HD sued over excess heat

[Tpoppa]

The problem with legal system is that it's run by lawyers.

Apologies to Redkow

[Hoblick]

meh.. my bike runs hot, but i dont think it runs hotter than my fathers air cooled roadstar.

harley did start putting oil coolers on there 103" and up motors.

thats one way to help resolve the issue.. is to do a recall and issue everyone the oil cooler that they are putting on the 103" bikes.

and yes the bikes are lean from the factory, so much so the valves are white if you look at them through the exhaust port.

a good tune will take care of that.

[redkow97]

The problem with legal system is that it's run by lawyers.

Apologies to Redkow

lawyers would be out of a job if people could resolve their own disputes.

"loser pays" doesn't solve nearly as much as you might think either. It just screws different people; not fewer people.

[vf1000ride]

It's not just a Harley problem, all air cooled bikes run hot. My Ducati has a 1000cc aircooled twin in it. Normal summer time engine oil temps while moving are 220-240F, sitting at a light after idling around in traffic it will hit 260F and the highest I have seen it before shutting the thing off was 290F while stuck behind an accident. Now Ducati says you can let it go clear up to 310 before the gauge changes to the overheat warning but I am not willing to endure that torture. Granted that is oil temp inside the motor but if the inside is at those temps I would imaging the outside is trying it's best to be at those temps also. Oh, my pants have never caught fire (even when at 290F). Even if you wanted to claim it is from the exhaust being close to the leg. The rear header where it exits the motor on my bike sits only 5 inches from the inside of my left leg and has no heat shield. Still no pants on fire. It seems as if something else may be afoot.

As for people that claim burn degree ratings. From the National Health Institute.

First-degree burns affect only the outer layer of the skin. They cause pain, redness, and swelling.

Second-degree (partial thickness) burns affect both the outer and underlying layer of skin. They cause pain, redness, swelling, and blistering.

Third-degree (full thickness) burns extend into deeper tissues. They cause white or blackened, charred skin that may be numb.

Most people that claim third degree burns really have never dealt with that kind of pain, I have permanent scars from what was only considered a second degree burn. Not to say the guys in this thread that have mentioned being burned haven't experienced third degree burns but most people think a bad sun burn equates a third degree burn.

[Tpoppa]

Still no pants on fire. It seems as if something else may be afoot.

Are you suggesting that the guy with pants on fire is a liar...liar?

[2talltim]

Are you suggesting that the guy with pants on fire is a liar...liar?

[CBBaron]

To me the most telling thing is the ~700 people burned up to that point. That should be your clue that something needs to change if people are getting burned that much.

700 out of Billions served tells me there are not as many idiots out there as I thought

I will agree that most stories have more than one side and without all the information you cannot make a judgement.

Craig

[CBBaron]

This is what I read: External motor temps can exceed 240 degrees (hotter than coffee...wink, wink). Denim burns at 215 degrees.

This may or may not be accurate.

240F does not surprise me at all, but Denim burns at only 215F

I would have thought a much higher temp. I guess I should use denim as a started from my wood fireplace. Paper has a kindling point of about 420F.

Craig

Edited September 14, 2011 by CBBaron

[2talltim]

hell my fan dosnt kick on till 225..and my bike is water and oil cooled..wtf?

[Tpoppa]

http://www.prweb.com/releases/harley-davidson/burn-lawsuit/prweb8701137.htm

The complaint alleges that since 1999, Twin Cam 88, 96, 103 and 110 cubic inch engines in Harley motorcycles produce severe, excessive heat causing clothing to catch on fire, burn injuries and the danger of burn injury to riders and passengers as well as overheating causing premature engine wear and in models manufactured after 2006, transmission failure. Although Harley Davidson asked the Eastern District of California court to throw out the claims under state law, the U.S. District Judge sided with the bikers.

[Casper]

I alway giggle when I hear people quoting Liebeck v McDonalds as an example of a frivilous lawsuit.

Back in the early 90s McDonalds required it franchisees to serve the coffee was served significantly hotter than anyone could drink it because they assumed people would take the coffee to work and drink it and therefore want it to still be drinkably hot 10-15 minutes later. The car was parked and it was the passenger who was hurt. The coffee caused 3rd degree burns, she was hospitalized for 8 days and had to undergo skin grafts. Took 2 years of medical treatments for her to fully recover. McDonalds had received several hundred complaints of people being burned by the coffee and settled out-of-court with those folks. Despite ~700 people being burned, they still served the coffee dangerously hot and relied on paying off burn victims while not admitting liability, rather than change how the coffee was served.

I was interested, so I read a bit about it. It was later found that the scientific proof the prosecution used was false. They claimed the 180-190°F coffee that McDonalds served caused 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds, and that lowering the temp to 160°F would increase that time to 20 seconds. The truth is 149°F liquid can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds. Safety regulations require most foods to be served at 150°F or higher. If it were to have gone to trial again, it would've been dismissed. Both McDonalds and Liebeck planned to appeal, however ended up settling out of court for much less than what the judge awarded. Thus in my mind, frivolous. Carry on.

[Kritz]

bad link

Edited September 14, 2011 by Kritz
link removed

[Scruit]

I was interested, so I read a bit about it. It was later found that the scientific proof the prosecution used was false. They claimed the 180-190°F coffee that McDonalds served caused 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds, and that lowering the temp to 160°F would increase that time to 20 seconds. The truth is 149°F liquid can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds. Safety regulations require most foods to be served at 150°F or higher. If it were to have gone to trial again, it would've been dismissed. Both McDonalds and Liebeck planned to appeal, however ended up settling out of court for much less than what the judge awarded. Thus in my mind, frivolous. Carry on.

At the time the 160F number was not disputed. It was a later lawsuit in England where the lower temp was demonstrated to be dangerous too.

To me 'frivilous lawsuit' menas there is simply no merit to the claims and no reasonable person would agree with the plaintiff. The fact that the science used in the suit is later proved to be inaccurate does not mean the lawsuit was frivilous - it just means that the outcome was wrong.

What temp is safe, and how would you measure that?

If it were to go to trial again the plaintiff would be better of arguing that the packaging given at the drive-thru should be changed to prevent spills, like a go-cup etc.

[Scruit]

Here's a pic of the lady from the McDonald's burn case ****

*****Don't look:eek:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/40/stellaliebeckmcdonaldsc.jpg/

Removed. Is the link correct? I don't see a user account in the URL.

[Casper]

At the time the 160F number was not disputed. It was a later lawsuit in England where the lower temp was demonstrated to be dangerous too.

To me 'frivilous lawsuit' menas there is simply no merit to the claims and no reasonable person would agree with the plaintiff. The fact that the science used in the suit is later proved to be inaccurate does not mean the lawsuit was frivilous - it just means that the outcome was wrong.

What temp is safe, and how would you measure that?

If it were to go to trial again the plaintiff would be better of arguing that the packaging given at the drive-thru should be changed to prevent spills, like a go-cup etc.

She had to remove the lid in order to spill it on herself. I'd say the packaging was safe as delivered.

[Scruit]

Both McDonalds and Liebeck planned to appeal, however ended up settling out of court for much less than what the judge awarded. Thus in my mind, frivolous. Carry on.

She only asked for $20k to begin with. Enough to cover medical bills and lost wages.

[brigham70]

I know since 2005 the rear cyclinder stops firing at an idle once it hits a certain temperature. I was stuck once in ATL traffic & thought something was wrong. That night I got out the OM & read about it. It actually works too! Even the car manufactures do the smae thing now. Diesel engines have been designed this way for years. Works!

[Kritz]

There's some pics here. They are graphic.

http://neufeldlawfirm.com/blog/personal-injury/hot-coffee-hbo-documentary/

[Casper]

She only asked for $20k to begin with. Enough to cover medical bills and lost wages.

You forgot the couple sentences before that. In the context you quoted, yes. But that's not all that I said. There is scientific proof that no matter where she'd bought the coffee, the same spill would've caused the same burns. Thus, it wasn't McDonald's fault but her own for spilling it. If I drop a chainsaw on my foot, I'm not suing Craftsman.

[Das Borgen]

You forgot the couple sentences before that. In the context you quoted, yes. But that's not all that I said. There is scientific proof that no matter where she'd bought the coffee, the same spill would've caused the same burns. Thus, it wasn't McDonald's fault but her own for spilling it. If I drop a chainsaw on my foot, I'm not suing Craftsman.

Toro or Ryobi would be better bets anyway

[Casper]

Toro or Ryobi would be better bets anyway

I love my Craftsman stuff. Never have any problems.

[Kritz]

I love my Craftsman stuff. Never have any problems.

Mine has a Honda engine.

[Scruit]

You forgot the couple sentences before that. In the context you quoted, yes. But that's not all that I said. There is scientific proof that no matter where she'd bought the coffee, the same spill would've caused the same burns. Thus, it wasn't McDonald's fault but her own for spilling it. If I drop a chainsaw on my foot, I'm not suing Craftsman.

The proof that lower tempeatures are also dangerous came from a later UK lawsuit. At the time of the US lawsuit the court accepted the contemporary scientific belief that the lower temp would be safer. Why didn't McDonalds bring their own scientists in to show the lower temps were no safer?

If you drop a Brand X chainsaw on your foot, and you come to find that Brands Y and Z have a simple safety cutoff that Brand X are too cheap to put on their chainsaws despite multiple injuries... then you may have a case. If, years after your successful lawsuit, the safety cutoff is found to have been ineffective and either chainsaw would have cause the injuries then that just means the outcome of the lawsuit was wrong -doesn't mean the lawsuit was frivilous.

If you tried to shave with a chainsaw and your jawbone wound up in the next county then any attempt to sue would be frivilous.

[Casper]

The proof that lower tempeatures are also dangerous came from a later UK lawsuit. At the time of the US lawsuit the court accepted the contemporary scientific belief that the lower temp would be safer. Why didn't McDonalds bring their own scientists in to show the lower temps were no safer?

If you drop a Brand X chainsaw on your foot, and you come to find that Brands Y and Z have a simple safety cutoff that Brand X are too cheap to put on their chainsaws despite multiple injuries... then you may have a case. If, years after your successful lawsuit, the safety cutoff is found to have been ineffective and either chainsaw would have cause the injuries then that just means the outcome of the lawsuit was wrong -doesn't mean the lawsuit was frivilous.

If you tried to shave with a chainsaw and your jawbone wound up in the next county then any attempt to sue would be frivilous.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. If she'd spilled the coffee she made at home on her and received the same burns, she wouldn't have been able to sue the maker of the coffeemaker.

[Scruit]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. If she'd spilled the coffee she made at home on her and received the same burns, she wouldn't have been able to sue the maker of the coffeemaker.

I agree that the decision was wrong, based upon what we know NOW. Based up on what was known at the time I believe the correct decision was made at the time.

How do you define frivilous? It may be semantics. To me "frivilous" does not mean "She should have lost". It means that the case never had any merit from the beginning and no reasonable person would ever believe that there was any value to trying the case.