Woman sues Chuck E. Cheese on allegations that they are running a gambling operation

spmahn

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
266
Reaction score
0
Location
Bristol, Connecticut
Woman sues Chuck E. Cheese on allegations that they are running a gambling operation

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/1...legedly-allowing-kids-gamble/?test=latestnews

It's funny how this comes up right after the discussion about games like Stacker and Barbercut and where you draw the line between skill and chance. While I do think the suit is a bit ridiculous, I definitely feel that they should be clear as to which games are skill and which are chance.

I always laugh when I go to Mohegan Sun, whose arcade is now comprised almost entirely of ticket redemption games, and how they're really just training the kids to get addicted to gambling early, and preparing them for a future at the slot machine.
 
Last edited:
While I do think the suit is a bit rediculous,

ridiculous.jpg
 
Another shitbag trying to get money they don't deserve. I'm also sure this also caused her deep mental anguish too.Please.... They should fine and/or jail people and the lawyers who do this shit. Pathetic.
 
Another shitbag trying to get money they don't deserve. I'm also sure this also caused her deep mental anguish too.Please.... They should fine and/or jail people and the lawyers who do this shit. Pathetic.

Simple fix. Looser pays all costs. The way the system works now, even if the prosecution has no legitimate reason to collect, the defendant still looses money defending themselves. So usually it's cheaper just to make a settlement. Then the prosecution lawyer takes about 80%. So once again, the lawyers win. With looser pays all costs, it wouldn't be worth the risk to sue someone for frivolous reasons.
 
Simple fix. Looser pays all costs. The way the system works now, even if the prosecution has no legitimate reason to collect, the defendant still looses money defending themselves. So usually it's cheaper just to make a settlement. Then the prosecution lawyer takes about 80%. So once again, the lawyers win. With looser pays all costs, it wouldn't be worth the risk to sue someone for frivolous reasons.

It would seem like a simple fix, except that most cases that go to litigation are 50/50 cases. What tends to happen under the "loser pays" system is that big corporations will stomp out individuals by dumping tons of money into fees. As the fees go up, the risk gets higher for the individual, and even people with legitimate claims don't want to take the risk of loss at trial. Florida actually switched to the "loser pays" system for a while but then repealed the change after seeing the effects it had.

It's important to understand that just because you can file a suit, doesn't mean you'll win. It's harder to file a frivoulous suit than you think, espeically if you're poor. If you want to file a frivilious suit and you're rich you can probably find a lawyer who will handle the suit on an hourly basis. If the you can't pay by the hour you have to find an attorney who will work on a contingency basis. With contingency cases, it's harder to get the case going because a typical lawyer isn't going to risk a bunch of time in a loser case.

You often hear about the crazy cases that get filed because they make good stories and piss people off, but they don't happen that often in practice. And you very rarely hear about frivilous suits where the Plaintiff wins.

The reason the system is the way it is in America (pay your own way) is that the courts and legislatures have decided that it's more important to allow legitmate claims to go forward than to attempt to entirely obliterate frivilous claims. So, in America we have to deal with more stupid suits like these (which tend to get magnified by media talking heads) but our system helps prevent the rich (WHO OFTEN DON'T HAVE LEGITIMATE DEFENSES) from intimidating less wealthy people with legitimate claims by threatening to stick the Plaintiff insane amounts of fees.

The funny thing is, there are illegitmate defenses made much more than illegitimate claims, but you rarely hear about all the crazy shit corporate defendants make up.
 
It just shows how stupid the american public is. Oh, if my johnny gets cheated out of a quarter at chuck e cheese because the game's rigged, I'm going to sue.

Screw her. If Johnny gets cheated out of a quarter, teach Johnny what just happened and next time it won't.

This always comes back to the parents refusing to be parents. They want society to be whatever they decide is perfect, so their kids don't have to make any decisions and they don't have to teach their kids anything.
 
Every Chuck E Cheese nowadays has 99% crappy games. Maybe they will change now... Probably not. lol
I'm actually somewhat impressed with my local CEC. Mech Warrior, Blazing Angels, a few interesting light gun games... hell, they even had KOFXI there. I spent more quarters on that than any kid would on some redemption game.

I will agree with one thing she says, though:
"There was no fun involved in the game other than an opportunity to win a prize."

Yep. I can agree with that.
 
How can you sue someone for [allegedly] breaking the law? Wouldn't running an illegal gambling operation be a criminal matter that law enforcement and the district attorney would deal with? I suppose you could sue for compensation for any money you spent there, but the article says that she is suing simply on the basis of the claim that they have illegal gambling machines. Wouldn't that be like suing someone because you saw them shoplifting at Walmart or whatever?

Edit: Nevermind; I missed this part:

"She wants restitution from CEC as well as an injunction that prevents it from offering the games in question to children in the future."
 
Last edited:
I may be biased, because I work for CEC, but I am gonna say this lawsuit is more pointless than the Mcdonalds obesity or hot coffee cases. Any judge that sides with this lady...shouldn't be a judge...

Thats all I can say on this at least now..

josh
 
I may be biased, because I work for CEC, but I am gonna say this lawsuit is more pointless than the Mcdonalds obesity or hot coffee cases. Any judge that sides with this lady...shouldn't be a judge...

Thats all I can say on this at least now..

josh

I donno if I would call this case pointless.....

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Seemes more than fair to me....

But I do agree the "sue happy" people have ruined ALOT for everyone...

-Mike
 
Last edited:
I may be biased, because I work for CEC, but I am gonna say this lawsuit is more pointless than the Mcdonalds obesity or hot coffee cases. Any judge that sides with this lady...shouldn't be a judge...

Thats all I can say on this at least now..

josh

One of Brazil's McDonald's actually had to pay their store manager compensation because he got fat working there. It had to do with making him 'test' the food, lol.
 
I donno if I would call this case pointless.....

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Seemes more than fair to me....

But I do agree the "sue happy" people have ruined ALOT for everyone...

-Mike

There you go with "facts", "logic", and "reason". I want to be angry at people for doing stupid stuff and complain that the world is collapsing because not everyone is as smart as I obviously am. And now you've ruined that for me!!!!!
 
I don't think she'll get anything out of her allegations.

Besides, if the owner of these games has a permit to have these on location then that's proof California allows such amusement devices. So maybe she should sue the state of California instead of Chuck E. Cheese.

I don't think the lawyer cares who she sues becasue either way he gets her money.
 
I donno if I would call this case pointless.....

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Seemes more than fair to me....

But I do agree the "sue happy" people have ruined ALOT for everyone...

-Mike

This seems to get trotted out every time the Liebeck case is mentioned on the internet these days. The Liebeck case is the poster child for frivolous lawsuits, and for good reason. I bolded the part that is 100% false. If you have a coffee machine that is making/keeping coffee at 135 to 140 degrees, it is time to buy a new one, because it is defective or a piece of junk.

Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.

And:

Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.[21] The National Coffee Association of U.S.A. instructs that coffee should be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91–96 degrees C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit [82–85 degrees C]".[22]

And McDonald's still serves coffee at the same temperature range as they always have:

McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[24] relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[24][25]

And even without knowing all the facts of this case, anyone should know that coffee can not be any hotter than boiling water (212 degrees F); boiling water being something that most of us have dealt with at home on a daily basis since we were kids. Ever make tea, hot cocoa, instant coffee, etc.? When that tea kettle whistles, the water is boiling (212 degrees F). Not long after that, you are sipping that liquid that is over 25 degrees hotter than Liebeck's cup of coffee from McDonald's, you know, the stuff that was "not only hot, it was scalding — capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle." [How dramatic ...]

So why was the Liebeck case a frivolous lawsuit?

1. The coffee was served at a proper serving temperature for coffee.

2. A McDonald's employee did not spill the coffee on her.

3. The container was not defective / did not fail. Her own clumsiness/foolishness was 100% to blame for the spill, which by definition leaves 0% blame on the part of McDonald's or anyone else (she put the coffee between her knees in her vehicle and removed the lid, spilling it in her lap in the process).

Being too stupid to know that properly hot coffee can cause severe burns and/or too inept to safely handle a cup of coffee does not mean that someone else is to blame when you injure yourself.
 
Last edited:
THANK YOU! And yes this is from an Ex McDonalds employee of 11 years...


This seems to get trotted out every time the Liebeck case is mentioned on the internet these days. The Liebeck case is the poster child for frivolous lawsuits, and for good reason. I bolded the part that is 100% false. If you have a coffee machine that is making/keeping coffee at 135 to 140 degrees, it is time to buy a new one, because it is defective or a piece of junk.



And:



And McDonald's still serves coffee at the same temperature range as they always have:



And even without knowing all the facts of this case, anyone should know that coffee can not be any hotter than boiling water (212 degrees F); boiling water being something that most of us have dealt with at home on a daily basis since we were kids. Ever make tea, hot cocoa, instant coffee, etc.? When that tea kettle whistles, the water is boiling (212 degrees F). Not long after that, you are sipping that liquid that is over 25 degrees hotter than Liebeck's cup of coffee from McDonald's, you know, the stuff that was "not only hot, it was scalding — capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle." [How dramatic ...]

So why was the Liebeck case a frivolous lawsuit?

1. The coffee was served at a proper serving temperature for coffee.

2. A McDonald's employee did not spill the coffee on her.

3. The container was not defective / did not fail. Her own clumsiness/foolishness was 100% to blame for the spill, which by definition leaves 0% blame on the part of McDonald's or anyone else (she put the coffee between her knees in her vehicle and removed the lid, spilling it in her lap in the process).

Being too stupid to know that properly hot coffee can cause severe burns and/or too inept to safely handle a cup of coffee does not mean that someone else is to blame when you injure yourself.
 
Back
Top Bottom