I have a hard time buying this reply, because to make your case, you are basically saying if the woman knew it was hotter than Burger King coffee, she wouldn't have spilled it on herself. But, if she had not been careless and at fault, she would not have spilled the beverage on her, whether it was coffee or a cup of water. As for the burger, I can see how big it is, and I can know how big of a bite I need to take, but we all know people don't always do what they know they need to do. I bet that old lady knew she shouldn't spill coffee on her crotch even before she did it, but didn't take proper precautions and she did it anyway. If I take a huge bite and choke, might as well take a chance. My judge may not think it's 80/20 in my favor, but I can take 50/50, 40/60...whatever makes a profit. The problem with this is it opens the door to reward people for their own stupidity and mistakes.
Ya'll might not ever agree with me, but you will eventually run out of arguments against my point. I've already won, you just don't realize it yet. :hihi:
No, just that it atleast partly takes away the negligence of McDonalds. If McDonalds is going to serve scalding hot coffee, they atleast should warn customers (although in practice this sure is worthless because nobody pays attention anyway, but it still adds a lot to their case). If the company is not atleast 50% at fault, the case won't be heard. I'm never in favor of rewarding people for their stupidity & mistakes. This case uses one particular instance in order to make a much larger case for negligence, which is why a part of why I agree with it.
You sure about that? How about Eagle Claw fish hooks. Should they have a warning label that says "sharper than industry standard - will hurt like hell if they catch you in the ear"? Or those Ginsu knives that are sharper than the industry standard??:rofl:
The industry standard was just used as an example in this case, it's far from law or a standard applied to all cases. Besides, they say dull knives are actually more dangerous than the sharp ones. :yelwink2:
i think many consumers would say it is taking away from the product. some people like it super hot. they blow across the top until they can take milli-ounce sips. i dont think it is my our your or the government's job to tell mcdonalds how to serve their coffee or protect people from it. again, the process of making coffee involves water that starts at 212 degrees, the maximum. the fresher the coffee, the closer it will be to that temperature. this is a normal and expected thing with coffee and should suprise no one. it starts really really hot, then gets cooler. you can buy it it any almost any stage along the way from scalding to room temperature. is it too much to ask for people to understand this on their own? huh? of course you can tell how hot it is. hand me a cup of water at 211 degrees, just barely not boiling, and i guarantee i will be able to figure out it is too hot to drink without getting hurt. you dont have to be a scientist to tell if something is too hot to drink or spill on yourself.
i think that is unlikely, because a standing person doesnt hold coffee in the their crotch the way she did. she really put together a tailor made crotch-cooking scenario. being old, sitting trapped in a car, dumping it nicely in her lap. she is the perfect storm. but in this case the victim was responsible for the spill. and i dont care what the law think, martin is telling you how it should be, not how it is.
Nobody could drink that coffee for an extended period of time anyway. If there was a valid argument as to why the coffee should be served that hot, it would be an important point in the case. It wasn't because there is no need for it. Every other coffee maker served it cooler than McDonalds and the extra heat represented no economic competitive advantage. Like I said, people aren't psychic. You can sort of tell how hot it is, but you can't point out a cup of coffee and say - ohhh, this is 180 degrees. It will be too hot to drink for quite a while and if it spills I'll have to go to the ER for third degree burns. You can say, this seems too hot to drink and would burn like hell if I spilled it on myself - just like you could for damn near any cup of coffee. But you can't immediately tell the difference is my point.
She certainly was responsible for the spill. McDonalds was responsible for the temperature of the coffee. Both contributed to the injury.
