge adjusted it way down.

I'm not defending her -- she should have been laughed out of court.

[freshherbs]

i once bit into a sandwich and the bread kinda scraped/cut the roof of my mouth. who can i sue?

[Ed Hamilton]

We've probably all seen the report of the women who sued Bacardi after they got burned by flaming 151 proof rum, and while I wouldn't even consider passing judgment on who is to blame the safety of flaming drinks is important.

There is a right way and a wrong way to add alcohol to something which is cooking on a stove or to flaming drinks. I've seen it done the wrong way enough times on television that apparently even a lot of professional chefs and bartenders don't appreciate what can happen.

First of all, whether it is 151, just 80 proof hooch it will burn. To limit the chance of becoming a headline on this or other forums, or worse, pour the amount of liquor that you want to add to the pot into a small glass and then pour it into the frying pan. That way if the fire goes into the container the damage will be limited to the volume of the burning liquid. Alcohol fires can be extinguished with water, unlike grease or fires which will spread.

The danger of pouring the spirit from the bottle comes from the possibility, which increases with the proof of the spirit, that the fire will race up the liquid being poured and enter the combustible air space in the bottle. The next thing that will happen is quite spectacular, especially in a small dark space like the inside of a boat, or a crowded late-night bar. The fire in the bottle heats the airspace very quickly, expands, and forces the liquid out of the bottle resembling a flame thrower. The flaming liquid will set fire to almost anything on which it lands within as much as 8 feet; drapes, cushions, guests, you get the idea.

If on the other hand, you use a small, wide-mouth glass and the fire inadvertantly climbs the liquid stream and sets the contents of the glass on fire, the wide mouth won't contain the expanding gas and won't force the contents to be propelled across the room. Instead, you will be left holding a flaming glass which can still be poured into the frying pan before the glass breaks from the heat.

Lastly, don't be fooled by thinking that if the bottle is almost empty that it is safer. Actually there is more combustible air in an almost empty bottle which will propel the last bit of your spirit even further across the room.

[slkinsey]

We've been around the bogus food-related litigation tree before in the eG Forums. Since this one doesn't seem particularly different or particularly spirits-related, I'm going to close this thread up.

If we would like to have a followup discussion to Ed's interesting post on flaming alcohol, let's start another thread.