Bizarre lawsuits

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
ummmm, you should probably read this site:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

but I'll give you the best part:

people throw around the case because they love to try and blame the victim, who in this case was a 79 year old woman who had third degree burns all up in her junk.

What that fails to mention is:

She sat in that shit for 30+ seconds.

Still remains that she burned herself, the container had a warning on it, and she tried to sue someone else for her own damn problem.

She shouldn't have gotten any money out of the case and McDonald's shouldn't have had to pay a single dime.

185F? I boil my water before making it into hot chocolate.

By the time she actually started to "open" the coffee, it had probably cooled to something closer to 170. Doesn't matter because that old b*tch just sat there.

The fact that she sought ANY money speaks of how backwards and ****ed up the average thinking of a person is in America. At first, she was encouraged to seek just the cost of the medical bills. Then, some hot shot a**hole lawyer got wind of it.

They put some sort of harmful substance in the coffee that could kill upon consumption? Sue.

The person at the window throws the coffee in her face, burning her badly. Sue.

The coffee isn't kept hot, gets some sort of harmful bacteria growing, and it makes her sick or kills her. Sue.

You spill your own damn hot coffee on yourself, and the container says "caution hot". You don't sue. You freak the **** out, pull your pants off, and go the hospital. Then, you make sure that your grandson prepares your coffee for you in the future because you're obviously too much of a dumbass and have the old people shakes that you are not in good enough condition to be removing lids off of hot coffee.

I will never ever ever agree that the old b*tch suing anyone was the right thing to do. Maybe, just MAYBE, McDonald's was slightly at fault for keeping their coffee hot like their customers demanded. But, I think that society should sue all a**holes involved in that case for perpetuating the absurdity of thinking it was right to sue because of their own damn faults.

I think there should be a cap on the amount of money that someone can sue someone over. Tort reform, bitches. Tort reform.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Some of those juries must be on something much stronger than pot

You're right. It's the drug called, "Whiny bitches entitlement syndrome."

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think there should be a cap on the amount of money that someone can sue someone over. Tort reform, bitches. Tort reform.

"That man defrauded me out of $10 million dollars!"
"We can make him give you ten bucks."

Liberator

"Nebraska's longest-serving state senator filed an unusual lawsuit against a higher power."

I looked it up on wiki, apparently this fellow, a certain Ernie Chambers filed a lawsuit against god. hahahahahaha.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"That man defrauded me out of $10 million dollars!"
"We can make him give you ten bucks."

I knew that was coming.

You also knew what I meant. big grin

Obviously, in that case, which is not what I was talking about, the person defrauded would be paid back what could be recovered. If all of it can be recovered, then the person that committed the fraud would also pay for as much, if not all, the legal fees.

Duuuuh!

Real tort reform refers to idiots like the old ***** getting to sue someone from millions of dollars, a burgler suing for falling on their victims kitchen utensils, etc.

Do you or anyone else need more examples or would this suffice?

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by dadudemon
Real tort reform refers to idiots like the old ***** getting to sue someone from millions of dollars, a burgler suing for falling on their victims kitchen utensils, etc.

Can't the defendant appeal to the judge to toss out the case on the grounds of it being absurd, though? I know that for certain things the defense can force the prosecution to prove that their claim has merit in order to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

Ms.Marvel

Originally posted by dadudemon
What that fails to mention is:

She sat in that shit for 30+ seconds.

Still remains that she burned herself, the container had a warning on it, and she tried to sue someone else for her own damn problem.

She shouldn't have gotten any money out of the case and McDonald's shouldn't have had to pay a single dime.

185F? I boil my water before making it into hot chocolate.

By the time she actually started to "open" the coffee, it had probably cooled to something closer to 170. Doesn't matter because that old b*tch just sat there.

The fact that she sought ANY money speaks of how backwards and ****ed up the average thinking of a person is in America. At first, she was encouraged to seek just the cost of the medical bills. Then, some hot shot a**hole lawyer got wind of it.

They put some sort of harmful substance in the coffee that could kill upon consumption? Sue.

The person at the window throws the coffee in her face, burning her badly. Sue.

The coffee isn't kept hot, gets some sort of harmful bacteria growing, and it makes her sick or kills her. Sue.

You spill your own damn hot coffee on yourself, and the container says "caution hot". You don't sue. You freak the **** out, pull your pants off, and go the hospital. Then, you make sure that your grandson prepares your coffee for you in the future because you're obviously too much of a dumbass and have the old people shakes that you are not in good enough condition to be removing lids off of hot coffee.

I will never ever ever agree that the old b*tch suing anyone was the right thing to do. Maybe, just MAYBE, McDonald's was slightly at fault for keeping their coffee hot like their customers demanded. But, I think that society should sue all a**holes involved in that case for perpetuating the absurdity of thinking it was right to sue because of their own damn faults.

I think there should be a cap on the amount of money that someone can sue someone over. Tort reform, bitches. Tort reform.

You're right. It's the drug called, "Whiny bitches entitlement syndrome."

i sense a lot of anger in this post o.o

it scared me a little

from a legal perspective she really should not have had a case at all though, i agree.

did she win?

King Kandy

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think there should be a cap on the amount of money that someone can sue someone over. Tort reform, bitches. Tort reform.
Torte reform is ridiculous, especially when applied to malpractice. If a doctor, for instance, screws you up so much you will require $30,000,000 of care for the rest of your life, but "torte reform" caps what you can sure for to $3,000,000... you don't see how there's a huge problem there?

Red Nemesis

Originally posted by Liberator
"Nebraska's longest-serving state senator filed an unusual lawsuit against a higher power."

I looked it up on wiki, apparently this fellow, a certain Ernie Chambers filed a lawsuit against god. hahahahahaha.

I have shaken that man's hand.

inimalist

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Can't the defendant appeal to the judge to toss out the case on the grounds of it being absurd, though? I know that for certain things the defense can force the prosecution to prove that their claim has merit in order to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

look, anytime a person is harmed in a way that isn't akin to having boiling water thrown in their face by a server, it is their own fault.

period.

the fact that any lawsuits happen at all is proof that there are frivolous lawsuits, and that such an appeal is useless in the judicial system.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, blaming the victim is the first step

We have to stop coddling people. If the legal system protects victims it just encourages people to be victims.

More seriously, she shouldn't have been able to sue them for more than her medical bills.

dadudemon

Originally posted by King Kandy
Torte reform is ridiculous, especially when applied to malpractice. If a doctor, for instance, screws you up so much you will require $30,000,000 of care for the rest of your life, but "torte reform" caps what you can sure for to $3,000,000... you don't see how there's a huge problem there?

No. You don't get it. Which is odd because you usually do.

Tort reform (capping) would modify the ability for someone to sue a doctor for $8 million because someone got an infection after getting their appendix removed.

If a doctor legitimately screws up, he or she should have to pay for all medical costs and all expenses related to the doctor's visits (gas, missed work, child care, etc.) He should NOT, however, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for this mysterious other area that gets lots of attention: pain and suffering.

Sometimes, doctors have to pay up for shit they didn't even do. Back to the infected shit: sometimes, patients don't take care of themselves after surgery, they get infections, and they sue, and still win, despite it being obvious to anyone with half a brain that the patient is just a dumbass. Again, tort reform.

Part of the deterrent is making the patient responsible for the legal expenses if they lose the case. But, that doesn't deter very many people when you can win with a case that is barely justifiable. As long as there's just a LITTLE bit to justify the case, you can win. And, that's REALLY stretching it. Back to the injured burglar. I mean, damn, that happened more than ONCE!

Anywho, I'll look up some cases tomorrow. The old lady sitting in the coffee is definitely a good example of our ****ed up tort legal system, but there are even better ones.

inimalist

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We have to stop coddling people. If the legal system protects victims it just encourages people to be victims.

More seriously, she shouldn't have been able to sue them for more than her medical bills.

the article I linked says she spent 8 days in hospital for third degree burns to 6% of her body, needing skin grafts and debridement (removal of dead tissue) treatments.

Initially she wanted 20 000, I'm inclined to say however much greater that is than those bills would have come to is an acceptable token of appology...

oh wait, its her fault, so no reasonable payment or compensation can happen and it becomes a legal cluster****

but ya, I'm in agreement, while I appreciate arguments for some type of additional "compensation" above strict material costs incurred from the accident, at the very least they do offer a reasonable way for the parties to come together. I'm no expert, but I think thats closer to how our courts run... I took law class in grade 11, lol

Shoes

Originally posted by dadudemon
but there are even better ones.

This police officer suspected a man of possessing drugs. So, he forced open his hand, and found weed. The courts made the cop pay him, because he invaded his personal right to keep his hand closed. The man was allowed to leave free.

Ms.Marvel

cop got what he deserved then imo... >_>

inimalist

Originally posted by Shoes
This police officer suspected a man of possessing drugs. So, he forced open his hand, and found weed. The courts made the cop pay him, because he invaded his personal right to keep his hand closed. The man was allowed to leave free.

link?

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, blaming the victim is the first step

It's hard for me to tell where you're coming from with that statement. At first, I would think it was sarcasm, but, reading your further comments later in the thread, I'm not so sure.

Anywho, yes, I don't think America allows for enough blame to be placed on the idiots...wait...I mean "victim." big grin

If you're being sarcastic, where do you draw the line between willful negligence of the "plaintiff" and hazardous products/actions?

Anyway, this next part is not directly at you, but to the general audience.

Why couldn't the old lady sue her grandson for "negligence." Surely her grandson was aware of how physically debilitated her shaky hands were. He neglected to intervene before his stubborn old grandmother injured herself really badly. As fact, the counter had a warning on it about the contents being hot. Not warm, but hot. So, shouldn't the grandson be at the majority fault here?

Ahhh, but you see, no one thinks about things like this. Instead, it HAS to be the corporation that the person got the "assaulting" product from, not the person that used that product to injure themselves, the friends and family that allowed the "victim" to injure themselves, nor the "innocent" witnesses observing the accident with the product unfold. It absolutely HAS to be the organization's, that made and/or distributed the product, fault: Despite warnings on the product.

Let's put this into perspective on what this lady did: she held her hand on rapidly spinning lawnmower blades for 30+ seconds while her grandson sat next to her, watching her do it; despite the warning on the lawnmower that says "caution, spinning blades will cut your friggin' hands off." What makes my comparison even less severe than the actual scenario: the container she was holding, despite preventing most of the heat transferring to her hand, could quite easily convey to her that the contents were "hot!" I'd have to amend my comparisons to something like: she held a stick up to the blades and watched the blades devour the stick like it was nothing before she held her hands up to the blades, mangling them. But, it's the manufacturer of the lawn mower because they didn't:

1. Put, in larger text, that the lawn mower could chop your hands up.

2. The blades spun too fast, despite customers requesting that the blades spin that fast.

3. She held her hands in the blades 30+ seconds while her grandson just looked at her.

Damn...still thinking about it, my comparison STILL doesn't capture the true effect of this situation. To really capture it, I'd have to come up with something silly that caused her hands to get mangled faster, because her wearing sweat pants exacerbated the situation. Maybe she sharpened the blades right before sticking her hands in there?

Before anyone thinks about objecting to my comparison by saying something like, "Coffee is different than lawnmower blades because the blades are meant to cut grass, not mangle hands." Or something along those lines. My response: Coffee is meant to be drunk not spilled in a car all over your lap. A lawnmower is meant to cut grass, not hands. A cup holder is where you would expect to take the lid off. The yard is where you'd expect to find grass to cut. Not taking the lid off in your lap when you're a shaky old fart: not trying to play with the blades.

Hope I didn't lose anyone with the parallels, but I think you guys get the point.

But, back to square 1: Why DIDN'T the old lady go after her grandson for his negligence? (Which, its quite obvious that he WAS negligent, no denying that.) She should have. Other than the old lady, he is most at fault, here. Simple: our "society" has it in their mind that they are entitled to something whenever they ****-up. The go after the person or entity most able to fulfill that entitlement need that they have been conditioned to demand.

If the tort "rules" were setup to where a person was made more liable for their actions, we might be able to curb this "entitlement age" that we have been in for the past few decades. I like the idea of making hefty legal costs up to the person that brings up the charges, but, first, we've got to stop awarding cases to the plaintiffs for silly things like the old lady situation. I think I placed a percentage of liability on McDonald's in this case already, but I forgot what I said. McDonald's, due to keeping their coffee above market average: let's just say 10%. McDonald's pays 10% of her medical bills and sends a "get better" card and she pays for the rest including 90% of her own legal costs. no expression

Also, in the case of the dude was forced to open his hand: it's really hard for me to decide which way that should have gone. Did the officer break fingers or tear skin/nails when he forced the hand open? If he did, the dude should sue the city for the medical costs. However, if the drugs are illegal, depending upon the municipality (damn, I say that a lot), the cop would be in complete right to force the hand open. Most places here in Oklahoma allows the police officer to conduct a search with reasonable cause, without a warrant. It HAS to be a pretty damned good reason, though such as, suspecting some pothead of holding onto a small bag of weed during a routine traffic stop. However, this is where my "other" side disagrees: weed should NOT be illegal to ****in' begin with! When vaped, it's safer than friggin' aspirin, for cryin' out-loud. I digress: I was reading where most people become impaired enough from weed to make them at the levels a little above the maximum legal level of blood alcohol levels. So, damn, it's hard to say. I'd like to see a really good study done: completely objective. I'm almost positive the outcomes of those dozen or so tests had "vested interests" in the outcomes...you know, similar to the US suppressing a study about the toxicity of a joint compared to a cigarette that showed the cigarette to be more toxic.

Anyway, tort reform. Yeah. Awesome. We need it in the US.

inimalist

otherwise, a very long way of saying that it is in fact the fault of the person whose vagina needed dead flesh removed from it so that it didn't rot.

King Kandy

DDM, that analogy is ridiculous. The difference is that in your scenario the woman INTENDED to get her hands chopped off, but in the actual case, it was an accident and could not have been predicted by her at all. That's a very important distinction to gloss over.

dadudemon

Originally posted by King Kandy
DDM, that analogy is ridiculous. The difference is that in your scenario the woman INTENDED to get her hands chopped off, but in the actual case, it was an accident and could not have been predicted by her at all. That's a very important distinction to gloss over.

Oh really? That's it? That's your ONLY complaint? laughing

Fine, preface my entire scenario with: she was reaching for an item stuck on the side of the chassis. laughing

Wait wait, even better, was was tryingto adjust the height of the cutting deck in an absurdly wrong way. crylaugh

Anyway, makes it even stupider when put into perspective, doesn't it? If that's the best complaint you could come up with, the comparison is quite valid and shocking, isn't it?

Edit - Also, how do you KNOW that the old lady didn't intend to get burned? She sure as shit sat RIGHT in that shit for far too long for it to have been a mistake. Was she an invalid? No. Paraplegic? No. What kind of person just sits there, getting the utter living shit burned out of themselves? I would love to see something related to the burn. biwtdb! bla bla bla. Easily countered.

inimalist

so, courts in DDM's universe:

It is only corporate negligance if: Coffee is left out such that it becomes a biohazard and is THEN served to customers

A corporation is only liable if: There is as much intent to harm as would be seen in a server deliberatly throwing coffee in the face of the customer

also, a substance made for human consumption may pose as much danger as mechanical yard equipment being used improperly. This is not negligant of the corporation at all, because, if people making machines that have inherent risk involved can put people in danger, god damn it, their food can too!

Deja~vu

Heck, I should jump on this bandwagon.

I can think of a really great class action suit and I'm sure many people would just thank me. It envolves predudice in the work place regarding past history when getting hired and not having to do with the jobs performance.

The Nuul

Spilling coffee on ones self is user error and its not the fault of the Companies. So what, if she got cold coffee, she would have bitched anyways. No, she wanted HOT coffee and she got it. She order what she wanted and got it, its her fault for spilling it.

inimalist

yes, because spilling something into one's lap should not be considered "normal use" of a beverage that is sold to you through your car window. Companies should have no concern for this

/sigh

Ms.Marvel

... they shouldnt. no expression

why should they inimalist? i really dont understand how this is at all the companies fault...

inimalist

exactly, a company should bear no responsibility if people are harmed through what could be considered basic use of their product.

they are the ones using it, it is their own fault, and the victim is to blame.

Ms.Marvel

in that situation i wouldnt consider that "basic use of the product" unless im misunderstanding your statement.

if she had simply drunken the coffee, and it, for example, scalded her throat and caused damages, then sure maybe she should get compensation because in that situation that was the intended use of the product; consumption, and in that case she was harmed performing the basic use of the product, which could be considered negligence on companies part. dropping the coffee is not the intended use of the product at all... that's purely user error.

if i get a spork from McDonalds and on the way to my table i trip over my untied shoe laces and the spork is impaled in my eye how is that McDonalds fault?

if i buy a car with high horse power and im driving down the street at 200 miles an hour and i crash how is that the car dealers fault? stabbing myself with a fork, dropping my coffee, and crashing the car, are not the intended uses of those products, its my user error. so i dont understand why the companies should be at all responsible for my own stupidity.

inimalist

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, because spilling something into one's lap should not be considered "normal use" of a beverage that is sold to you through your car window. Companies should have no concern for this

/sigh

Ms.Marvel

youre not answering my question...

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by inimalist
exactly, a company should bear no responsibility if people are harmed through what could be considered basic use of their product.

they are the ones using it, it is their own fault, and the victim is to blame.

The problem here is that spilling a scalding beverage on yourself isn't a basic use of the product. It's tragic, certainly, and one could argue that McDonalds should have offered her some help but they're no more at fault than she is, probably less so.

Ms.Marvel

i think that what hes trying to say is that somehow, due to the increased likelihood of spilling coffee on yourself as a result of having it handed to you while you're in a car, the company should take steps to prevent it from happening thus some of the responsibility for the mistake lies on them.

thats the vibe i was getting

The Nuul

Also drinking coffee while driving is against the law is it not? This was clearly her intent.

Why else do people sue over the stupid shit? MONEY!

inimalist

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
youre not answering my question...

no, I am rephrasing the argument to show the ways in which I think it is silly

I'm probably doing more trolling than anything. I get where you are comming from, I disagree, but the entirety of American culture comes from this 'victim blame' mentality. That you dont think the problem stems from McDonalds selling a product capable of burning skin to the third degree in 5-7 seconds (expert testimony) or 30 seconds (DDMs quoted time for "too long" to sit in something) for the expressed purpose of human consumption is evident that anything beyond a little mockery is going to be a wank.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I am rephrasing the argument to show the ways in which I think it is silly

I'm probably doing more trolling than anything. I get where you are comming from, I disagree, but the entirety of American culture comes from this 'victim blame' mentality. That you dont think the problem stems from McDonalds selling a product capable of burning skin to the third degree in 5-7 seconds (expert testimony) or 30 seconds (DDMs quoted time for "too long" to sit in something) for the expressed purpose of human consumption is evident that anything beyond a little mockery is going to be a wank.

Neither, it comes from the product being spilled. 99% of people who buy their coffee from McDonalds come away unharmed, they had little reason to think it was a danger to customers.

inimalist

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The problem here is that spilling a scalding beverage on yourself isn't a basic use of the product. It's tragic, certainly, and one could argue that McDonalds should have offered her some help but they're no more at fault than she is, probably less so.

someone spilling their product on themselves shouldn't be considered something companies should have to take care of?

like, using the yard machinery example again, if there was a lawn mower that exploded when it hit a rock (your fault for leaving the rock there), shouldn't it be the obligation of the manufacturer to make sure that a very common occurance, LIKE SPILLING COFFEE ON YOURSELF, doesn't also incur an 8 day hospital visit?

inimalist

Originally posted by The Nuul
Also drinking coffee while driving is against the law is it not? This was clearly her intent.

no it is not

nor was she driving (she was in the passanger's seat)

the car was also parked at the time of the incident

inimalist

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Neither, it comes from the product being spilled. 99% of people who buy their coffee from McDonalds come away unharmed, they had little reason to think it was a danger to customers.

99% of children don't drown in unfenced pools

The Nuul

Originally posted by inimalist
no it is not

nor was she driving (she was in the passanger's seat)

the car was also parked at the time of the incident

Either way it was an easy way to make a lot of money.

I didnt read the whole article...

inimalist

Originally posted by The Nuul
Either way it was a easy way to make a lot of money.

I didnt read the whole article...

considering the two parties settled out of court, it was money McDonalds felt willing to pay after such bad press.

Ms.Marvel

Originally posted by inimalist
like, using the yard machinery example again, if there was a lawn mower that exploded when it hit a rock (your fault for leaving the rock there), shouldn't it be the obligation of the manufacturer to make sure that a very common occurance,

thats a very unrelated example. lawnmowers are designed to go over rocks, therefore if it explodes its poorly manufactured. coffee is not designed to spill on peoples laps, its designed to be consumed. as i said before, should a company be sued if i accidentally stab myself with one of their sporks? sure, i could use a similar logic like yourself, and say that maybe the spork shouldnt be so sharp, that way if i accidentally fall i wont get as injured, but thats ridiculous; it was user error and i was not using the product in the way it was intended.

if i decide to ride a bicycle backwards and i fall off and break my arm, should i sue the bicycle company because they could have made the bike lower to the ground so that if id fallen the damages would have been less severe?

edit- tbh you dont even have to include the riding it backwards part, simply riding it is enough, as falling off of a bicycle is not the intended function of a bike.

inimalist

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
thats a very unrelated example. lawnmowers are designed to go over rocks, therefore if it explodes its poorly manufactured. coffee is not designed to spill on peoples laps, its designed to be consumed. as i said before, should a company be sued if i accidentally stab myself with one of their sporks? sure, i could use a similar logic like yourself, and say that maybe the spork shouldnt be so sharp, that way if i accidentally fall i wont get as injured, but thats ridiculous; it was user error and i was not using the product in the way it was intended.

if i decide to ride a bicycle backwards and i fall off and break my arm, should i sue the bicycle company because they could have made the bike lower to the ground so that if id fallen the damages would have been less severe?

I think it is important to remember that in this case, McDonalds admitted that they served their coffee too hot on purpose, knew it was too hot for human consumption, and knew people drank it immediatly upon purchase.

I agree, the lawn-mower is a bad example here. As to the spork, well, that is less clear. Forks and sporks are made such that they would require a good amount of force to do damage to a person. Thus, we can say the manufacturers do a good job of not being negligent.

Likewise, well made coffee would require a fairly extreme situation to do physical harm to someone. Thus, we can say that coffee which causes a third degree burn in 7 seconds is not well made at all. This would be akin to a manufacturer making a spork with razor sharp edges, which I would say is pretty negligent.

also, it is worth pointing out the degree of injury. I drink lots of coffee, and have spilled it on myself many times. It is hot. However, I don't think I've recieved a first degree burn from it... let alone third degree... She was also hospitalized for 8 days and required a skin graft. On her vagina.

So sure, again to compare to the spork. You poke yourself and get cut, sure, your fault, watch what you are doing. You spill a puddle fo coffee into your lap and you get a little redness and swelling? Hell, sucks to be you. You get 8 days of hospitalization for third degree burns to 6% of your body? **** dude, thats a spork that is programmed to jump at your trachea with venom filled razor sharp prongs.

Further, spilling a drink isn't "not properly using the product", especially not in a way comparable to riding a bike backwards. Fact: It is a common occurance that liquids spill.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
edit- tbh you dont even have to include the riding it backwards part, simply riding it is enough, as falling off of a bicycle is not the intended function of a bike.

ok, but then we get into ideas of informed consent. You know when you ride a bike that you are taking certain risks. Its like why assault is not such when people are playing sports.

When you buy food, you are legally protected by the assurance that the food isn't going to kill you. So, while the coffee wasn't poisonous, it was far too hot to be serving to someone, even with a little warning lable. The idea is that McDonalds should have known better than to serve coffee which literally melted away the lady's track pants.

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
otherwise, a very long way of saying that it is in fact the fault of the person whose vagina needed dead flesh removed from it so that it didn't rot.

You're correct. no expression

Originally posted by inimalist
so, courts in DDM's universe:

It is only corporate negligance if: Coffee is left out such that it becomes a biohazard and is THEN served to customers

That would be one way.

Originally posted by inimalist
A corporation is only liable if: There is as much intent to harm as would be seen in a server deliberatly throwing coffee in the face of the customer

That would be another.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, a substance made for human consumption may pose as much danger as mechanical yard equipment being used improperly. This is not negligant of the corporation at all, because, if people making machines that have inherent risk involved can put people in danger, god damn it, their food can too!

Although you're trying to paint my perspective as absurd and silly, your above point does a very excellent job of describing my position. Other than your hyperbole, you've captured it perfectly.

Sharp spinning blades can hurt you. Hot coffee can burn you. That's pretty simple. Both have warnings. Both should be used with caution. Pretty simple, right?

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, because spilling something into one's lap should not be considered "normal use" of a beverage that is sold to you through your car window. Companies should have no concern for this

/sigh

Ms. Marvel did an excellent job with the spork example. People have accidents. They happen. But, we need to cool ourselves off and stop trying to blame everyone but ourselves.

Originally posted by inimalist
exactly, a company should bear no responsibility if people are harmed through what could be considered basic use of their product.

they are the ones using it, it is their own fault, and the victim is to blame.

YES! You've got it! The victim is to blame IF the victim did it to themselves when both common sense and warnings should have prevailed.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I am rephrasing the argument to show the ways in which I think it is silly

I'm probably doing more trolling than anything. I get where you are comming from, I disagree, but the entirety of American culture comes from this 'victim blame' mentality. That you dont think the problem stems from McDonalds selling a product capable of burning skin to the third degree in 5-7 seconds (expert testimony) or 30 seconds (DDMs quoted time for "too long" to sit in something) for the expressed purpose of human consumption is evident that anything beyond a little mockery is going to be a wank.

1. You're only trolling to people that need to get a life and aren't aware of your brand of humor. Flame on, bro.

2. I disagree. The majority of American culture concerning tort is NOT blame the victim, but blame everyone but yourself. The absurd tort cases won should be more than proof of that. Furthermore, the sheer number of cases thrown out before they reach the levels. that Liebeck's did, should be, still, further proof of that.

3. I was using 30+ seconds in all my posts. It's a simpler number to digest than the actual number because, in my mind, anything beyond 30 seconds is just waaaaaay too effin' long. In actuality, it was about 90 seconds that she just sat there. * That alone should have gotten the case thrown out.

As fact, the majority of these types of cases get thrown out before they go anywhere. She just happened to get lucky with the judge.

It's because people think that someone other than the women is to blame, that these cases continue to get perpetuated through our legal system. Where is the self-accountability in America?

*Size added so those who normally skip over my long ass posts get an idea of how silly this case was.

inimalist

Originally posted by dadudemon
Although you're trying to paint my perspective as absurd and silly, your above point does a very excellent job of describing my position. Other than your hyperbole, you've captured it perfectly.

perfect

Ms.Marvel

Originally posted by inimalist
I think it is important to remember that in this case, McDonalds admitted that they served their coffee too hot on purpose, knew it was too hot for human consumption, and knew people drank it immediatly upon purchase.

was this stated in the article? o.o

note to self: read up on the material youre discussing before discussing it, so as to not look silly. mmm

well, i agree with this for the most part, cause like i said i wasnt aware that theyd admitted to serving it knowing that was as lethal was it was. but now i know!

http://blog.mattalgren.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/knowing-is-half-the-battle.jpg

inimalist

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
was this stated in the article? o.o

note to self: read up on the material youre discussing before discussing it, so as to not look silly. mmm

according to this article http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
I think it is important to remember that in this case, McDonalds admitted that they served their coffee too hot on purpose, knew it was too hot for human consumption, and knew people drank it immediatly upon purchase.
Everything is correct except the last point. As fact, they said that they kept it that hot because some people wanted it that hot due to how far they drive before they actually drink it.

Also, you're failing to bolster your point, further, by mentioning that other people had complained about burns and tried to bring up suits, if i remember properly.

Originally posted by inimalist
I agree, the lawn-mower is a bad example here. As to the spork, well, that is less clear. Forks and sporks are made such that they would require a good amount of force to do damage to a person. Thus, we can say the manufacturers do a good job of not being negligent.

The lawn mower puts into perspective how silly this case was. It's an excellent example with many many parallels. It's only a bad example to those that don't like how much to reality it puts this case into perspective.

Originally posted by inimalist
Likewise, well made coffee would require a fairly extreme situation to do physical harm to someone. Thus, we can say that coffee which causes a third degree burn in 7 seconds is not well made at all. This would be akin to a manufacturer making a spork with razor sharp edges, which I would say is pretty negligent.

But making a spork slightly sharper because your customers demanded it is not bad at all. Obviously, common sense should take over. Accidents WILL happen. You WILL fall and you WILL hurt yourself. You carrying spork or hot coffee should not come into play, at all.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, it is worth pointing out the degree of injury. I drink lots of coffee, and have spilled it on myself many times. It is hot. However, I don't think I've recieved a first degree burn from it... let alone third degree... She was also hospitalized for 8 days and required a skin graft. On her vagina.

However, I don't drink coffee because tastes like ass (even dressed up, nice), I'm a Mormon, and I drink hot chocolate. I drink my hot chocolate right after the water comes to a boil. I have spilled it on myself before, and received first degree burns. Guess what? I didn't sit in it for 30+ seconds (90 seconds, total), didn't try adding goodies to it, in a Ford Probe, at a McDonald's parking lot, while having it between my lap, while pulling the lid off towards my body. Am I special for doing it the way I've done it? Nope. Just common sense, really. I'm quite sure that my hot chocolate was much closer to 200F than 170F. Prolly took me about 2 second to completely mitigate my situation...just like ANY other human would do. 90 seconds? Come on, man. That's just absurd.

Originally posted by inimalist
So sure, again to compare to the spork. You poke yourself and get cut, sure, your fault, watch what you are doing. You spill a puddle fo coffee into your lap and you get a little redness and swelling? Hell, sucks to be you. You get 8 days of hospitalization for third degree burns to 6% of your body? **** dude, thats a spork that is programmed to jump at your trachea with venom filled razor sharp prongs.

No it's not. A spork can't burn you unless you melt it. And that would be really hot.

Anyone would get 8 days of hospitalization if they sat in a 170F beverage for 90 seconds.

To make a better comparison with the spork: You'd have to repeatedly fall on it for 90 seconds straight.

Originally posted by inimalist
Further, spilling a drink isn't "not properly using the product", especially not in a way comparable to riding a bike backwards. Fact: It is a common occurance that liquids spill.

But, it is not the intended use. In fact, those lids have little flap thingies that very easily tear away so you can add your goodies. She wanted to take the whole thing off so she could add things more quickly. Understood, but, that wasn't really the best place to be getting wild with her coffee.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but then we get into ideas of informed consent. You know when you ride a bike that you are taking certain risks. Its like why assault is not such when people are playing sports.

I agree. "Caution Hot" should have been her first clue.

Originally posted by inimalist
When you buy food, you are legally protected by the assurance that the food isn't going to kill you. So, while the coffee wasn't poisonous, it was far too hot to be serving to someone, even with a little warning lable. The idea is that McDonalds should have known better than to serve coffee which literally melted away the lady's track pants.

No, McDonald's did right by serving their coffee as hot as their customers demanded. That's just capitalism at work. The lady that sat in her spilled coffee for 90 seconds didn't do things properly. It's her fault, not McDonald's for doing things the way they should.

IMO, McDonald's original offer of $500 or so was more than enough. In fact, they should have just comped her coffee of $.49 and gave her a high-five. Dead serious. After they high fived, they should have said, "Good, job you idiot."

inimalist

so I can have a car made without seatbelts?

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
so I can have a car made without seatbelts?

That's getting into something regulated by the government, though. That wouldn't work.

You CAN, however, get a meal that is still on fire when it gets to your table. You can get piping hot coffee and hot chocolate at some mom and pop locations.

Knock yourself out (don't, cause then you could win a lawsuit in American over it), I'm sure there are places around where you live that make some piping hot coffee.

inimalist

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's getting into something regulated by the government, though. That wouldn't work.

You CAN, however, get a meal that is still on fire when it gets to your table. You can get piping hot coffee and hot chocolate at some mom and pop locations.

Knock yourself out (don't, cause then you could win a lawsuit in American over it), I'm sure there are places around where you live that make some piping hot coffee.

so you are in favor of government regulation through law and not through the courts?

a "no boiling water over 160F" law is preferable to the courts claiming 180F water being served is negligent?

(which, of course, they never did, McDonalds settled out of court to save face)

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
so you are in favor of government regulation through law and not through the courts?

I'm mixed. We shouldn't, as you joked about, allow toxic or harmful food to be put out there...unless the person is aware that it's harmful, there is a warning and condition statement saying that they will not take resonsability for any harm that comes from their consumption. (Because, I'm all about people harming themselves with informed consent.

Originally posted by inimalist
a "no boiling water over 160F" law is preferable to the courts claiming 180F water being served is negligent?

(which, of course, they never did, McDonalds settled out of court to save face)

No. In the case of coffee and hot chocolate, serve it at 200F, for all I care. As long as the container says it's hot, they should know (depending on their altitude) that it is less than 212F. It can't get hotter while in liquid form, so that will work.

dadudemon

Basically, it boils down to this:

You can injure or kill someone because you don't wear your seat belt. (As you flop and fly around during a car wreck.) Also, you put someone else more liable for your medical costs during a wreck, as well. On top of that, deaths can be reduced, significantly, if the seatbelt law is enforecd, regularly.

Deaths can be prevented if food is ensured for consumption.

I'm all about regulation, as long it's reasonable. The less regulation, the better.

I can understand the seatbelt thing or food safety regulations, but not something that regulates the temperature of something that will never be greater than 212F. A hot beverage should be hot...scolding hot. Stupid people will be stupid. Let them be stupid but not punish others. Now, when I get hot chocolate, it will be luke warm when I get to work, beacuse of this case.

Bardock42

Lol, it boils down to...

The Nuul

If my hot drink is not hot, I am returning its ass back and want a hot drink.

Bardock42

Originally posted by inimalist
so, courts in DDM's universe:

It is only corporate negligance if: Coffee is left out such that it becomes a biohazard and is THEN served to customers

A corporation is only liable if: There is as much intent to harm as would be seen in a server deliberatly throwing coffee in the face of the customer

also, a substance made for human consumption may pose as much danger as mechanical yard equipment being used improperly. This is not negligant of the corporation at all, because, if people making machines that have inherent risk involved can put people in danger, god damn it, their food can too!

Well, I think it's not negligent if the product's definition is dependent on the danger that caused the accident, like coffee, being made with boiling water, for example, that danger is clearly labelled, personally explained or universally understood and the accidentee caused the accident to happen by wrongly or negligently handling the product.

I don't know the exact happenings at that McDonald's law suit, but from everything I heard including what you said in this thread it just wasn't McDonald's fault. I mean, I feel sorry for the old lady, and it sucks being old you can't handle stuff as well, you're shaky, but again, the accident is not McDonald's fault, if anything it's nature's fault for making people stupid and/or old. I understand why she wanted someone to blame, she obviously had to go through a lot of suffering, and McDonald's is a good target cause it is disliked by a huge amount of people and it has a shitload of money, but really, if she had been fair and reasonable, she would have sat in the hospital with her new skin and thought "Damn...I really shouldn't have spilled this coffee on my lap"

Additionally, if the sit 30 seconds in the hot coffee is really true, it's even more her fault...

dadudemon

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lol, it boils down to...

shifty

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I think it's not negligent if the product's definition is dependent on the danger that caused the accident, like coffee, being made with boiling water, for example, that danger is clearly labelled, personally explained or universally understood and the accidentee caused the accident to happen by wrongly or negligently handling the product.

I don't know the exact happenings at that McDonald's law suit, but from everything I heard including what you said in this thread it just wasn't McDonald's fault. I mean, I feel sorry for the old lady, and it sucks being old you can't handle stuff as well, you're shaky, but again, the accident is not McDonald's fault, if anything it's nature's fault for making people stupid and/or old. I understand why she wanted someone to blame, she obviously had to go through a lot of suffering, and McDonald's is a good target cause it is disliked by a huge amount of people and it has a shitload of money, but really, if she had been fair and reasonable, she would have sat in the hospital with her new skin and thought "Damn...I really shouldn't have spilled this coffee on my lap"

Additionally, if the sit 30 seconds in the hot coffee is really true, it's even more her fault...

You see, that's all very logical, and it is actually legally sound. In fact, most of these types of cases, including the McDonald's one, are thrown out by reasonable judges. The cases are retried from different angles until they get a judge that will hear the case. In fact, part of common law Tort, in the US, excludes unreasonable injury to self: i.e., sitting in hot coffee for 90 seconds that you spilled on yourself. It's basd on "common sense" that "most people would avoid or understand the dangers/consequences."

This case falls right in line with that "common law common sense."

That's why the case is consistantly cited as reasons for tort reform: the common sense application of tort was completely avoided/overlooked.

Blame it on the judge? Sure.

Bardock42

Where did you get that 90 second number though? Inimalist contrary to it claims 7 seconds.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Bardock42
Where did you get that 90 second number though? Inimalist contrary to it claims 7 seconds.

No.

2-7 seconds before the skin burns at that temp. That's what inimalist was referring to.

She DID, however, sit in it for 90 seconds...much longer than needed to get burned, which is why she got burned so badly.

Also, you can find information on this by googling lieback vs. mcdonalds.

Robtard

"A Wisconsin man sued his cable company for providing four years of free service that had unwelcome effects on his family."

This one is funny, he sued because the free cable-service made his family fat, so he claims.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
"A Wisconsin man sued his cable company for providing four years of free service that had unwelcome effects on his family."

This one is funny, he sued because the free cable-service made his family fat, so he claims.

Did he win?

If he did, that's a really good example. If it was thrown out, I hope he paid for all of the legal fees.

Bardock42

Originally posted by dadudemon
No.

2-7 seconds before the skin burns at that temp. That's what inimalist was referring to.

She DID, however, sit in it for 90 seconds...much longer than needed to get burned, which is why she got burned so badly.

Also, you can find information on this by googling lieback vs. mcdonalds.

Aight, I read the first 6 results on Google now, nowhere does it mention that she set in it for 30 or 90 seconds, except in the Wikipedia article which claims a book as a source. Are you sure you couldn't produce a link to a source that claims that?

dadudemon

Originally posted by Bardock42
Aight, I read the first 6 results on Google now, nowhere does it mention that she set in it for 30 or 90 seconds, except in the Wikipedia article which claims a book as a source. Are you sure you couldn't produce a link to a source that claims that?

No. It's just what I heard. smile

Can you produce a link that shows it as 7 seconds?

Edit -

LOL!

20 seconds of searching and I found it.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2545263/liebeck_v_mcdonalds_restaurants_or.html?cat=17

Robtard

Originally posted by dadudemon
Did he win?

If he did, that's a really good example. If it was thrown out, I hope he paid for all of the legal fees.

Not sure.

The punchline, part of his claim (the other being $$$) is asking Charter Cable to provide him with a lifetime of free cable and internet access.

I agree, one way to stop these BS lawsuits, have the plaintiff of the BS be liable for the defendants legal fees.

inimalist

/sigh

Bardock, DDM, not to just play the "human psychology of injury" card

but...

being that we are biological organisms and not robots who can react to every situation with cold, calculated responses, 90- 2 minutes, hell, 5 min, are actually not unreasonable responses to being injured.

So, forgiving that she is 79, maybe a bit slower, and they were in a car, which means movement is a little bit more akward and slow anyways, the body does this thing called "shock" when it is injured. This effects many people in different ways. For instance, shock for me is generally a very quick burst of energy (30 seconds maybe) followed by a near complete passing-out as my blood pressure drops. Freezing and being incapable of producing proper movement is actually an expected response from someone undergoing shock. Another comparison, though not exactly valid, is the drowning person. It is NEVER adviseable to try and grab someone who is drowning (depending on the size difference, I could grab a kid who was drowning no problem, but if it was DDM, and he was in panic mode, no ****ing way) because they will try to use you as a flotation device. People don't think when they panic, and to expect split second descision making in a panic situation is ridiculous. Might reacting quicker have saved her from some injury, sure, no doubt, nut 90 seconds? Smash your hand with a hammer and tell me how quickly 90 seconds pass.

This is also ignorning that, by their nature, you don't feel a third degree burn immediatly, because they burn the touch receptors in the skin, and because of shock. I recieved one on my hand from working at mcdonalds and was at home long before i felt the pain of it.

But no, I get it, you guys want to blame her, so blame her, lol, I'm way more involved in this than I should be. I should have just stuck with the nationalist "Our courts are better"

Ms.Marvel

arent you canadian though?

stick out tongue

inimalist

exactly

you can't sue for pain and suffering here, iirc

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
/sigh

Bardock, DDM, not to just play the "human psychology of injury" card

but...

being that we are biological organisms and not robots who can react to every situation with cold, calculated responses, 90- 2 minutes, hell, 5 min, are actually not unreasonable responses to being injured.

So, forgiving that she is 79, maybe a bit slower, and they were in a car, which means movement is a little bit more akward and slow anyways, the body does this thing called "shock" when it is injured. This effects many people in different ways. For instance, shock for me is generally a very quick burst of energy (30 seconds maybe) followed by a near complete passing-out as my blood pressure drops. Freezing and being incapable of producing proper movement is actually an expected response from someone undergoing shock. Another comparison, though not exactly valid, is the drowning person. It is NEVER adviseable to try and grab someone who is drowning (depending on the size difference, I could grab a kid who was drowning no problem, but if it was DDM, and he was in panic mode, no ****ing way) because they will try to use you as a flotation device. People don't think when they panic, and to expect split second descision making in a panic situation is ridiculous. Might reacting quicker have saved her from some injury, sure, no doubt, nut 90 seconds? Smash your hand with a hammer and tell me how quickly 90 seconds pass.

I considered this, as well, that shouldn't have prevented her grandson from taking any action, should it? If both of them just sat there for about 90 seconds, how silly is that?

Also, it took between 2-7 seconds for the burns to be complete. On top of that, it took a bit for the liquid to fall into all the cracks and crevices, cooling along the way.

She would have felt an immense amount of pain while this occured.

In fact, it would have taken quite a while for some her of junk to get the 3rd degree burns beacuse the liquid would have cooled off, significantly, before reaching some of her junk. It would have been terribly painful while it burned her flesh to the 3rd degree, and would have taken quite a while.

And, this whole time, her grandson is just looking, right? Why does not one else think the grandson is primarily at fault?

Originally posted by inimalist
This is also ignorning that, by their nature, you don't feel a third degree burn immediatly, because they burn the touch receptors in the skin, and because of shock. I recieved one on my hand from working at mcdonalds and was at home long before i felt the pain of it.

You do feel the burn, however, in the surrounding flesh, big time. I received a 3rd degree burn, myself, while working at McDonald's. It was immensly painful in the surrounding area, but not dead center where the 3rd degree burn occured.

Originally posted by inimalist
But no, I get it, you guys want to blame her, so blame her, lol, I'm way more involved in this than I should be. I should have just stuck with the nationalist "Our courts are better"

It was her fault. Why shouldn't we blame her?

inimalist

Originally posted by dadudemon
I considered this, as well, that shouldn't have prevented her grandson from taking any action, should it? If both of them just sat there for about 90 seconds, how silly is that?

Also, it took between 2-7 seconds for the burns to be complete. On top of that, it took a bit for the liquid to fall into all the cracks and crevices, cooling along the way.

She would have felt an immense amount of pain while this occured.

You do feel the burn, however, in the surrounding flesh, big time. I received a 3rd degree burn, myself, while working at McDonald's. It was immensly painful in the surrounding area, but not dead center where the 3rd degree burn occured.

that isn't true

look up the literature on third degree burns, the burning of the receptors AND THE SHOCK act together. I had large second and first degree burn on my hand, it was inhibited.

this is an extremly common symptom of third degree burn. Like, so common it is part of text-book definitions.

(that being said, yes, when I get the third degree burn, it was the 1st and second ones I felt first, still though, it wasn't for 30-40min)

Originally posted by dadudemon
It was her fault. Why shouldn't we blame her?

oh, clearly you should

Bardock42

Originally posted by inimalist
/sigh

Bardock, DDM, not to just play the "human psychology of injury" card

but...

being that we are biological organisms and not robots who can react to every situation with cold, calculated responses, 90- 2 minutes, hell, 5 min, are actually not unreasonable responses to being injured.

So, forgiving that she is 79, maybe a bit slower, and they were in a car, which means movement is a little bit more akward and slow anyways, the body does this thing called "shock" when it is injured. This effects many people in different ways. For instance, shock for me is generally a very quick burst of energy (30 seconds maybe) followed by a near complete passing-out as my blood pressure drops. Freezing and being incapable of producing proper movement is actually an expected response from someone undergoing shock. Another comparison, though not exactly valid, is the drowning person. It is NEVER adviseable to try and grab someone who is drowning (depending on the size difference, I could grab a kid who was drowning no problem, but if it was DDM, and he was in panic mode, no ****ing way) because they will try to use you as a flotation device. People don't think when they panic, and to expect split second descision making in a panic situation is ridiculous. Might reacting quicker have saved her from some injury, sure, no doubt, nut 90 seconds? Smash your hand with a hammer and tell me how quickly 90 seconds pass.

This is also ignorning that, by their nature, you don't feel a third degree burn immediatly, because they burn the touch receptors in the skin, and because of shock. I recieved one on my hand from working at mcdonalds and was at home long before i felt the pain of it.

But no, I get it, you guys want to blame her, so blame her, lol, I'm way more involved in this than I should be. I should have just stuck with the nationalist "Our courts are better"

Lol, that's hilarious, especially since I said I don't think it matters how long she sat in it and that I made the exact same point about her being old and obviously not as well equipped to handle things just a few posts back. I also don't think that I am hell bent on blaming her at all, I can realize that some things are accident, however her reaction was to blame McDonald's and I just don't think they are at fault for selling coffee the way coffee is made.

She ordered "boiling water filtered through ground beans", she receied it and then had an accident with it.

I don't think that the woman was particularly stupid or malicious either actually. She behaved a bit irrational by blaming McDonald's but all she wanted was her medical expenses paid at about 20 000$.

If you want to say that it should be illegal to purchase or sell boiling water, fair enough, however I don't think it should be.

Additionally, the link you sent is heavily biased in her favour, there would have been better ones out there actually showing both sides of the story. Apparently some of the claims of her lawyers are also inaccurate.

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
that isn't true

look up the literature on third degree burns, the burning of the receptors AND THE SHOCK act together. I had large second and first degree burn on my hand, it was inhibited.

this is an extremly common symptom of third degree burn. Like, so common it is part of text-book definitions.

(that being said, yes, when I get the third degree burn, it was the 1st and second ones I felt first, still though, it wasn't for 30-40min)

But, it is true. I've read plenty of what a 3rd degree burn is like. It's a misconception that you don't feel a 3rd degree burn, especially if it takes a while for the burn to set in, such as the old ladies case. (She sat in it a long time.)

It's not the 3rd degree burned flesh, it is the second and first degree burned flesh that hurts surrounding the tissue. If you think I'm lying or talking out o the *ss again:

"Because the nerve endings in the skin are destroyed, the burned area may not be painful, but the area around the burn may be extremely painful. Pain causes the breathing rate and pulse to increase. Some areas of the burn may appear bright red, or may blister."

http://www.hmc.psu.edu/healthinfo/b/burns3.htm

edit - I didn't get treatment for my third degree burn. It was gross, though. It took prolly 5 years for the scar to get light enough that you have to look really hard to see that I have a scar there. But it looked nasty for quite a while.

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, clearly you should

But, how about addressing the question?

Bardock42

Additionally, I find your repeated use of "sure, blame the victim, guys" intellectually dishonest. And somewhat offensive.

She's the victim of an accident, sure, however she is, in my opinion, not the victim of McDonald's actions. By repeating victim you make it seem like we are trying to protect a perpetrator, McDonald's in your opinion. This is not the case. It's not like victim blaming in, lets say, rape cases, where it is very prevalent, I don't think it is fair to imply such a connection.

Apparently even the Jury realized that at least 20% of the blame has to go to her as well, we just think that it should be more than that.

inimalist

Originally posted by Bardock42
Additionally, I find your repeated use of "sure, blame the victim, guys" intellectually dishonest. And somewhat offensive.

She's the victim of an accident, sure, however she is, in my opinion, not the victim of McDonald's actions. By repeating victim you make it seem like we are trying to protect a perpetrator, McDonald's in your opinion. This is not the case. It's not like victim blaming in, lets say, rape cases, where it is very prevalent, I don't think it is fair to imply such a connection.

actually, that was sort of deliberate

"victim" isn't the right word, even though I do see the problem as stemming from McDonalds producing a beverage they knew was unfit for human consumption, and not her inability to not spill siad beverage.

It was a framing thing, before I really made a serious reply, I admitted to trolling earlier

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
It was a framing thing, before I really made a serious reply, I admitted to trolling earlier

D@mnit, dude. Don't say stuff like that. That's a quick way to get banned. It's only trolling if we get offended. (Reads Bards post.) D@mnit, Bards, stop whining. laughing

Bardock42

Originally posted by dadudemon
D@mnit, dude. Don't say stuff like that. That's a quick way to get banned. It's only trolling if we get offended. (Reads Bards post.) D@mnit, Bards, stop whining. laughing

Anywho, we can all agree that McDonald's had their coffee a tad too hot, but did so at the demands of some of their customers. Beyond that, McDonald's is not culpable. I would say that refunding her drink and maybe giving a gift certificate for some more free scalding coffee, is great customer service. Beyond that, it's demanding too much of McDonald's.

Well, I am not offended so much, I just don't like that way of arguing, so I pointed it out. I wouldn't have called it trolling though, it's very common.

King Kandy

The more you people argue, the more i'm convinced that woman was in the right. People spilling coffee, is not an uncommon occurrence. If your coffee is so hot that anyone who stays in it for 7 seconds, only 7 seconds, will get third degree burns... that's ridiculous negligence.

Bardock42

Originally posted by King Kandy
The more you people argue, the more i'm convinced that woman was in the right. People spilling coffee, is not an uncommon occurrence. If your coffee is so hot that anyone who stays in it for 7 seconds, only 7 seconds, will get third degree burns... that's ridiculous negligence.

It seemed like you were convinced of that before.

And apparently there were 700 burning incidents with McDonald's coffee over ten years, which they say is one incident for every 24000000 coffees sold...that doesn't seem that bad.

Again, it's boiling water that she ordered, one of the properties of boiling water is that it can burn you... that's not McDonald's fault for serving coffee as it is intended to be served.

King Kandy

Not really. I have spilled hot coffee on myself before... it was never hot enough, that I would have needed severe skin grafts after 7 second exposure.

Bardock42

Originally posted by King Kandy
Not really. I have spilled hot coffee on myself before... it was never hot enough, that I would have needed severe skin grafts after 7 second exposure.

She sat in her soaked sweat pants for more than 30 seconds. The 7 seconds was something one expert claimed, not sure if that was factual, besides however I doubt you were in the same scenario, you can't compare a little spill of coffee on your skin that you brush off in under a second to this...

And yes, really, coffee is supposed to be made with boiling water it's not meant to be drank that way right away of course, but that's how you want coffee.

King Kandy

The coffee is supposed to cool before you drink it though... or spill it.

Bardock42

Originally posted by King Kandy
The coffee is supposed to cool before you drink it though... or spill it. Yeah, so she probably shouldn't have spilt it. Doesn't mean McDonald's should sell cold coffee.

inimalist

It's really only trolling in that I was mocking your and Ms. Marvel's point in a topic relevant way, rather than discussing. I can't see why anyone would be so offended that I would get banned...

and ya, not that I don't care, but I don't think my rephrasing of an argument over tort law is keeping Bardock up at night in a fit of rage.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Anywho, we can all agree that McDonald's had their coffee a tad too hot, but did so at the demands of some of their customers. Beyond that, McDonald's is not culpable. I would say that refunding her drink and maybe giving a gift certificate for some more free scalding coffee, is great customer service. Beyond that, it's demanding too much of McDonald's.

I do question the concept of opening a coffee while it is in your lap...

but, imho, she deserved her hospital bills paid for, though I have very idealistic views on corporate responsibility; to me, the idea that they weren't bending over backward to get her the best physio money could buy sort of doesn't make sense.

No, I've never owned a business, why do you ask?

inimalist

Originally posted by Bardock42
And yes, really, coffee is supposed to be made with boiling water it's not meant to be drank that way right away of course, but that's how you want coffee.

fair enough, but, I just got a coffee from Tim Horton's, basically a fascist movement in Canada, and I could totally drink it right away. Its hot, but that first sip did not burn my tongue.

Its not like there isn't a temperature for coffee that is both "hot" and "safe"

King Kandy

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, so she probably shouldn't have spilt it. Doesn't mean McDonald's should sell cold coffee.
There's a difference between "hot coffee" and "boiling coffee".

Coffee is meant to be made at 100C, it should be served after it has cooled down a bit. I've never had a coffee from starbucks, for instance, that was too hot to drink.

Bardock42

Originally posted by King Kandy
There's a difference between "hot coffee" and "boiling coffee".

Coffee is meant to be made at 100C, it should be served after it has cooled down a bit. I've never had a coffee from starbucks, for instance, that was too hot to drink.

Well, I suppose that is exactly the point we disagree on. I think it should be alright to sell it hotter and you think they should be required to sell it at drinking temperature.

Like I said though, that's one side of the case, i.e. whether there should be one. Additionally we might argue whether what she was awarded was fair or far exaggerated.

dadudemon

Originally posted by King Kandy
There's a difference between "hot coffee" and "boiling coffee".

Coffee is meant to be made at 100C, it should be served after it has cooled down a bit. I've never had a coffee from starbucks, for instance, that was too hot to drink.

I disagree. It should be made for when you are going to drink it. In the car, you shouldn't really be drinking coffee while driving. It should be consumed once you get to the office. Meaning, it should be much closer to 85C than 65C.

I think the lady is to blamed for her own accident with her grandson picking up the tab for negligence. Shaky old farts spill shit (I mean that in more was than one sick

). Duh.

I can just picture the old lady screaming her old lady screams as she shakes out the entire contents of her drink onto her lap as her grandson just watches. Then, for 90 seconds, the both look at each other while the old lady shakes her old lady shakes while screaming her old lady screams, looking right into each other's eyes.

It stopped at 90 seconds because that's when the grandson was finally done with his Egg McMuffin. He was probably like, stop yelling, grandma, I can't hear myself chew!

I also bet that the old lady, after about 90s seconds, did old people smacks with her mouth when she stoped her old lady screams. "ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! *smack smack smack* eeee heee heeeee!" Cause old people always go "eee heee heeee!" when they spit their dentures out because they are laughing out of embarassment. "eeeee heee heee! *smack smack smack*"

King Kandy

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. It should be made for when you are going to drink it. In the car, you shouldn't really be drinking coffee while driving. It should be consumed once you get to the office. Meaning, it should be much closer to 85C than 65C.
Er, no shit it should be made for when you drink it. And if it's made at 100C, then you can't drink it until it's cooled, because a 100C coffee is simply not drinkable and will burn your mouth. I've never had coffee that was served to me, that would have been dangerous to drink (well, it happened once but that was the only time). If this caused 3rd degree burns in 7 seconds, then it was not fit to drink when it was served.

dadudemon

Originally posted by King Kandy
Er, no shit it should be made for when you drink it. And if it's made at 100C, then you can't drink it until it's cooled, because a 100C coffee is simply not drinkable and will burn your mouth. I've never had coffee that was served to me, that would have been dangerous to drink (well, it happened once but that was the only time). If this caused 3rd degree burns in 7 seconds, then it was not fit to drink when it was served.

You over looked the most important portions of my post. mad

"eeeee heeee heeee! *smack smack*"

King Kandy

I didn't think it was very funny, and it certainly wasn't relevant to the debate...

dadudemon

Originally posted by King Kandy
I didn't think it was very funny, and it certainly wasn't relevant to the debate...

Of course, of course. Something I find funny (quite funny, actually. I laughed pretty hard when I was typing it out) is something you wouldn't find funny. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen you get a laugh out of anything on KMC. What DOES make you laugh, KK? hmm

However, I found it relevant to the debate. It puts into perspective what exactly was happening for 90 friggin' seconds. Sure, it's absurd, but it makes you wonder; what WAS her grandson doing while her crotch was cooking, literally.

King Kandy

Originally posted by dadudemon
Of course, of course. Something I find funny (quite funny, actually. I laughed pretty hard when I was typing it out) is something you wouldn't find funny. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen you get a laugh out of anything on KMC. What DOES make you laugh, KK? hmm

However, I found it relevant to the debate. It puts into perspective what exactly was happening for 90 friggin' seconds. Sure, it's absurd, but it makes you wonder; what WAS her grandson doing while her crotch was cooking, literally.
I couldn't care less what was going on for 90 seconds... if 7 seconds was enough, than that's enough damage that even if she got it off for the other 83 seconds, it was still negligent on starbuck's part.

Bardock42

Originally posted by King Kandy
I couldn't care less what was going on for 90 seconds... if 7 seconds was enough, than that's enough damage that even if she got it off for the other 83 seconds, it was still negligent on starbuck's part.

McDonald's. And I don't think that in the 7 seconds the amount of damage was done that she ended up with.

dadudemon

Originally posted by King Kandy
I couldn't care less what was going on for 90 seconds... if 7 seconds was enough, than that's enough damage that even if she got it off for the other 83 seconds, it was still negligent on starbuck's part.

What Bardock said. So, lemme get this straight, if she started choking on her food because it was too big for her to gum up and swallow, it's still McDonald's fault, right? Not her grandson's whom should have cut her food up, ensured that she wasn't improperly handling it, etc.? Right?

And, like Bardock said, if you order some water that was boiled and sent through ground up coffee beans, you should expect that sh*t to be hot. erm

Robtard

Why are you **** arguing about 90 seconds or 7 seconds, when it's irrelevant, unless she sat in the cup of coffee while it was being actively heated, her burns would have happened within the first couple of seconds, ie the spill. Coffee would have cooled quickly once it slipped/spilled out of her decrepid hands.

If you doubt me, boil some water, stand up and pure it over your face, you'll burn just the same, no need to "sit in it."

Bardock42

Robtard

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think that's quite true. However, like I said I don't think the time matters much.

8-10oz of hot fluid would cool fast once spilled, not to cold mind you, but not hot enough to burn you like the wounds she sustained. The damage she got happened from the initial spill and the first couple of seconds after, not from sitting in it for 'X' amount of time.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
Why are you **** arguing about 90 seconds or 7 seconds, when it's irrelevant, unless she sat in the cup of coffee while it was being actively heated, her burns would have happened within the first couple of seconds, ie the spill. Coffee would have cooled quickly once it slipped/spilled out of her decrepid hands.

If you doubt me, boil some water, stand up and pure it over your face, you'll burn just the same, no need to "sit in it."

That's incorrect. Most of the burns wouldn't have happened had she gotten up and pulled off or wafted her pants. She didn't. The amount of heat lost to the coffee would have been quick, right after she spilled it, because the lack of heat, compared to the coffee, on her skin, pants, and air, would have taken lots of the heat energy away. That's a large surface area for the liquid. She had to cook her self. She had to have sat in it a long time in order to get the burns that bad...which is true: she sat in it for 90 seconds.

More likely, she wouldn't have gotten burned as bad had she or her grandson mitigated the situation within 20 seconds. She may have still gotten 3rd degree burns, but they wouldn't have been as bad or as large. Guess what you're supposed to do when you get hot water poored on a thick cotton clothing item? Take it off. Know why? Cause you can cook your flesh for quite a long time while keeping the item on.

Originally posted by Robtard
8-10oz of hot fluid would cool fast once spilled, not to cold mind you, but not hot enough to burn you like the wounds she sustained. The damage she got happened from the initial spill and the first couple of seconds after, not from sitting in it for 'X' amount of time.

Incorrect. Even the case indicates that part of the problem was her sweatpants.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Robtard
8-10oz of hot fluid would cool fast once spilled, not to cold mind you, but not hot enough to burn you like the wounds she sustained. The damage she got happened from the initial spill and the first couple of seconds after, not from sitting in it for 'X' amount of time.

I thought that one of the big parts for her getting these severe burns was that she had sweat pants that soaked up the hot fluid distributing it all over, might be wrong though...

Additionally of course the time it takes for water to cool down would depend on how much surface area is exposed to what material at what temperature, no?

Also, this has some interesting claims and discussion on the times

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html

If you search for "second" you'll find the relevant parts

Robtard

Please take by boiling water to the face challenge.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Robtard
Please take by boiling water to the face challenge.

I'm good for now. I also have some problems with the scientificity (real word) of the whole set up....

Robtard

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm good for now. I also have some problems with the scientificity (real word) of the whole set up....

That was directed at DDM, you've got too pretty of a face to ruin.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I thought that one of the big parts for her getting these severe burns was that she had sweat pants that soaked up the hot fluid distributing it all over, might be wrong though...

Additionally of course the time it takes for water to cool down would depend on how much surface area is exposed to what material at what temperature, no?

Also, this has some interesting claims and discussion on the times

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html

If you search for "second" you'll find the relevant parts

The size of the burn would have been by the spreading, I'm talking about the severity of the burns themselves, if the fluid was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, they would have happened in the first couple of seconds; not a minute+ into it, as her body would have already absorbed much of the heat.

Personally, she was right to sue, but millions for a burn is rediculous, considering people have gotten far less from losing limbs.

Bardock42

Well, lets put it that way, I wouldn't feel like the law had failed had she been awarded in the 20 000 - 40 000$ area.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
That was directed at DDM, you've got too pretty of a face to ruin.

The size of the burn would have been by the spreading, I'm talking about the severity of the burns themselves, if the fluid was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, they would have happened in the first couple of seconds; not a minute+ into it, as her body would have already absorbed much of the heat.

Sure, in some places, but not all. I've been over this already.

Originally posted by Robtard
Personally, she was right to sue, but millions for a burn is rediculous, considering people have gotten far less from losing limbs.

Shouldn't she sue herself since it was her fault? What about her grandson for negligence?

Robtard

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure, in some places, but not all. I've been over this already.

Shouldn't she sue herself since it was her fault? What about her grandson for negligence?

How was the temperature of the liquid her fault?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the lawsuit, the coffee was WAY hotter than it should have been, no?

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
How was the temperature of the liquid her fault?

Cause she bought a beverage that is supposed to be hot, and had a warning on it that said, "Caution Hot." Your food being hot is not regulated by government. Too cold, sort of by the FDA (for cooked meats.) But nothing about being too hot.

Originally posted by Robtard
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the lawsuit, the coffee was WAY hotter than it should have been, no?

No. There is no law on how hot coffee should or should not be. I do know that there are regulations on how much yucky stuff can be allowed into the coffee grounds, though. hmm

King Kandy

Originally posted by dadudemon
What Bardock said. So, lemme get this straight, if she started choking on her food because it was too big for her to gum up and swallow, it's still McDonald's fault, right? Not her grandson's whom should have cut her food up, ensured that she wasn't improperly handling it, etc.? Right?

And, like Bardock said, if you order some water that was boiled and sent through ground up coffee beans, you should expect that sh*t to be hot. erm

Can you blame that coffee making company if you spill your own home brew on yourself? It just so happens that McDonald's saved you the time of having to pour in your coffee grounds and boiling water through the filter and grounds. What you do with it after you get it is up to you. Butt Chug it while it's hot, for all I care, but don't whine when you spill it because you're a shaky old fart.
When you get the coffee, you expect it to be edible. When it was served, consuming that beverage would have caused damage to the inside of her mouth. The spillage is at best a secondary issue, imo, the point is that the coffee was served at an unreasonable heat level, and mcdonalds knew serving it at that level would lead to multiple people being severally burned.

King Kandy

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, lets put it that way, I wouldn't feel like the law had failed had she been awarded in the 20 000 - 40 000$ area.
That's what she asked for originally-- McDonalds turned her down, and ended up worse for it since they settled for (probably) significantly more.

dadudemon

Originally posted by King Kandy
When you get the coffee, you expect it to be edible.

No I don't. When I get it, I expect it to be hot, has to be sipped very very slowly, until about 10 minutes later. (Since I find coffee nasty, I'm replacing it with Hot Chocolate.)

Originally posted by King Kandy
When it was served, consuming that beverage would have caused damage to the inside of her mouth.

You do know that you can sip boiling water, slowly, without damage to the mouth, right?

Originally posted by King Kandy
The spillage is at best a secondary issue, imo, the point is that the coffee was served at an unreasonable heat level, and mcdonalds knew serving it at that level would lead to multiple people being severally burned.

No, it was served at the level that some of the customers demanded of McDonald's.

And, just like Bardock said, that's a pretty good accident rate, if it was a little over 700 spills out of tens of millions served coffee. McDonald's customers are pretty good about not spilling their drinks, apparantly. Maybe it was the "Caution Hot" that made them be more careful?

Robtard

Originally posted by dadudemon
You do know that you can sip boiling water, slowly, without damage to the mouth, right?

Do it and put it on Youtube. Call it "dumbass sips boiling water", who knows, it might become a meme like Chocolate Rain or that Panda.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
Do it and put it on Youtube. Call it "dumbass sips boiling water", who knows, it might become a meme like Chocolate Rain or that Panda.

Nah. Instead, I'll make some hot chocolate with boiling water, just like I do every winter, multiple times a year. smile

Robtard

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah. Instead, I'll make some hot chocolate with boiling water, just like I do every winter, multiple times a year. smile

Hmmm, 'Fat-ass sipping coco' doesn't have the ring as the other to make a meme, but it might be popular on yoytube in December.

inimalist

Originally posted by dadudemon
No I don't. When I get it, I expect it to be hot, has to be sipped very very slowly, until about 10 minutes later. (Since I find coffee nasty, I'm replacing it with Hot Chocolate.)

you are in the vast minority then, and even McDonalds research showed that people drank the coffee immediatly upon purchase.

courts exist to establish code of conduct based on average people. A "do not drink for 10 mins" warning would be much more appropriate than "hot" were we to expect to be served what you are describing.

also, I'd suspect a vast majority of customers, when they enter into a business contract with their coffee servers, are expecting a product that conforms to their behaviour.

great man, you like something other people don't and which might actually be unsafe. The court system makes rules based on an interpretation of average people, not DDM.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, just like Bardock said, that's a pretty good accident rate, if it was a little over 700 spills out of tens of millions served coffee. McDonald's customers are pretty good about not spilling their drinks, apparantly. Maybe it was the "Caution Hot" that made them be more careful?

so, in your opinion, the fact that well under 1% of children die in unfenced pools means it is not the responsibility of the owner to take care that their property isn't unsafe?

Bardock42

Originally posted by inimalist

so, in your opinion, the fact that well under 1% of children die in unfenced pools means it is not the responsibility of the owner to take care that their property isn't unsafe?

Well, that's just an incredibly bad comparision, for a multitude of reasons.

Also "WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!"....really?

inimalist

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that's just an incredibly bad comparision, for a multitude of reasons.

Also "WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!"....really?

it is and it isn't

it works in that it shows the frequency of a potential accident isn't really a good argument about the accident not being the owner's responsibility.

That the coffee hadn't burnt anyone else so badly is sort of anecdotal. It was still policy to serve the coffee with that potential, which is what made McDonalds liable in the first place.

Its the same with shoveling snow from sidewalks here (not sure if you guys have the joy of snow shoveling?). You have 24 hours from when a major snow falls, if you don't, you are liable, even if only 0.0001% of the people who use the walk get hurt.

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
you are in the vast minority then, and even McDonalds research showed that people drank the coffee immediatly upon purchase.

courts exist to establish code of conduct based on average people. A "do not drink for 10 mins" warning would be much more appropriate than "hot" were we to expect to be served what you are describing.

also, I'd suspect a vast majority of customers, when they enter into a business contract with their coffee servers, are expecting a product that conforms to their behaviour.

great man, you like something other people don't and which might actually be unsafe. The court system makes rules based on an interpretation of average people, not DDM.

Wait, I'm in the vast minority because I immediately start to consume, carefully, my very hot beverage, immediately after receiving/making it?

Originally posted by inimalist
so, in your opinion, the fact that well under 1% of children die in unfenced pools means it is not the responsibility of the owner to take care that their property isn't unsafe?

That's a good point. You're right, the owner has full responsibility. They own the coffee and the container, after the transaction is complete. they burn themselves with it, after purchase, they are responsible.

That's what you were getting at, right?

I think this is too good to be true. You're not agreeing with me, are you? You're making another point that is going over my head? (Yes, I'm being cheeky. lol)

inimalist

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wait, I'm in the vast minority because I immediately start to consume, carefully, my very hot beverage, immediately after receiving/making it?

they expect a product which could not be described as "unsafe for immediate human consumption" by its producer

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a good point. You're right, the owner has full responsibility. They own the coffee and the container, after the transaction is complete. they burn themselves with it, after purchase, they are responsible.

That's what you were getting at, right?

I think this is too good to be true. You're not agreeing with me, are you? You're making another point that is going over my head? (Yes, I'm being cheeky. lol)

have you thought through that logic beyond this circumstance?

take a second to think of what else might be allowed to have been served if, once the consumer takes "ownership" of the coffee, the business providing it to them no longer bears responsibility for its contents.

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
they expect a product which could not be described as "unsafe for immediate human consumption" by its producer

Lukewarm coffee, gotcha.

At 140, you can still burn yourself. Not safe for human consumption.

In the mean time, what I said, and what you responded with, did not match. I said I sip on it until about 10 minutes. After 10 minutes of trying to speed up the cooling process, it's safe to drink, not sip.

Originally posted by inimalist
have you thought through that logic beyond this circumstance?

take a second to think of what else might be allowed to have been served if, once the consumer takes "ownership" of the coffee, the business providing it to them no longer bears responsibility for its contents.

Everything I stated earlier, still applies, even though my reply was just a joke.

That means, regulations, the microbial stipulations I outlined, etc. They all still apply to what I just said about taking ownership.

If you buy a beverage hot enough to burn you, the container should say, "Caution Hot" on it.

If it's toxic, "Caution Toxic" with the toxic symbol included and all sorts of stuff required for the specific toxicity.

And so forth.

Applies to the pool, a well. If a pool is designed in such a way that a child could drown in it (anything deeper than two inches), then it should require some sort of warning on the packaging or whatever/wherever. Babies can die, man.

inimalist

Originally posted by dadudemon
Applies to the pool, a well. If a pool is designed in such a way that a child could drown in it (anything deeper than two inches), then it should require some sort of warning on the packaging or whatever/wherever. Babies can die, man.

wait... you don't think people should have to fence their pools?

dadudemon

Originally posted by inimalist
wait... you don't think people should have to fence their pools?

Where did I say that?

I didn't even remotely imply it.

I was just talking about package warnings.

As far as mitigating actions required upon purchase (which I haven't discused, presently), sure.

But, above and beyond the package warning and telling the person what to do, the company that sold the pool and accessories to the person, shouldn't be responsible for babies drowning in their pools, which is actually what we're talking about. I'm not sure what the above tangent is about, or where you're coming from.

inimalist

Originally posted by dadudemon
Where did I say that?

I didn't even remotely imply it.

I was just talking about package warnings.

As far as mitigating actions required upon purchase (which I haven't discused, presently), sure.

But, above and beyond the package warning and telling the person what to do, the company that sold the pool and accessories to the person, shouldn't be responsible for babies drowning in their pools, which is actually what we're talking about. I'm not sure what the above tangent is about, or where you're coming from.

no, I misread, my bad

Robtard

Should be said, DDM loves himself a Big Mac, clearly, he's biased.

King Kandy

Originally posted by dadudemon
Still her fault because:

1. Coffee is water that is boiled and filtered through ground coffee beans.

2. The container says "Caution Hot."
The implicit expectation when ordering food is that the food is safe to eat. You can't just say "Caution: Cyanide" on your label and expect deadly chemicals to somehow be acceptable.

As for "1", that's a very strange argument to make. All cooked food is, at one point, too hot for human consumption. That doesn't mean that when I order a piece of chocolate cake sitting in a fridge, I should have expected it to be 160F when I order it (and that's the absolute minimum).

Mindset

King Kandy

Doesn't work for cyanide in coffee.

dadudemon

Originally posted by King Kandy
The implicit expectation when ordering food is that the food is safe to eat. You can't just say "Caution: Cyanide" on your label and expect deadly chemicals to somehow be acceptable.

No, that's different. That's a non-sequitor argument, as well.

The coffee is still consumable, even at higher temperature than Mrs. burned flaps got burned wiith. Also, the liquid quickly cools within 10 minutes.

However, the cyanide is poison, is regulated from consumption by the FDA, and cannot be put into your food beyond a really really low level. You would be criminally prosecuted for putting cyanide in food, not just a civil case.

Also, customers don't request, in significant numbers, to put cyanide in their food.

Let's not get ridiculous.

Originally posted by King Kandy
As for "1", that's a very strange argument to make. All cooked food is, at one point, too hot for human consumption. That doesn't mean that when I order a piece of chocolate cake sitting in a fridge, I should have expected it to be 160F when I order it (and that's the absolute minimum).

What about when you take it out of the oven? Poor some nice frosting or light fudge, consume it HOT! Deeeee ****in' licious, man. Try it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Should be said, DDM loves himself a Big Mac, clearly, he's biased.

How DARE you figure out my fanboyism-angle! mad

P.S. That's a quater pounder with cheese....add mayo. smile

inimalist

Originally posted by Mindset
Works for cigarettes.

however, cigarettes continue to spend billions on lobbying all levels of government to remain immune to lawsuits.

Memos exist to show they were aware their products were unsafe, and if the government allows lawsuits, they are open to people who suffered any number of diseases for over 20 years.

This would be a similar situation if McDonalds were paying the government to prevent the lady from sueing them so that they could continue to sell dangerous coffee.

EDIT: I guess Mcdonalds would need to hire an army of scientists and lawyers to confuse the issue in strange medical and legal jargon.

Robtard

While I hate the tobacco corporations, let's be honest here, if they willingly put in big red letters: "Cigarettes cause cancer and we add chemicals not normally found in tobacco that will cause 'you' to become addicted", people would still continue to smoke and younf teens would still be willing to try it/pick up the habit.

Granted, it would be the right thing to do.

inimalist

I'm not in favor of criminalizing cigarettes at all.

Though, I am in favor of them being liable for diseases linked to cigarette use during the time when it can be proven their executives knew cigarettes caused cancer and were addictive and until they admit it, or I guess until they were forced to admit it by government.

The last I heard, the only demographic where cigarette use was increasing was in teenage girls, but ya, that anyone starts is crazy.

King Kandy

Originally posted by Robtard
While I hate the tobacco corporations, let's be honest here, if they willingly put in big red letters: "Cigarettes cause cancer and we add chemicals not normally found in tobacco that will cause 'you' to become addicted", people would still continue to smoke and younf teens would still be willing to try it/pick up the habit.

Granted, it would be the right thing to do.
In Europe they just put a giant label on saying "SMOKING KILLS"

inimalist

Originally posted by King Kandy
In Europe they just put a giant label on saying "SMOKING KILLS"

do they not have warning labels in the states then?

we have a huge array of them

King Kandy

Yeah but they are smaller.

Deja~vu

"Buyer Beware" should be placed on products to curb lawsuits, don't you think?

At least that way people would have to educate themselves. The ignorant will just have to get over it.

Adam_PoE

Originally posted by dadudemon
. . . The coffee is still consumable, even at higher temperature than Mrs. burned flaps got burned wiith.

No, it is not.

Originally posted by dadudemon
. . . Also, the liquid quickly cools within 10 minutes.

Then it should be served in 10 minutes, when it is safe for consumption.

Originally posted by dadudemon
. . . Let's not get ridiculous.

There is no us being ridiculous, only you.

While a reasonable person certainly expects a hot beverage or food item to be served hot, he does not expect it to be served so hot as to be unsafe for consumption.

By your reasoning, if a manufacturer produces a hot sauce with unsafe levels of capsaicin, and a consumer receives third degree burns to his lips, tongue, mouth, and esophagus, it is the fault of the consumer, because while he reasonably expected the hot sauce to be hot, he should have expected it to be unsafe to consume.

****ing moron.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
While a reasonable person certainly expects a hot beverage or food item to be served hot, he does not expect it to be served so hot as to be unsafe for consumption.

Earlier in the thread there was some noise that McDonald's claims otherwise. Apparently people want to pick up the coffee and leave, only drinking it considerably later.

King Kandy

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Earlier in the thread there was some noise that McDonald's claims otherwise. Apparently people want to pick up the coffee and leave, only drinking it considerably later.
If that were the case, then this wouldn't have happened in the first place.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then it should be served in 10 minutes, when it is safe for consumption.

No, it should be served as hot as possible in a safe container with a warning label and possibly a rec. to wait 10 minutes before major consumption.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is no us being ridiculous, only you.

What's rediculous is the ideas about blaming everyone but yourself for your own mistakes, faults, or actions.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
While a reasonable person

This is the first mistake. This statement is already going to be incorrect because you prefaced it with "reasonable" not because it's you, but because it will run contradictory with what I've already stated, which was actually reasonable.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
certainly expects a hot beverage or food item to be served hot, he does not expect it to be served so hot as to be unsafe for consumption.

Oh really? Then why are some dishes served...I dunno...ON FIRE? laughing

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By your reasoning, if a manufacturer produces a hot sauce with unsafe levels of capsaicin, and a consumer receives third degree burns to his lips, tongue, mouth, and esophagus, it is the fault of the consumer, because while he reasonably expected the hot sauce to be hot, he should have expected it to be unsafe to consume.

If the damn label says, "Caution Too Hot to Chug", yeah, he should be at 100% at fault for bathing in it, especially since the hot sauce is not going to "cool off" to a "chugable" level in 10 minutes.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
****ing moron.

You do realize that statements like these are banable offenses. There are adult ways to have an adult discussion.

While I'm not thinking those same words (because none of the people I'm discussing this with are morons, or come remotely close to being "****ing moron", I do think that perspectives like yours (angles that try to remove as much blame off the person as possible because you believe when someone self-injures through carelessness or neglect, it's everyone else’s fault except for their own) are part of the tort problems in America. As fact, the majority of these types of cases are thrown out before they even go to "trial." Yes, cases just like these. That gives me hope, but, the fact that these cases make it, sometimes, is the reason for reform.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
"Buyer Beware" should be placed on products to curb lawsuits, don't you think?

At least that way people would have to educate themselves. The ignorant will just have to get over it.

Debs...what's sad is the container DID say "Caution Hot." sad

I would be ALL over McDonald's and expect them to pay out millions had the container not had that on there...even though it's still reasonable for anyone to know that "coffee usually hot."