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?
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
Suppose that she did not spill the coffee, but drank it instead, resulting in third degree burns to her lips, tongue, mouth, and esophagus. Is it the fault of the consumer—who surely expected the hot beverage to be hot, but certainly not hot enough to cause third degree burns—or the restaurant for serving a beverage that was unsafe for human consumption?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Suppose that she did not spill the coffee, but drank it instead, resulting in third degree burns to her lips, tongue, mouth, and esophagus. Is it the fault of the consumer—who surely expected the hot beverage to be hot, but certainly not hot enough to cause third degree burns—or the restaurant for serving a beverage that was unsafe for human consumption?
Still her fault because:
1. Coffee is water that is boiled and filtered through ground coffee beans.
2. The container says "Caution Hot."
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."
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).
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! 😠 😠 😠
P.S. That's a quater pounder with cheese....add mayo. 🙂
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.
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.