I also want to add that, although it's common sense to us, McDonalds wasn't found completely at fault for the incident. I think they only had to pay a percentage of the ruling based on how much their negligence was viewed as affecting situation.
All the more reason for them to be careful. "Isolated" is a relative term, especially for them. They didn't accidently serve the coffee to hot. The woman accidently spilled on herself, which isn't the point.
i guess "too hot" is a relative term as well. i think of coffee as a dangerously hot time bomb. bu ti guess courts dont see it that way and need to force businesses to remind people that they need to be careful not to boil their taint.
Now that martin has made the last comment & the argument appears to be dead, I guess we can get back to fat chicks. :hihi:
On these kinds of suits the attorney does not get paid unless he wins the case. Often they do it for the publicity. Even if they lose, they get their name before the public and that could enhance their practice.
The McDonald's case is a good example of a trivial lawsuit that should have never seen the light of day. The lady may have received a burn as a result of spilling the coffee on herself, but she was the one who spilt it. She has to take the blame. Sorry. McDonald's did not deliberately make coffee hot in order that someone may spill it on themselves. It was an accident. There was no negligence or ill intent on the part of McDonald's, although there was negligence on the part of the woman.
I guess we're not done after all... It's obviously not trivial since she won. McDonald's DID knowingly make the coffee hot with the possability of people injuring themselves. There was no accident on the part of McDonalds - only negligence. And there was no negligence on the part of the woman - only an accident. You seem to think you are a smart fella, so I hope you can see the difference. As I mentioned, McDonalds did not have to pay the entire amount - only a percentage of it from their negligence (a percentage determined by the jury). She spilt the coffee, they knowingly made the coffee too hot. Both parties are to blame, and they did share the blame.
i see the difference, but dont think anyone should feel responsible to tell anyone that coffee is hot. it is coffee, you should know it is hot and be careful. the only thing i think sellers of items really are responsible to do is to not defraud or mislead anyone. i dont think it is misleading to not label coffee os hot. i dont think people see the cup with no warning and think: "well, no warning!....i can guess i can be reckless and mess with the cap of this liquid fire whilst it is near my dirty bits!" i think it is pretty stupid that court determines what is "too hot". there should be no such thing. coffee is boiled water filtered through ground up beans. that means it is hot.
I know you're a smart fella, my comment was to Bengal Buddy because his intelligence/ability to process information is a bit more questionable. :yelwink2: It's not suprising to me that you think that way - that's how it would be in a completely capitalist world. It would be up to the competitors to exploit these weaknesses & then we'd all be better off because the government hadn't gotten involved etc. But like I said earlier, courts use a cost-benefit analysis to keep consumers safe. There was very little cost involved in having McDonalds serve their coffee cooler & display a warning that says it's hot, while providing a service to all their consumers and making them "safer". You think lots of things in the government/economy are stupid, that doesn't make them all completely use-less.
