Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 02:56:51 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

So, she reaonably thought she was risking only pain, but was really
risking serious injury, because of the way McDonalds served their product
at an unexpected temperature.

The newspapers take the attractive line that "coffee is hot, duh!". But
it's not that simple.

On the surface the case looked silly. But I believe it was legitimate.

On close examination it still looks silly.

Under any rational examination it looks silly. The woman took the top
of the coffee cup to dump in cream and sugar whilst attempting to
drive a motor vehicle over a speedbump, burns herself, and then sues
McD's? And wins? The primary problem in this society is that nobody
takes any personal responsibility for doing anything any more. Do
something stupid and hurt yourself, oh well, sucks to be you.

It's just as stupid as the other case I'd read about back in school
where a burglar, suing whilst serving his sentence in the burglary
case, was in open court and admitted that he was trespassing on a
woman's roof with the sole intention of breaking and entering the
house to steal goods, slipped on a loose shingle, sued her for failing
to maintain the property and got $1mil from the insurance company via
a jury verdict. "It's just insurance money" I guess. Too bad he
wasn't supposed to be there, hurt himself, and makes life miserable
for everyone else by increasing our insurance premiums in the process.

The primary problem in this society is that nobody
takes any personal responsibility for doing anything any more.

While I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, it is not a blanket
cover-all. Yes, she did something stupid, and if the coffee were at a
normal temperature should not be compensated at all. It was her
stupidity that would have burned her (somewhat). But if the coffee is
=far= hotter than would be expected (let's say for the sake of argument
that it was just short of boiling in the cup), and instead of burning
her somewhat, it caused an injury which required amputation, I would say
that she is not totally responsible for the additional damage. The
difference between somewhat burned, and almost dead came from the water
being =far= too hot.

Independently of the actual case, =if= a case came up like I am
describing (boiling water), would you agree that McD gets some of the
blame for serving too hot?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
The primary problem in this society is that nobody
takes any personal responsibility for doing anything any more.


While I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, it is not a blanket
cover-all. Yes, she did something stupid, and if the coffee were at a
normal temperature should not be compensated at all. It was her
stupidity that would have burned her (somewhat). But if the coffee is
=far= hotter than would be expected (let's say for the sake of argument
that it was just short of boiling in the cup), and instead of burning
her somewhat, it caused an injury which required amputation, I would say
that she is not totally responsible for the additional damage. The
difference between somewhat burned, and almost dead came from the water
being =far= too hot.

Independently of the actual case, =if= a case came up like I am
describing (boiling water), would you agree that McD gets some of the
blame for serving too hot?

Jose

Isn't coffee supposed to be hot?

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Peter Clark wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 02:56:51 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

So, she reaonably thought she was risking only pain, but was really
risking serious injury, because of the way McDonalds served their product
at an unexpected temperature.

The newspapers take the attractive line that "coffee is hot, duh!". But
it's not that simple.

On the surface the case looked silly. But I believe it was legitimate.

On close examination it still looks silly.

Under any rational examination it looks silly. The woman took the top
of the coffee cup to dump in cream and sugar whilst attempting to
drive a motor vehicle over a speedbump, burns herself, and then sues
McD's? And wins?

You might want to check the actual facts of the case. 1) She wasn't
the driver of the vehicle. 2) The car was stopped at the time when
she removed the top of the cup. 3) No speedbump was involved. And,
most significantly, the coffee temperature was substantially hotter
than typical at similar establishments (or from home coffee makers)
and there had been numerous other incidents involving substantial
injury.

Based on the information I've seen on the details of this case, the
jury's finding regarding McDonalds' liability seems entirely
reasonable to me.
See:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Ross wrote:
Jose wrote:
The primary problem in this society is that nobody
takes any personal responsibility for doing anything any more.


While I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, it is not a blanket
cover-all. Yes, she did something stupid, and if the coffee were at a
normal temperature should not be compensated at all. It was her
stupidity that would have burned her (somewhat). But if the coffee is
=far= hotter than would be expected (let's say for the sake of
argument that it was just short of boiling in the cup), and instead of
burning her somewhat, it caused an injury which required amputation, I
would say that she is not totally responsible for the additional
damage. The difference between somewhat burned, and almost dead came
from the water being =far= too hot.

Independently of the actual case, =if= a case came up like I am
describing (boiling water), would you agree that McD gets some of the
blame for serving too hot?

Jose

Isn't coffee supposed to be hot?

It was until an idiot put a cup between her legs and then spilled it all
over herself. Now it is only supposed to be luke warm so that it is
cold before you can get out of the Mickey D's parking lot.

Matt

Jose wrote:

Yes, she did something stupid, and if the coffee were at a
normal temperature should not be compensated at all. It was her
stupidity that would have burned her (somewhat). But if the coffee is
=far= hotter than would be expected (let's say for the sake of argument
that it was just short of boiling in the cup), and instead of burning
her somewhat, it caused an injury which required amputation, I would say
that she is not totally responsible for the additional damage. The
difference between somewhat burned, and almost dead came from the water
being =far= too hot.

Independently of the actual case, =if= a case came up like I am
describing (boiling water), would you agree that McD gets some of the
blame for serving too hot?

So if she had ordered tea, which is _supposed_ to be made with boiling
water, then it would have been her fault instead of McDonald's?

As a side note, a group tried to file the same sort of case in Manchester,
England against McDonald's, and the judge threw it out before going to
trial, saying that coffee was supposed to be hot.

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:14:26 -0500, Jose
wrote:

Independently of the actual case, =if= a case came up like I am
describing (boiling water), would you agree that McD gets some of the
blame for serving too hot?

Not in my mind. Exercising a reasonable standard of care would mean
the person receiving the beverage in question, which is expected to be
hot, would determine that the liquid is outside of the expected
temperature envelope ('Hm, this cup is awfully warm, feels warmer than
normal, bet the coffee is ultra hot." " Wow, look at the steam coming
out of there! better let it cool off a bit before I attempt to drink
it") and change their actions accordingly. It's not like the item is
hidden and unavailable for easy inspection. They just handed it to
you. So, I believe that if they don't adjust accordingly then they
assume all the risks brought on by their inactions and the
consequences thereof.

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:26:55 -0600, Ross wrote:

Isn't coffee supposed to be hot?

Well, people do drink ice coffee too, but I digress.

What I don't understand is people buying ice coffee in the dead of
winter. Saw someone walking around the ramp at BED yesterday (40+
gusts, 20+ standing winds, 6 deg F temps) with an ice coffee......

Guess it would eventually turn into an ice block if they didn't either
finish it quick or get inside a heated aircraft.

"Ross" wrote

Isn't coffee supposed to be hot?

I had always noticed that Mc D's coffee was much hotter than any other
coffee; so much so that I could not drink it for 15 minutes or more, unless
I added an ice cube.

Still, even if it is much hotter than normal, there is no excuse for suing
because you were an idiot.
--
Jim in NC

James Robinson wrote:
Jose wrote:

Yes, she did something stupid, and if the coffee were at a
normal temperature should not be compensated at all. It was her
stupidity that would have burned her (somewhat). But if the coffee is
=far= hotter than would be expected (let's say for the sake of argument
that it was just short of boiling in the cup), and instead of burning
her somewhat, it caused an injury which required amputation, I would say
that she is not totally responsible for the additional damage. The
difference between somewhat burned, and almost dead came from the water
being =far= too hot.

Independently of the actual case, =if= a case came up like I am
describing (boiling water), would you agree that McD gets some of the
blame for serving too hot?

So if she had ordered tea, which is _supposed_ to be made with boiling
water, then it would have been her fault instead of McDonald's?

As a side note, a group tried to file the same sort of case in Manchester,
England against McDonald's, and the judge threw it out before going to
trial, saying that coffee was supposed to be hot.

Good to see that some parts of the world still have a little common
sense left.

Matt