Winston & Damman May 2019

Useful Kitchen Utensils

Gone Awry

Butter Spreaders: One of the

We’ve all seen those commercials for kitchen utensils or items that claim to make our lives easier, while in fact, they do the exact opposite. Some of these products can be helpful for children or the elderly who might struggle with motor skills, but healthy adults can save a few bucks and some space in the utensils drawer by not purchasing these items. Pizza Cutting Shears: While it can be irritating to discover the pizza you ordered wasn’t cut through completely, there’s nothing wrong with using a regular pizza wheel to finish the job. The Pizza Cutting Shears may appear to save you time, but they ultimately take up so much space and are so clunky that you’re better off without them. Roll ‘n’ Pour: This plastic rocking device can help young children or the elderly pour themselves a glass of milk from a heavy gallon. However, there’s nothing wrong with able-bodied people using a bit of muscle to achieve the same. Chef’n Peel’n Onion Peeler: While far from taking the tears away, this onion peeler allows you to cut through an onion’s outer layers and peel away the skin. Instead of spending $15 on this cutter, use one of your kitchen knives to get the exact same result.

most commonly commercialized products is better butter spreaders. Whether it’s the

Fox Run Butter Spreader, One Click Stick Butter Cutter, or Butter Mill Butter Dispenser, using a butter knife is ultimately easier and won’t clog up your drawer space. Fruit and Veggie Slicers: Cutting spherical or cylinder-shaped foods may be difficult, but cleaning out the spaces between the thin blades of these slicers can be even harder. Save your time and cash by using a kitchen knife. Twirling Spaghetti Fork: A fork that twirls your spaghetti? You bet! While this might be a fun utensil for kids to use, it’s far from useful in everyday spaghetti eating. If the size of the fork doesn’t make it difficult to eat, the noise certainly will.

Thank You, Stella How the McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit Paved the Way for Modern Personal Injury Cases

The McDonald’s coffee case has been parodied on TV shows from “Saturday Night Live” to “Seinfeld.” But rather than a frivolous lawsuit painted by marketing geniuses at the fast-food corporation, this 1992 lawsuit has become a cornerstone of modern law and an example of “fighting for the little guy.”

requiring its restaurants to serve coffee at a temperature from 180–190 degrees Fahrenheit — just a mere 30 degrees from boiling point. This heat causes third-degree burns within three seconds of skin contact. McDonald’s argued that its coffee would be cool enough to drink yet still warmwhen commuters made it to work. However, Liebeck’s attorneys discovered that McDonald’s had tangible research showing that wasn’t what consumers wanted. Additionally, reports also showed that McDonald’s knew their coffee was too hot, detailing 700 burn complaints. Ultimately, the jury found McDonald’s to be 80 percent at fault for Liebeck’s burns, and they were ordered to pay $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. After appeals, the parties settled out of court for $600,000. The sums Liebeck received went toward her care prior to her death in August of 2004. The Verdict’s Effects Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants proved corporations cannot get away with negligent practices and ignore customers’ complaints. Today, restaurant coffee is still served near a piping 190 degrees, but better packaging and labels have made for safer morning routines.

The Facts In February of 1992, Stella Liebeck, age 79, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car after getting McDonald’s coffee from the drive-thru. Since the car did not have cup holders, she balanced the coffee cup between her legs to add sweetener. The coffee spilled all over her thighs, causing third-degree burns on her inner thighs and genitals. Ultimately, Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days and underwent skin grafting and two years of medical treatment, during which she was partially disabled. Initially, Liebeck only requested $20,000 fromMcDonald’s to cover her current and anticipated medical expenses. The multibillion-dollar company attempted to counter with a lower offer: $800. Liebeck sought the help of Texas attorney Reed Morgan, who sued McDonald’s for gross negligence. In August of 1994, Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants hit NewMexico District Courts. Liebeck’s attorneys discovered that McDonald’s had been

We have Stella Liebeck to thank for that.

2 • www.WinstonDamman.com

www.winstondamman.com

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online