I see your point, that you think 90 seconds at 20 degrees lower is long enough to cause serious injury, but is it the same level of injury? I also think a pair of sweat pants & granny panties would further seperate the affects between the two. For the same amount of time, but much cooler, I think the burn would be less severe. It's a fact. I can't refute it and wouldn't attempt to. I don't even see why I would have to. Possible, but at this point I'm not willing to assume it's reasonable. Maybe you can convince me otherwise - if so, you are better than McDonald's lawyers. My support of the verdict in this case is based on the assumptions made through out the case & the arguments presented by each side. I haven't attempted to bring in new arguments, just support the argument made in it.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Louisiana, and several other states are "comparative negligence" venues. That means that each party bears it's own proportion of fault. Some states bar recovery if the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault, but it doesn't keep the case from being heard. The trier-of-fact determines the percentages after the case is heard.
Excuse me, my wording was poor. I meant that if it does not seem likely or possible that the defendent could be 50% at fault, then the case won't be heard. Happy now?
Nope. If plaintiff lawyers thought that way, the McDonalds case would have never gone to court. They will take any kind of crap that comes along and hope for a nusiance settlement or a stupid jury (such as the one that decided this case). Get it through your head. Coffee is hot. People like their coffee hot. Lukewarm, tepid or cool coffee won't sell. Removing the heat removes the utility of the product. Spill a cup of Starbucks or CC's in your lap and you'll get burned. If you just got it it will burn you badly. Be careful. Selling hot coffee is not negligence. Finish up your schooling before you try to dispense legal wisdom.
anyone who really believes that mcdonalds was at fault in any way over this is an example of why these cases continue. cparso, you claim you are well-versed so to speak but you show complete ignorance on this issue. you remind me of the refs in the steeler game who get confused by the rule in print instead of actually knowing the rule's intent. anyone can take any product and accidentally do something with it which causes them harm. from using hairspray near a fireplace or mistaking your preparation H for toothpaste its no different. you may think its different but its not. its perfectly unreasonable to expect all bases to be covered. once you open the can of worms of faulting a company for selling a perfectly good product, everyone suffers from the top of the chain to the bottom. there is zero fault or negligence in this case and the fact a court ruling clouds your better judgment with the specifics of the case tells me you bought into the nonsense of some professor who Red meets at brec park on a regular basis. you can spew your cost-benefit model around all you want. its nothing new. just because you learned a nifty new concept does not validate the negligence whatsoever. the coffee was hot, the old hag phucked up and poured it in her lap and got her some new genitals because people like you got confused and awarded her a judgment.
i agree entirely with tirk. i think the courts are basically stealing money from mcdonalds in this case, and that is one of a short list of things i believe are immoral. i also sort of believe that this case boils down* to a general poor understanding of coffee and science by anyone who thinks mcdonalds is at fault. red thinks you can superheat coffee and cparso doesnt seem to get that all coffee basically starts at the same temperature and fresh brewed coffee is necessarily scaldingly, dangerously hot. if we all can get that simple idea through our heads we wouldnt think mcodonalds was negligent for making and selling coffee the same way it has been done for centuries. *pun intended.
futhermore, wikipedia seems to be contradicting some of cparso's evidence about how mcdonalds is unique and does not reflect industry standards. i make the argument that all coffee is basically made the same way, hot, and wikipedia points out the following: "Testimony by witnesses for McDonald's revealed that McDonald's did not intend to reduce the heat of its coffee. However, the National Coffee Association of USA recommends that coffee be brewed at 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit and maintained at a temperature of 180-185 degrees for optimal flavor and drunk immediately. [1] Starbucks, for example, serves its coffee at this temperature, and, indeed, has been subjected to similar lawsuits for coffee spills. Most courts have dismissed these cases against Starbucks." starbucks serves it hot too. now you cannot argue that starbucks is not the most noteworthy coffee retailer in the world can you? an "industry standard" maybe? also of note: "Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over ninety seconds." 90 seconds! 90 seconds! you simply cannot argue that any result besides cooked crotch should result from this. stand up you stupid old lady! you cannot blame mcdonalds if you are gonna sit there and cook your crotch for 90 seconds. her son or grandson or whoever who was driving is a moron, he shoulda had her out and taken off her pants within 20 seconds of the spill. (yes, that would suck to tear off your granny's pants, but sometimes you gotta take one for the team if you love your granny)
