Normally I would agree with you, but it sounds in this case like the aircraft should never have taken off. You don't disregard tornados or wind shear. Apparently this pilot took off into a severe thunderstorm.

I'm sure she knew there was severe weather outside and could have chosen to not get on the flight. She is responsible for her own actions. Just another idiot looking for a payday!

I don't agree. You pay money, sometimes a lot, to take a flight, and you probably have something to get to at the end of it. Just abandoning it on a hunch isn't something you're going to want to do and the airline sure isn't going to reimburse you for it or put you on a later flight.

You expect the flight crew to handle the flight itself, you're paying them for their expertise, so you have no reason to assume the dark skies outside are any more threatening than heavy rain. It's not until you takeoff that you realize your (and the pilot's) mistake.

So paying a lot of money means a person bares no responsibility for their own actions? Regardless if you want to do it or not a person has to expect there might be rough conditions on the flight if there is stormy weather. Weather can be unpredictable, any reasonable person can tell you that.

She saw the conditions outside and chose to get on the flight anyways, so again it's her own fault. Their expertise is why the plane didn't go down so she got what she paid for.

I don't believe that any airline would arbitrarily "disregard" such conditions. Airlines and pilots would NEVER knowingly fly into such weather and any inference that they would is an insult to them.

Here's the rub - suppose she was flying from Houston to LAX and the fight encountered turbulence and she got bumped around a bit. Is she going to sue the airlines for that? Turbulence is a highly unpredictable phenomenon that can only be located and tracked via pilot reports.

I suppose she'd sue God. Bottom line: Buck up, shut up and take the bus.

I'm saying she didn't have the expertise to properly evaluate the weather conditions for herself. She relied on the flight crew to do it for her, as we all do when we get on a plane. Should she call the local flight service station and get her own weather report? Would she even know how to interpret it if she did?

And don't forget, you're looking at this with hindsight. It's easy to nitpick someone's actions after the fact, but all too easy to replicate them yourself in a similar situation.

Robert: We're not talking a little turbulance here. Apparently the plane pitched and dived for 2 hrs on a 20-min hop. The woman was terrified and reportedly traumatized. Not that I think that's worth suing over, I wouldn't, but then I'm not this woman and have no idea what it really did to her.

AG999-

People aren't nitpicking just to be mean, its because its truly confusing how this woman feels like she needs to sue the airline for a situation that may not be their fault. Planes takeoff/fly/land through storms all the time-they are designed for that. So are the pilots for that matter. There is more to the story,certainly, but it sounds like she got scared and wants someone to blame.

When you purchase an airline ticket, you are putting your faith and trust in the abaility of the airline and its support personnel to do their job safely and professionally. If a decision to fly was made against all better judgement and information, then the airline is at fault.

It's no different than you hiring a contractor to do a job they claim to be qualified for, only to find out that they didn't follow building codes.

Company: It's not that I think people are being mean (well, a little), but the rush to judgement bothers me. There's always another side to the story, but so few even want to consider what it might be. They just want to find someone to ridicule because, of course, they would never make such a mistake themselves.

That said, yes, it is confusing and there must be more to the story.

Just have to say that I've flown locally and internationally - and have hits lots of turbulence. Freaked out? Oh yes! Stupid enough to blame the pilot? You've got to be kidding! In fact, I make a point (if the pilot comes out as passengers are disembarking) to thank the pilot for getting me to my destination safely! How could turbulence ever be the pilot's fault?

So AG999 your thinking is this:

If a friend and I decide to take a road trip which he agrees to pay for half the gas, we both know the weather is bad and we happen to know our route will entail road construction (rough ride / people cut us off / almost die) and my friend and I experience a "Frightening" Drive. In your demented thought process my "friend" can now sue me because he is now "Fearful" of driving in a car. Now he has bad dreams, oh and he can't find a job because he can no longer travel in a car because he's scawerd.... Boo-Hoo...

Your either an IDIOT or a Personal Injury Attorney, same thing in my book....

Flash: Charming. Are you always this rude to people you don't know or just those you know you'll never meet because we're online? That's okay in your world, is it? Not so much in mine.

No, my thinking is that this pilot may have taken off into a severe thunderstorm. If it was knowingly, then he's responsible. If it was unknowingly, then he may be incompetent. It all depends on the weather report he received.

To blindly assume this woman is some fruitcake because she thinks the airline may have conducted the flight incorrectly is simply unjust.

It wasn't the pilots fault, she should sue the real person in charge, GOD! That's right, it's God fault we don't live in Utopia. He's the reason for all of our problems. He's supposed to bless us with permanent happiness and everything we need. Sue God, and take him down a notch, just like Wall Street. All these powerful beings need to feel the wrath of a scorned woman.

Geez, where the heck is Darwin when you need him. First, a woman with coffee too hot. Then the movie: "Diary of a mad black woman" Now a woman upset with the atmosphere. ANybody else upset that they get wet when it rains? These types should have had their genes removed from the pool centuries ago.

If the weather was "within limits," and the storms were such that a "reasonalble man" (IE, epxperienced pilot) would have departed then I can't see she has a case. I wasn't there, so I don't know the actual conditions. But I do know that modern aircraft can safely handle weather conditions that would scare the crap out of most passengers, me included. People should understand that sometimes they will experience rough weather when they fly, and it's usually not an additional risk if their plane gets bounced around a bit. Usually pilots will avoid or land in bad weather not to save the plane, but to save the passengers from a rough ride.

AG999,

You understand that the pilot knows what the control tower tells them. The control tower determines if air conditions are favorable for planes to take off. If the tower gave the airlines the all clear then you can not hold the pilot and therefor the airline responsible. Notice no one else is suing, just her. That was not the only flight that took off and not the only one who experienced bad weather.

Remember in the Bush/Kerry election they had all that talk about "frivolous lawsuits"? This is exactly what they were talking about.

Ivan: Not exactly. The tower relays the current airfield conditions, but the pilot determines if it's safe for his aircraft. The pilot-in-command is legally responsible for the operation of his flight (as is the airline itself, I imagine).

I don't know why everyone keeps reading more into my posts than I'm actually saying. Frankly, it's annoying. Or perhaps I don't communicate very well. In any event, I'm not saying this isn't a frivolous lawsuit. It very well may be, but what I am saying is that we here, after reading just one article on it, don't know. Some objectivity would go a long way for those who feel better about themselves when they can run someone else down.

My god those two cities are 95 miles apart. She spent longer getting to and at the airport than it would have taken to drive. I wonder if they didn't take off would have she sued them for that too. This "case' should take all of two minutes in court before it is dismissed.

Sheeesh, I wonder who she would sue if she was on the same Navy ship I was stationed on many years ago when the ship departed Hong Kong harbor and was immediately hit by a rogue wave which tossed the ship 54 degrees to either side. Anything and everything which was loose was a missle, and the chair I was sitting in toppled backwards onto the deck and I couldn't move.

Please don't tell me (as I look up beyond the clouds).......she would sue..... King Neptune .... or someone higher in stature ?

No, kids. There is not more to the story. Lady wants a payoff. Period.

If I had a dollar for every time I landed on my ass while trying to serve 252 people during some pretty nasty turbulence, I would be relaxing on my own private island right about now.

I'm assuming it was a commuter plane, so yes, the bumps are a bit more animated. But that is to be expected, bad weather or not. Frankly, she needs to thank the flight crew for keeping the plane in the air.

Considering she is too scared to ever fly again, my advice to her is to TAKE THE FRIGGIN' BUS, because I promise that no judge, jury or airline is going to give a flying fart how she gets from here to there in the future.

AG999: I think I get what you're saying. I agree.

Flash6: That's a poor analogy. You and your friend are 'equals' and can presumably switch out driving if you have to. Whomever has the wheel can decide to turn the car around.

However, if I'm unsatisfied with the way a flight is going I can't just tap on the door of the cockpit and ask to 'take the wheel' because I really think NOW we need to turn around and head back because of weather.

Unless, of course, I am actively looking to get tazed, arrested or otherwise restrained.

It he responsibility of the pilot to make sure the aircraft and the weather are safe to fly in. If they didn't take the time or ignored weather warnings they could have gotten everyone killed.

eric: Yay! Someone who can read! I was beginning to think I was typing in another language.

People need to understand that turbulence (sometimes severe) comes with the territory. It does not mean that the pilots are bad or irresponsible or ignored weather reports. If planes only flew on calm sunny days, there would not be alot of flying going on. Nobody wants a rough ride, but its not going to kill you if you do happen to have one. I mean really, how many planes are brought down because of turbulence?

Actually, AG999, we can read...it's just that your argument doesn't make sense. If a pilot presumably feels it is safe to fly in (turbulence or not) and plane makes it there safely, she has no case.

Turbulence is to be expected (please re-read that). Weather just has ways of causing it (I'm a very un-sciency person, but have witnessed it many times, many feet up in the air). Let's look at this from a different angle. I happen to be afraid of heights (yes, I still fly). If I am on a flight that has no turbulence but am still frightened, do you think I would then have a case? Of course not, because I paid an airline to take me from point A to point B, period. No one cares if I'm scared. I could take a bus. Same with this gal...turbulence happens...she can take a bus.

I agree 100% with Joe Radmacher & AG999. Both the airline, the pilot and the airport are responsible for the safety of the flying conditions.

If the weather conditions were such that the plane should never have taken off, then one of these parties is at fault. Unless there are funnel clouds visible from the loading gate, a prospective passenger is in no position to make a judging if conditions are safe.

Joe, do you think the pilots are suicidal, that they saw the severe weather predictions and thought 'hey, lets get a little crazy oh and while I'm at it, I'll also do a fly-by of the control tower just like in Top Gun!' I've known a couple of pilots, ranging from my uncle who just owns a Cessna to commercial ones and I can say they are the most safety conscience people I've ever met and they take the safety of their passengers as the utmost important task they have. I asked my uncle once what his biggest fear, thinking it was spiders or something, and he said it was getting in a crash and causing the death of anyone. Now, weather has a certain level of unpredictability and it sounds like both the pilots and dispatch made an acceptable call and that an unexpected change happened...its called an Act of God for a reason.

Now, I would be ticked off if every time the weather was iffy they cancelled a flight, and since we don't have planes falling out of the sky I'm guessing that the airlines have a pretty good system in place.

The woman is a nutcase who wants to get rich quick. However, the person who happens to be even slimier than she is the lawyer who took the case. Talk about an ambulance chaser. What honest, reputable attorney (yes, I know that is an oxymoron, but just for the sake of the argument) would seriously consider representing this idiot?

No Prof- You obviously can't read since AG999 clearly isn't saying that the airline should be sued if reasonable risk/unforeseen risk caused the turbulence. What he is saying is that by reading the article we don't know if unacceptable risk was taken. This should be a pretty simple case of looking at standard flying practice in bad weather and seeing if this case conforms to standard practice given what they knew or not.

No one yet has argued that the airline should be responsible if:

a) they took off in weather (while bad) that is standard and considered safe to do so in.

b) they took reasonable preconditions to get the best readings they could but those readings were faulty and they mistakenly took off in bad weather that it is not standard or safe due to those inaccurate readings.

Personally, the only way I think she should have a case is if extreme deviations were taken from standard safety procedures. And we just don't know that from this article.

She didn't die; what's the big deal? Count your blessings.

Everyone knew what the weather was going to be. Every person that flies goes to weather.com to see what the weather is going to be like - in the place they are leaving from and the place they are going to. You need to know what to wear and what to pack. The airlines knew the weather as well.

This lady is suing because she is hoping they settle and just give her money to make the headache go away. Complainers like this are part of the reason why ticket prices rise.

Let's get this right. The woman is suing because she is not emotionally strong enough to handle a bit of a rough ride while flying? That is essentially what she is complaining about. I don't see the rest of the people suing because of their 'emotional distress' over a turbulent flight.

Maybe she should sue her mom for raising her to be a spoiled whiner. Maybe she should sue God for having bad weather.

Really, turbulent flights come with the territory - it's a risk you take when flying - if you are too emotionally fragile to handle that, DON'T FLY.

QQ more Ms. O'Neal.

If her case is thrown out will she sue the judge for causing an "abnormal fear of suing?"

Pilots don't take off without clearance. If anyone should be sued, it should be the airport, but really, someone should just b*tch-slap this woman and tell her to get over it. I've been through major turbulence, engine failure, narrow misses of mid-air collisions, and a toddler one seat back singing the first line to "It's a Small World" for 7 hours on a cross-country flight from Orlando to Sacramento. I don't have PTSD from any of it, and I've never felt the smallest inclination to sue anyone (although I did seriously consider beating the toddler's parents about the head and shoulders with a blunt object).

ericbana, AG999:

You two people are what's wrong with the world, BLAME, BLAME, BLA, BLA!!

The WORLD CAN NOT BE SUED TO BE SAFE 100% OF THE TIME AND THERE IS NO ONE TO BLAME!

SUE the airline because someone forgot to offer me a pillow, sue the automaker because by engine died right after the warranty, sue my doctor because he only saw me for 5 minutes.... GET IT NOW YOU TWO?

Geezz, like talking to me three year-old...

Just another gold digger.

Flash, Thanks for straight to the point statement but they will not listen to it. For they will BLAME you now :-)

I bet this woman (suing the airline) would've probably sued them for the weather delay if they didn't take off. Damn if you do, damn if you don't. This frivolous lawsuit shouldn't even make it to court and this woman should be required to pay all (both parties) legal fees.

People need to realize the court system is NOT the lottery.

A licensed pilot and PIC (Pilot in Command) has the last word as to go, no go, for any mission. The training includes judgement calls on local weather and en-route weather, mental and physical conditions of all crew (including the captain him/herself), and finally the condition of the equipment. In case there were sufficient weather reports and advisories then the PIC should have aborted the mission in favor of safety for the souls on-board. This woman may have a case. Especially if she can prove that the airline has a policy pressuring pilots to take unnecessary risks over safety. A license is a privilege to serve and protect and not to endanger.

I agree with AG999, the flight never should have left the ground. A 20 minute, smooth flight (nominal turbulence included) was what she bought the ticket for. A 2 hour, tornado warning, and sever wind shears, is what she got. The airline was careless in letting this flight begin. AG999 is correct. You purchase the airlines experience in handling these situations. What stands out to me is that it wasn't turbulence experienced later on in flight which manifested over the course of an hour or so, it was present minutes after takeoff. That tells me someone missed something somewhere. They made an error, and that error resulted in trauma caused to person, plain and simple. If that were my wife or loved one on the flight, I would be quite aggravated by the decision to fly in those conditions. Lawsuit or not, the airline and the FAA should investigate the situation and evaluate its procedures.

Amen Julie-401527!

Another WIN for COMMON SENSE & PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

Which I'm sad to say is being exterminated by people who ALWAYS FEEL ITS SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT WHEN LIFE IS LIFE! IF you don't get it then you ARE the PROBLEM!

Jim-

Unless you know anything about aviation, you are not qualified to tell the pilots what they should or should not have done. Before take-off, pilots verify that the plane can take-off in current weather conditions. Planes can take-off in conditions that would make even the toughest guy soil their pants. It would not be fun, but certainly do-able. The lives of the pilots are also at stake, if they feel conditions are safe enough to take-off, that's fine with me.

A flight passenger is a captive audience of any airline once locked inside the airplane. The airline has quite a bit of responsibilities as to security. Especially when said security is a go, no go choice. If the flight was canceled due to inclement weather there would be no grounds for a lawsuit as per signed contract on the ticket purchased.

But Peter, think about the future implications this lawsuit has. If this woman wins (which its doubtful she will) then airlines will be much less willing to fly in non-ideal conditions. Every bump, every second of turbulence becomes a potential lawsuit. Ticket prices will go up, as will the number of canceled flights. It won't matter if the weather is dangerous or not, the airline won't want to fly for the risk of being sued.

TheCo,

Yes, I can understand you worries as to precedence. Certainly there should be a cut-off point for the ridiculous and the frivolous just as there is a line for responsibility and safety. Given all that I read regarding conditions prior to this particular flight I would not have taken off knowing that the souls on-board were all under my care. There is also something called flight level. A 20 minute hop would not have have taken them above the turbulence levels. Especially in a turbo prop which wasn't quite clear to me by this article but assumed. Something this PIC would have known while reviewing the weather reports and PIREPs.

Weather reports at the time of departure showed a threat of "tornados, wind shear, and dangerously strong winds with rotating and intense thunderstorms."

At one point, the pilots attempted to make an emergency landing in Victoria, Texas, but it was aborted.

This was Colgan. They have a pretty bad reputation for inexperienced pilots and bad judgement. These guys are not in the same class as the major airlines.

If the weather is too severe to fly, the control tower will not allow takeoffs. This woman is an idiot and just wants to make a quick buck. When will we all begin to take responsibility for our own decisions. And, when will some morons realize that they need to work instead of going to court to make an income? I have encountered turbulence on many flights. The pilot is not enjoying this situation any more than the passengers. This woman needs to get a life.

Not so, control towers do not control anything beyond the CZ. If the severe weather is not immediately within the CZ the control tower may not restrict a PIC's decisions. Local weather versus en-route weather.

I had tower give me clearance for landing once, all the while a down poor was happening at the head of the runway. The down draft was so severe that I was almost unable to pull away for a go around. The Pirep from the airplane in front gave me enough forewarning to rev up the turbines and go around. In this case tower placed me and my passengers in immediate danger.

There is a saying amongst pilot. The one who's can is on the line makes the decisions. Except we say it with less eloquence.

Peter is correct, I have a pilots license, and have over 2,000 hours in my flight logs. My father was a pilot for over 40 years. He was a Marine Fighter Pilot and then flew Commercial and I was able to sit in the cockpit on several flights and know the procedure well.

It is the Captains responsibility to make sure that a crew member or himself check the weather, the condition of the aircraft and several other preflight procedures. If I got a report like this pilot did I would never have taken off.

Weather reports at the time of departure showed a threat of "tornados, wind shear, and dangerously strong winds with rotating and intense thunderstorms."

A pilot flying a smaller commuter aircraft should never take off under these conditions. Some planes can fly faster, are heavier and can fly at higher altitudes. Wind shear is especially dangerous and can bring down any aircraft. Air traffic controllers are in charge of routing aircraft and informing them of the weather. They also report if pilots of other aircraft have reported weather issues. The final decision to fly or not to fly normally always is decided by the captain of the aircraft.

I am not saying that the passenger is not trying to game the system but it appears that the pilot did not check weather conditions before take off. If he did read the weather report he shouldn't have taken off until the weather cleared. A pilot has the responsibility for his safety and the safety of every passenger on board and if he puts their lives at risk he should be held responsible.

Pete Sampras

"Everyone knew what the weather was going to be. Every person that flies goes to weather.com to see what the weather is going to be like - in the place they are leaving from and the place they are going to. You need to know what to wear and what to pack. The airlines knew the weather as well."

LOL! In the article in Reader's Digest a few months ago 50 Things Your Pilot Doesn't Tell You, a common gripe among pilots is when a flight is delayed due to weather - persons in one airport call someone else the arrival city and they both say to each other, "Gee the weather is fine here" revealing no understanding that there could be an entirely different weather system BETWEEN the departure city and the arrival city. YOU would not necessarily know up-to-the-minute conditions from weather.com.

Flash6: You might want to brush up on your reading skills. I never assigned blame to anyone. I simply pointed out your poor use of an analogy and how it doesn't apply.

I agreed with AG999 and EmilyinIowa explains it best. There's simply not enough information to determine whether or not the airlines is in an actionable position.

Despite your limited understanding I do agree we're living in an excessively litigious world and not for our benefit, either.

Do you get it now?

Geez, it's like talking to a 2 year old...BTW are you a pirate?

Maybe if your azz was on the plane you would be singing a different song.

Yeah... I don't think this lawsuit is going to fly in court very well.

Can I sue Joy Jernigan?

I felt "extreme fear during the reading of this article and believed that I was going to die."

I think I need to sue this "sue happy" wench for the anxiety I feel right now, knowing that my ticket prices will go up because this dumazz CHOSE to get on a plane and didn't like the ride. This is affecting my entire day now as I am upset and can't stop thinking about it.

There are other issues involved other than the captains/airlines decision to fly. Air traffic controllers also are involved. But I guess she knows she can't make any money suing the government. Also the flight from College station to Houston is so short that they would have never had the chance to get above the clouds. In addition, Victoria is south west of Houston about 127 miles, by road, where College Station is north west by about 95 miles. THAT is why the flight took 2 hours rather than 20 minutes. They tried to fly around the storm.

I agree, Steel...she got from point A to B...this was the contract she had with the airline. Now, if the tower had told the pilot it was ok to fly, but the pilot decided NOT to, how many people would be screaming about that? You cannot have it both ways.

OMG, I was in a car that got a flat tire in the middle of traffic. I'm going to sue the car manufacturer for making the car so heavy, the tire manufacturer for not making a tire that won't go flat, and I'm going to sue the city for the level of traffic!

Did I leave anybody out?

BINGO!

They should settle and pay her in air miles.

Like that woman years back that sued MacDonald's because "She" spilled hot coffee in her lap! And then WON!!

Well actually with that lawsuit at McDonalds the coffee machine malfunctioned and made the coffee very hot and the coffee actually burnt the flesh off her legs, so yeah that law suit was ok; this one I wouldn't say so much

McDonalds pays everyday for lawsuits. The amount they take in everyday on coffee alone more than covers the amounts they pay out for lawsuits on coffee.

People just like to bitch. STFU and don't fly if you're afraid. This is ridiculous. Turbulence, really?

@ Rumble:

please. if you spent 2 + hours massively pitching and diving in an airplane in a storm, you'd be crying for your momma in no time, and probably grasping the hand of your neighbor while praying together. this was not your run-of-the-mill turbulence. it sounded awful. While I wouldn't probably sue - I would certainly reserve the right to ask questions if a twenty minute flight - TWENTY MINTUES!!!! - turned into 2 hours plus. If I pay money, and usually a lot for a flight, I expect them to do their job. If I feel they haven't: I'm asking questions, and I want them answered to my satisfaction, unlike you, who just told everyone to pull their pants down, bend over and take it from the airlines. You enjoy that? Good for you. I say good for her.

Coward.

I have mil, except when we got through the turbulence we had to land on the deck of an aircraft carrier, not a runway in Texas.

If this woman is too emotionally fragile to handle something that comes with the territory of flying - she shouldn't fly in the first place. Sometimes you hit bad weather. The pilot doesn't control the weather, and unless it can be proven that the pilots intentionally neglected weather warnings (which they rarely do)- then this woman has no case whatsoever.

@JimP1969: LMAO! Thanks for the first laugh of the day!

mil, they didn't fly directly into the storm, they tried to go around it.I have always been afraid of flying due to incidences when I was a child and then as an adult. I still fly when I need to;I'm scared, but I do not blame the airline. They do not want to die any more than I do. Does that idiot think that the pilot thought he would have some fun and give everyone a scare?

After the Delta crash at DFW in the 80's wind shear threat is taken very seriously. But normally if they can gain altitude and get above the storm, it is all ok.

Colgan flys little planes so they're going to bounce around more than the big one's people are used to.

You are most welcome flbikerchick.

I have a cold. Who can I sue for this? This BS has got to stop somewhere.

WeeToddId, I agree. If she was standing in her front yard and was struck by lightning would she sue God, or the weatherman?

Turbulence comes with the territory on airplanes. It's an assumption of risk by the passenger.

cjjmmom: How can you possibly quibble over someone's spelling when you can't be bothered to capitalize or use decent grammar?

@ericbana: Your "arguments" are so entirely without merit that your only defense is to attack the grammar of someone who disagrees with you. How pathetic!

@Paulette-numbers:

I'm not arguing. I'm picking on cjjmmom's atrocious writing. Since she appears to be calling someone (not sure who) a "whiny baby" about their spelling, I'm genuinely curious as to the point of her post. You know..."hello kettle, meet pot".

I wasn't 'arguing' with her.

I wasn't defending myself from any so-called attack.

She wasn't disagreeing with me.

By the way, can you read? Your post is a rare example of someone with good grammar, spelling and punctuation but devoid of any thought or reading comprehension.

Coffee should not cause 3rd degree burns. The coffee was hotter than it was supposed to be. Hotter than the recommended temperature.
My question is, why was she on a 20minute flight? Why bother? Why not just fricking drive...

Hotter than it supposed to be?? lol there is no predetermined temperature for coffee as far as I know. Plenty of people want it scolding hot because they like it that way. Coffee is hot and if you spill it on yourself and get burned it's your own fault.

I have to admit, I want my coffee as hot as it can be. It lasts longer in the cup that way as I hate lukewarm coffee.

Apparently you never really followed the stories....The 68 year old woman who was badly burned from the Macdonalds coffee was handed a cup where the server was holding the lid and as it was handed over the top came off and dumped in the womans lap. She was wearing her seat belt and could not react quick enough and was burned on her lap and private parts. She required plastic surgery. She won the origional suit but it was appealed and in the end she got her medical bills paid and a much smaller sum of money than the first jury awarded. Obviously the second trial found that Mc'ds was at fault as well.

Your right in that people want their coffee hot and Mc'ds still sells hot coffee at the drive in window so they must have just took it in stride.

This case says "extreme turbulence". She very well may not win also.

There is a predetermined temp for the coffee at McDonalds and it was known by upper management to be hotter than could safely be drank. There is a lot more to that law suit than people remember.

"where the server was holding the lid and as it was handed over the top came off and dumped in the womans lap"

No. The woman (who was in the passenger seat) put the coffee between her knees, and pulled the lid off herself, spilling the coffee on herself, by herself.

Due to other variables, I'm not totally on McDonald's side here, but nothing negates that the woman herself deserves a great deal of the blame.

From what I have read, the coffeemaker was knowingly malfunctioning causing the coffee to be a lot hotter than it was suppose to be.

So many versions of the same story. We should all do some research I guess.

I was hoping someone would post the real story. The woman ordered her HOT cup of coffee and did herself in with her own very poor decisions. Thanks 205...

Coffee should not cause 3rd degree burns.

And stupid should hurt.

I really wish you people could stop talking out your rears about the McDonalds coffee case!

The FACTS, not what you think you "know"....google the case and read the real facts on the Lectlaw website!

Becca:

You are aware that a 20 minute flight does not equal 20 minute drive, aren't you?

ericbana

Becca:

You are aware that a 20 minute flight does not equal 20 minute drive, aren't you?

Im not stupid. I do know that. I also know that you can fly for an hour, and get a 4hr drive worth away... Lets just make that easy and say it was a 30 minute flight. That means that the destination is about 2hrs away. A 30minute flight (or less) is not worth anywhere near the hassle, just to save 2hrs (if that) worth of driving. It isn't even worth saving 4hrs of driving, if it was a slow plane...

...the coffeemaker was knowingly malfunctioning causing the coffee to be hotter than it was supposed to be.

Since when does a coffeemaker knowingly malfunction? Have they sprouted brains?

"A 30minute flight (or less) is not worth anywhere near the hassle, just to save 2hrs (if that) worth of driving." Really, Becca R? Who died and put you in charge of peoples' travel itineraries?

You do know that some people may not have an automobile, right? Some people may not be able to drive that far b/c of medical conditions. What about people who may, say, have a family emergency in which a 30 minute plane ride vs. 4 hour car ride will make all the difference in the world? Jesus. This really wasn't worth commenting on, but small-minded people bug me.

As for the woman suing the airline, I don't know all of the facts, but I'm inclined to think that the woman's just trying to make a fast buck.

It was an evil coffee-maker. It meditated for years on how to get revenge on society and finally settled on a plan to knowingly malfunction and super-heat the coffee, but to let MacDonald's take all the blame. Then it used its evil mind-rays on the employee to ensure the lid would not be put on too tight. People in the restaurant at the time were traumatized by its horrible, evil laughter at the fruition of its evil plot.

Becca, an assumed answer to that question; I am guessing she is a Texas AM student(the ONLY thing in College Station,not a big attraction otherwise), since they said she is from Lubbock (northern plains of Texas). A lot of schools limit cars on campus olus if they do it is very expensive to by a parking pass, so she might not have one with her. She was flying between Houston and College Station, she probably went partying or sight seeing, etc. BTW, it is an hour and a half drive AFTER you get out of Houston traffic to drive to College Station. If you are not an experienced driver in heavy traffic, you probably don't want to drive in Houston any way, it's a bear.

This is probably the same lady that would sue for being scared in a haunted house during Halloween.

I was sitting next to and Air Force pilot on a trip from LAX to DFW many years ago, and as normally done, the notice that you could take your seat belt off came on. He noticed that I didn't remove mine...and neither did he.

He told me leaving it on was the smart thing to do as you never know when there can be turbulence...even 'clear air turbulence', he told me. I acknowledged what he said and told him my dad was an AF pilot also, and my dad had told me about leaving my belt on.

Well, don' cha know...just outside of Dallas (where this happens quite often) we hit raging turbulence...some people who had not bothered when the pilot came on making an announcement that we were in for some weather, and the 'Fasten Seat Belt' sign came on, wound up banging their heads on the bulkhead and sprawling in the aisle.

I agree with some other posters that the pilot of this Texas plane probably didn't thumb his nose at his weather reports. But weather by its nature moves. He probably found himself in it before he could do much more than ride 'er as safely as he could.

The lady in question really should probably sue God (as mentioned above)...or Mother Nature for those of you not God-ly inclined...She may have been terrified. However, if she thinks this incident will keep her from a job, or from doing one she already has, then she might want to consider never driving a car, crossing a street or leaving the confines of her home.

Glitter- well said!!! I also have experienced a horrible flight that left me scared of flying, So I can sympathize however there is no one to blame! it happens. I have to remind myself that these pilots dont want to die either!

I use to fly a lot when my husband was alive. I have been in the smaller planes before the larger ones started coming to Springfield Mo. this really dates me. Smaller planes took us to where we could get the larger ones. Yes you do get tossed around more in the smaller ones. But have been in some large ones that were in very bad turbulence, the flight personal couldn't even walk and had to sit and be belted down. Yes it is scary, but you know the pilot is good and experienced and knows what he is doing. The weather report might of not been as severe when they left one doesn't know from the article. When he hit it it was too late to try and turn back, this happens. They don't want to die anymore than you do. This woman is just the type that wants a free ride "greed" for the rest of her life. She is lucky she hadn't hit turbulence in her flights before. It is like riding on a roller coaster, up and down and side to side. The pilt knows how to handle it and they all arrived safe and sound, even her. As far as I can see she has no grounds to sue anyone. Bet she isn't wanting a jury trial as she would not get a penny and the lawyer that took the case on a 30 percent of the money won't get anything. So many people are suingover things that could not be helped and out come is good.There is a lot of greed in our country now and has been for several years. As for McDonald's coffee if I remember right the lady had the cup of coffee on her lap or between the legs on lap and started to remove the lid. That was dumb, the cups have a place to tear back so you can leave the lid on and drink your coffee. When it cools off if you want to remove the lid that is when you do it. Personally I leave the lid on, like my coffee hot and loved their hot coffee. Stayed at least warm till you finished it.

Yes, only in America indeed. I don't know all of the facts, but from what I can gather in the article, this woman's a turd trying to make a fast buck.

HOWEVER, I don't want anyone telling me when I can and can't sue. The court will determine the validity of my suit. (Mind you, I'm not of a sue-happy mindset, my dad could well have sued his doctor for malpractice on a hip replacement, but told the doctor that he knows that mistakes are sometimes made).

As for me, yes, I'm proud to be a compassionate, rational American.

REL2-

Methinks you should move closer to your job.

People are idiots...

Actually you are wrong about the "facts" you are touting. Goolge it, then choose the LectLaw link. You'll get the real legal brief, and how wrong you are.

adlopez,

Do some more research. She was not driving, she was in the passenger seat and the car was parked. McD's also received hundreds of complaints the coffee was too hot and caused burns to others but did nothing to change the temperature of the coffee.

Enough already about McDonalds!

edohio209, you really need to google that full story as I have in the past for this same reason...someone not knowing the full story and claiming something else...the old ladyy had removed the lid and was tryin to add sugar & cream...while driving,

Maybe you should learn the facts yourself before posting about other people not knowing the real facts... Pot calling the kettle black?

Becca R, you can add sugar and cream through the drinking hole they have on the cup. Then put the little stick they give you through the hole and stir it. I have done that. I like my coffee hot. Use some safety and don't get burned.

Mary - regardless if you can do that or not, it doesnt make what really happened any different. It also doesnt make the person posting about knowing the full story any more right...

I still say that if you are going to criticize someone for not knowing the facts, then you should probably learn the facts yourself.

I noticed that I did not say what was wrong with what the person said.
Basically, the lady was NOT driving. She was a PASSENGER.

Henry VI's statement reflects the lawyers' role in stabilizing society, not in destroying it. I hate when people quote that incorrectly.

As for the sentiment, it's not the lawyer's fault. He/she is hired to do a job. Would you shoot your neighbor's housepainter because you didn't like the color your neighbor chose?