Which TV ads do you find confusing?

Motels are everywhere in this country.

Those aren't motels.

Those are people homes.

Yeah, every city has lovely homes. Every city has a lot more normal homes.

Right! They are "apartments." With all that parking, it looks like a motel to me!

You forgot about the easy to maintain genuine dirt floor.

Actually, Santa Fe has quite a few more modern homes. The city itself is filled with friendly folks, beautiful older buildings and a welcoming charm.

As one of the oldest cities in the country and a round capitol building, it should not be missed. After that you and your friends can start off on the Santa Fe Trail and head east to Missouri.

Missouri? I passed over that. Went back and asked why would anyone want to go to Missouri - unless they were starting from Arkansas, of course.

Whenever I think of Missouri, I think of people dressed like this.
In both cases, he has just so given up.

The other day Wally and I had to go to an appt together. He was showering and getting dressed, and I changed clothes too. When I came into the room I saw we were both wearing navy blue tshirts.
I said "Aw no way" and went back and put on a different shirt.

Howard and Hilda, two characters from Ever Decreasing Circles.

What a handsome couple.

Had it screened a few years later they would have become a meme, as it was it was late 80s early 90s.

I've never understood the ads for Enterprise Car rental.
"Call Enterprise, We'll pick you up!" But in the ad, there's a speeding car wrapped in brown paper. And I'm thinking NO WAY IN HELL are you picking me up in a car you can't even see out of!

One of those medications ads was on yesterday. Perhaps someone can explain this: do not take Abc of you are allergic to Abc.

What? If I've never taken, then how would I know I'm allergoc? If I took it before and know I have an allergy, why would I take it again?

It's a little nuts isn't it?

yeah like putting on a hot coffee cup - caution contents are hot.

Dumb people lacking common sense cause this

Again....companies protecting themselves from lawsuits, in no small part because a lot of people lack common sense, cause this.

Now, the following isn't a lack of common sense, but the reason for the "Caution, contents may be hot"

BTW, I watched a documentary about Mrs. Liebeck, and you can google images of her injuries. Very graphic and horrible burns on I would say the most sensitive area of the body. You've been warned. The coffee was so hot that it literally melted the polyester of the pants she was wearing into her skin. It was no frivilous lawsuit.

If you read below, you will also learn this was, at least in part, the impetus for car manufacturers to put cup holders in all vehicles. Sadly there were none in which Mrs. Liebeck was sitting as a passenger, in a parked car, while she was just trying to put some creamer in her 180 degree coffee.

For context as to what 180 degree liquid does, it's not even included in this description....At 110 to 112 degrees, it will take at least twenty-five minutes before that water can cause any skin injury. If we raise that water temperature to 120 degrees, the burn time is decreased to about 19 seconds. Increase the water temperature to 140 degrees and burn time decreases to twelve seconds, and at 150 degrees it’s basically less than one second.

It's a warning that seems a little unnecessary. The "Caution: Contents Hot" label found on most disposable drink cups and lids logically shouldn't be there. Of course, you ordered this hot drink, so you wouldn't be surprised if it was hot.

The reason why coffee cups state this comes from the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants trial of 1994. One accidental coffee spill ended up granting Stella Liebeck almost $3 million dollars. It's easy to think, "All that over hot coffee?" Let's get the facts of the case straight and note how this particular court case changed disposable beverage cups forever.

A Scalding Issue
In 1992, Stella Liebeck, then 79 years old, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car parked in a McDonald's parking lot. The two had gotten breakfast, and Liebeck's grandson parked so that she could add cream to her coffee. She held the foam cup between her knees and it spilled into her lap. Liebeck sustained third degree burns and required skin grafts on her thighs and groin.

She filed a claim with McDonald's for $20,000 to settle her medical bills. When McDonald's countered with an $800 offer, she decided to go to court.

Stella Liebeck's legal team argued that McDonald's coffee was being held and sold at too high of a temperature. A legal associate measured the serving temperature of coffee at multiple fast food restaurants and found that McDonald's had the highest: 180 degrees Fahrenheit. For reference, 150 degree water can definitely burn you within seconds, and the ideal coffee drinking temperature is between 120 and 140 degrees.

During the trial, it was also revealed that Liebeck wasn't alone. More than 700 people, including children, had been burned by McDonald's coffee in the decade before Liebeck's accident—and McDonald's knew about it.

The Aftermath
In 1994, the court awarded Stella Liebeck $200,000 in damage compensation (which was later reduced to $160,000, as the judge found Liebeck 20% at fault for her injuries). But this was what caught the media's attention: the jury also gave Liebeck $2.7 million dollars, which was equal to two days' profit for McDonald's in coffee sales. One month after the trial ended, the presiding judge reduced Liebeck's total compensation from $2.9 million to $640,000.

Even though her award was reduced, people remembered that $2.9 million dollar figure. Stella Liebeck's case prompted food and beverage corporations to be more cautious when serving hot beverages in the future.

Preventative Measures
One of McDonald's faults during the trial was that their consumers were not adequately informed of the burn risk that came with their coffee. Nowadays, we are aware. After this case, the use of cardboard cup sleeves became more widespread. Hot drink technology evolved, granting us sculpted lids with a raised opening for sipping.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants even affected the automotive industry. If the car Liebeck had been in had had cup holders, her injury could have been avoided. Even though cup holders have been in cars since the 1950s, not all models had them, and Liebeck's incident proved that they are necessary.

So, the "Caution: Contents Hot" warning has the same function as cardboard sleeves and smart drink lids. They exist to prevent you from hurting yourself with hot liquids, and in turn that protects coffee-serving companies by letting you know your liability. "Caution: Contents Hot" warnings are there to protect you, but they also reduce the chance that a case like Liebeck's could happen again.

My fellow coffee connoisseurs, now you know why your cup reminds you that it's pretty hot. Drink responsibly.

I fully understand why these labels are on products and why they state it because of lawsuits.

Why lawsuits - because no one is accountable to have common sense. Although I sympathize with the injuries - would you really put a hot coffee between your legs? Now if it is known the coffee was at a much higher temperature than say what is legally established that is much different but everyone now has to put on their cups caution hot - well if you don't want it hot then ask for iced coffee.

At some point we need to hold people accountable for their dumb common sense actions. These lawsuits then in turn just causes us all to pay more money for products - because there are too many dumb or inattentive people that won't hold themselves accountable.

To be honest if I took medicine I knew I was allergic to (and there was no warning) - I would probably be embarrassed at my own stupidity and would not want to sue thus letting the world know how dumb I am.

This is probably why all those other people did not come forward when they got burnt - they were embarrassed they did something dumb. One thing in this lady's favor was her age - for some reason people expect older adults to be a bit naive.

Perfume commercials are always incredibly confusing. Like you never really know what's going on until they show the bottle at the end.

I would if cup holders had not yet come into common practice.

Where would you, back in 1978, put your hot beverage cup if you had been holding it, but for any number of reason suddenly needed to use 2 hands? The dash? Maybe, depended on the car. A lot of times that wasn't possible. The Liebeck case was also the reason apparantly coffee sleeve became popular, and different lids on cups that wouldn't splash out. I don't see at all where she was given any slack because of her age.

What if pre cup holders, you had to use both hands sitting in a parking lot, and handed your 9 year old the cup and said "Hold this for a second", because there was no where to put the beverage? What if you handed it to your 45 year old husband or sister? Then something happens, and they get burned.
It didn't have anything to do with Liebeks age. It had to do with the fact a company was selling something that would give immediate 3rd degree burns, and obviously, people spill hot coffee on themselves every day. But not as unnecessarily hot as that.

No, I wouldn't necessarily think myself dumb, or think someone else dumb, if they hurt themselves in a way that given more thought, maybe wasn't such a good idea.
I sure haven't been embarrassed to tell other how I burnt myself touching a cast iron pan, or cut myself on a piece of broken glass.

A drug can go under many different names.

A former co worker of mine, an RN, ended up in the hospital while she was visiting Japan, due to extreme stomach pain.

Turned out she had been given Naproxen for some shoulder pain and ended up in the ER because of internal bleeding.

Off the top of your head, do you know what Naproxen is? Yes? No?

Naproxen is a double dose of Alleve.

Now you might know from prior personal experience if Alleve eats up your stomach. But if your doctor perscribed Naproxene, and you saw that a side effect is that some people experience gastric distress, would you maybe think "Well, I hope that doesn't happen to me. I don't know if it will because I've never taken it" Yes you have. And now you're taking 200% of what would have you up all night.
Sure it says in small letters on the Alleve bottle (naproxen sodium), but can you say you would definately make the association?

When I was a teenager I had a bad reaction to erythromycin.
Because of that, there are a dozen other drugs I can't take, including good old penicillin (is that even used anymore?).

Would anyone blame me if I didn't know about those drugs, and took one that cause an anaphylactic reaction? I don't think I would feel dumb at all. I do happen to know all the drugs I'm not supposed to take end in "mycin", but I hardly think I could be blamed if I wasn't aware of that.

I couldn't rationalize being embarrassed enough over something like being injured to not pursue some sort of justice over a situation. Really? Embarrassment? That's a real low priority emotion, especially if you're injured.

Me? No, I don't give any thought at all to warnings like "These knives may be sharp" because they serve a purpose, save companies from lawsuits, and may be a reminder to someone to be careful when they aren't paying attention.

Some may think a person is "dumb" to actually see that as a reminder. Every day when I go out to drive my car, especially when it's for the food deliveries on do, and am not 100% sure of all directions, I say out loud "Be Care Driving Chai"
I need that reminder.

I have often wondered if the lid on that coffee popped off, or wasn't well sealed. If that happens, the cup usually collapses - with predictable results.

Well, she was trying to put creamer in the coffee when it happened, so the lid wasn't on.
It says something about the cups being foam. They're not foam at McDonalds anymore, are they?

I remember foam cups acted weird.

The most disgusting thing about it was that all she wanted was $20,000 to cover the medical bills, and all McDonalds offered her was $800.

The judge awarded her $18K for medical, as he found her 20% responsible. That I believe is fair.

As in the article (and below) 700 people had already said they had been burned by this too hot coffee.

The judgement awarded by the jury to Liebeck was 2 days of mcdonalds coffee sales....$2.7 million. It was bargained down to $600K

All she wanted was her medical bills of $20K paid. It really ruined her life. But because of changes made in the industry after this lawsuit, things became safer.

So the rumor mill started about this dumb greedy woman, but in fact, it was mcdonalds who was very greedy, and dumb. It wasn't frivolous at all.

Seriously, google images of this womans injuries. And the corporate lawyers spread disinformation that she was just after money.

Remember how Sammy Davis Jr lost his eye?

On the steering wheel of his 1953 Eldorado. Something like this...




Today of course a wheel like this would be unheard of. Yet, perfectly acceptable at the time.....until Davis's accident. You would have thought it would have been common sense.

I wonder if less high profile people were also injured? I'll bet there were. No now we have warnings about airbags and stuff, but we don't have steering wheels with pointed tips that will take eyes out, slam into your chest, etc.