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.
Originally posted by inimalist
no, I am rephrasing the argument to show the ways in which I think it is sillyI'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.
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?
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.
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.
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. 😐
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 sillyI'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.
Originally posted by inimalist
[B]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
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.
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.
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!
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
was this stated in the article? o.onote 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
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.
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."
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.
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)
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.
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.