Viewing 27 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • bradentonian

      Participant
      Post count: 116

      http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2038487-buffalo-bills-to-pay-up-to-3m-to-settle-text-messaging-lawsuit?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial&hpt=hp_t3Buffalo Bills Will Pay Up to $3M to Settle Text-Messaging LawsuitBy Tyler Conway , Featured Columnist Apr 22, 2014In 2014, Buffalo Bills starting quarterback EJ Manuel will cost the team $2.02 million against their cap. Thanks to a lawsuit from a disgruntled fan, the Bills will pay roughly $1 million more than that just for their phone bill.  A U.S. District judge has issued a preliminary approval to a $3 million settlement in a 2012 class-action lawsuit filed against the team by Jerry Wojcik, a Bills fan who claimed the franchise violated the agreement of its opt-in texting service.According to Stephen T. Watson of The Buffalo News, the suit claims the Bills promised no more than five text messages would be disseminated to fans each week. When Wojcik received 13 texts over a two-week span, he filed suit on behalf of the nearly 40,000 fans who subscribed to the service. The settlement, which will be paid out in gift cards to the team store or the team's website, was approved in a Tampa Bay, Fla., court last week. Up to $2.5 million in vouchers will go to the estimated 39,750 fans who signed up for the service. The remaining funds will be distributed to Wojcik's attorneys ($562,500) and the plaintiff himself ($5,000).Bills spokesman Scott Berchtold issued a statement on behalf of the team Tuesday, indicating it still felt it was within the spirit of the program:The Buffalo Bills have reached a settlement in this matter which we believe is in the best interest of our organization and our fans. The purpose of the Bills’ voluntary, opt-in text messaging program was to provide our fans with information they requested about the team. The organization maintains that our text messaging program was in compliance with the law. The Bills have since eliminated the text service, which was designed to provide breaking news and other stories to fans. Wojcik's suit claims he received six text messages the first week with the service and seven the second—three more than the allotted agreement states over a two-week span—and says the Bills violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.As per the settlement agreement, fans will receive debit-card vouchers for $57.50, $65 or $75, which can be redeemed at the team store or online at the team's website. A hearing has been set up for Aug. 20 for the settlement to reach final approval. Those who signed up for the service will then be contacted by mail and via phone to claim their prize.While many have deplored Wojcik for the frivolousness of the suit, criticized his finicky, letter-of-the-law interpretation and hounded him about wasting taxpayer money, others may feel the opposite.In the same way that Stella Liebeck once crusaded against McDonald's for those who did not know hot coffee was, indeed, hot, Mr. Wojcik is a pioneer against professional sports organizations who do not realize three-to-five is not, indeed, five-to-seven. Anyway, considering how Bills fans have faithfully supported the franchise across 14 straight seasons of missing the playoffs, maybe they deserve a win for once. At the very least we should see plenty more EJ Manuel jerseys in Ralph Wilson Stadium next season. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 145

      Another sign of the apocalypse.  Class action lawsuits over nonsense.  Lawyers get rich, clients get little…and we all pay the price.    I dislike lawyers….which is probably why I dislike politicians…because so many of them are lawyers.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1875

      Yep – right up there with the woman who needed to be told her coffee would be hot…

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2275

      Think I may sue some water company because my water was cold.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Yep - right up there with the woman who needed to be told her coffee would be hot...

      except that was not the issue . . . the issue was McDonald's conduct. Here's a tiny summary that hints at the issue  (I highlighted the key fact -- think GM ignition switches or Pinto):"Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[2] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices."The "woman who needed to be told her coffee was hot" offered to settle for $20,000. McDonalds refused and refused several other pre-trial settlement offers.  McDonalds WANTED to take the case to trial  The jury (not the woman) awarded, among other things $2.7 million in punitive damages (punitive= to punish) because $2.7 million was roughly ONE DAY of coffee revenue . . . coffee that was intentionally served at a temperature that was too hot to drink, but hot enough to steam, which marketing people said was a good thing.  Apparently, McDonalds did not think that 700 people burned was enough to give up $2.7 million a day in revenues.  ;-)  btw, the judge dramatically cut the punitive damages, both sides appealed and settled at lower than the reduced award . .  . albeit a bit more than the $20,000 that McDonalds could have settled the case for.  If you wonder whether $20,000 was reasonable, take a look at the injuries:http://justicebeforecharity.org/stella.phpNews organizations trumpet the case as an example of excess, so that is where the myth comes from.  I believe Constitutional Scholar Jonathan Turley, among others, have said the exact opposite . . .  but that gets overshadowed a bit . .  as evidenced by the fan article.  By the way, I am all for tort reform, its just that this case does not support that notion. In fact, this is an ANTI tort reform case

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1875

      Yep - right up there with the woman who needed to be told her coffee would be hot...

      and don’t put the hot coffee between your legs… and be careful

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Yep - right up there with the woman who needed to be told her coffee would be hot...

      and don't put the hot coffee between your legs... and be careful

      lol, actually don't sell coffee that is too hot to drink because your marketing people tell you "steam" will help us sell more . . . . . or, if you are a cynic . . . don't let one of your employees admit under oath that you felt 700 injury complaints was not enough to justify a change(another would be hire competent counsel because he/she would have told you to pay the $20,000 . . .lol . . you make $2.7 million per day)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1875

      Yep - right up there with the woman who needed to be told her coffee would be hot...

      and don't put the hot coffee between your legs... and be careful

      lol, actually don't sell coffee that is too hot to drink because your marketing people tell you "steam" will help us sell more . . . . . or, if you are a cynic . . . don't let one of your employees admit under oath that you felt 700 injury complaints was not enough to justify a change(another would be hire competent counsel because he/she would have told you to pay the $20,000 . . .lol . . you make $2.7 million per day)

      I don't see much funny - but then I don't get involved in such actions.  I do however drink coffee, and it is always hot - I make it a habit not to put it between my knees/legs while driving, recognizing it is hot.  As a reasonable person I try to avoid creating accidents.  And how many cups of coffee does McDonalds serve a day or year might might make one wonder how significant 700 complaints really is, and can one anticipate any customer's actions.  But you know both sides of this - and the tendency of those severely injured receiving awards where perhaps no awards should have been warranted.  And you know that juries frequently choose to pay an individual out of a major corporations wallet where they might well not do so if the operation is family owned... but again you know all of this.  Took a second to look it up - McDonald's serves about 500 million cups of coffee a day.  I wonder if a sign - the coffee is really hot, don't burn yourself would suffice... taking that back - various reports of how many cups per day being sold - point is the vast majority of buyers are able to handle their coffee safely. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      Steam would have to be sold in a pressurized vessel. At standard atmospheric pressure, water cannot be heated above 212° F without undergoing phase transition. The coffee could have been no hotter than boiling when served – precisely the temperature a reasonable person would expect their coffee to be served at.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 36

      AND I believe she was driving a borrowed stick shift that she normally didn’t drive.She's an idiot, plain and simple.The herd has a way of thinning itself out but lawyers want the dumb-asses to live on AND get a pile of money.Pity

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Facts are funny things.  This is another fairly accurate summary:During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At 190 °F (88 °C), the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[2] However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.[3]the jury held that BOTH parties were negligent.  McDonalds 80%, the Plaintiff 20%, . . . BUT note the second part in bold . . .  The jury held McDonalds accountable for providing a FALSE defense in the face of evidence that there was a problem, just not enough evidence to impact PROFITS.  If you have ever seen a jury, that should not be the least bit surprising.  If you have not, let me assure you the "pool" is not made up of McDonald's executives. . . . so they weren't particularly receptive to a false defense . . . shocking . . . I knowAgain, my point is only that this is NOT a good case for the tort reform crowd I support .. . . as is often the case the ACTUAL facts don't support the USA Today-like "blurb"

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      AND I believe she was driving a borrowed stick shift that she normally didn't drive.

      she was a PASSENGER in her grandson's car  . . .lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      this case and this discussion is a good example of the human tendency to start with a point of view and then find things that are seemingly consistent with that point of view . . . that tendency is strong, so strong that its hard to let go of a false assumption such as “she needed to be told the coffee was hot.”  That’s not what the case was about and I am very much for tort reform and there ARE  many cases of excess, its just that this was not one of them.  The typical “tort reform” case is not one where the corporate defendant acted like the untouchable corporate bully that fuelds most ridiculous awards.Besides, the judge lowered the awarded and they settled for even less .  . for goodness sake

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      Merriam Webstercoffee/?k??fi/nounplural coffees1  : a dark brown drink made from ground coffee beans and boiled water

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      poor Illuminator

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      You’re thick with your parasitic contemporaries.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4057

      VNF of course being nitwit reads this the wrong way. Yes, McD got gripes it’s coffee was hot and did nothing….because coffee should be served hot.  You know how we know it wasn’t served too hot,people kept buying it at the temperature it was sold at. At temperature that millions apparently were able to cope with though normal means. The highlighted piffle he has says that coffee would be ok if it caused burns in 20 seconds but not 15.  Really? This is the logic you want to defend….unshocking.As for the Bills, isn't unsubscribing from a service a better or more reasonable answer to too many texts than suing?  Seriously?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      VNF of course being nitwit reads this the wrong way.

      Ironic, did you even read it?  Just a thought . . . start with this:  1) what defense did McDonalds offer and 2) what did the discovered (not volunteered) facts say about that defense?shocking . . . but jurors don't like being lied toIf you can get past that, maybe read this:http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/14/business/fi-tortmyths14and then understand that I am FOR tort reform .  . . its just that myths and fables proffered by people who don't look at the actual facts work COUNTER to tort reform. Stated more simply . . .  it is pretty DUMB to hold up a case that is actually a symbol of big corporate BAD behavior . . as the banner for tort reform

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      You're thick with your parasitic contemporaries.

      are you ever right about anything Illuminator?  I am a DEFENSE attorney, you dope. lol.  My "contemporaries" are people who defend against the plaintiff's bar.  Did you bother reading that I am for TORT REFORM . . .  lol, Illuminator doing what he do . . .  now bug off junior

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      What temperature does water boil at again?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1166

      Pirate’s Cove ! !

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      another “nitwit” . . .  Legal Scholar Jonathan Turley:"The irony about the McDonald's case is that it actually, in my view, was a meaningful and worthy lawsuit," George Washington University 's Turley said. Yet advocates and pundits have "made it synonymous with court abuse." That quote is found in an article entitled:  "Legal Urban Legends Hold Sway: Tall tales of outrageous jury awards have helped bolster business-led campaigns to overhaul the civil justice system." Like I said . . .  facts are funny things

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2188

      Another sign of the apocalypse.  Class action lawsuits over nonsense.  Lawyers get rich, clients get little...and we all pay the price.    I dislike lawyers....which is probably why I dislike politicians...because so many of them are lawyers.

      +1I could just opt-out OR sue my favorite team.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      It’s a fact that water boils at what temperature?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Another sign of the apocalypse.  Class action lawsuits over nonsense.  Lawyers get rich, clients get little...and we all pay the price.    I dislike lawyers....which is probably why I dislike politicians...because so many of them are lawyers.

      +1I could just opt-out OR sue my favorite team.

      agree, the Bills case is pretty dumb

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 145

      Geez…sorry I started such a fuss.  I was commenting on the stupidity of this (and many) frivolous class action lawsuit…the ratio of plaintiff recovery to plaintiff FEE recovery in most class actions is appalling.  But casting this aside…QB, WR or OG in the first?  :-)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Geez...sorry I started such a fuss.  I was commenting on the stupidity of this (and many) frivolous class action lawsuit...the ratio of plaintiff recovery to plaintiff FEE recovery in most class actions is appalling.  But casting this aside...QB, WR or OG in the first?  :-)

      QB!and amen to the part in bold, its a joke

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2603

      I love class action lawsuits. I got $15 bucks in one, a 1 day free car rental in another, and a free month of service with another.

      Please wait…

Viewing 27 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.