How is it completely different? Water can burn someone at 140 degrees. Your coffee maker at home keeps coffee warmer than 140 degrees. Coffee is suppose to be served hot. I know the coffee at Circle K is very hot. I've spilled my fair share over the years. It is understood that coffee is hot. It is understood the pizza is hot. Handle with care. Answer this question ... what should the coffee temperature be for it not to burn someone?
I wonder why she didn't sue the company that made the cup? They should make cups that don't spill so easily. And she could have sued Ford, since she was sitting in a Probe when she spilled it. They must have inadequate cup holders if she had to use her crotch. Or maybe she should have sued her grandson for having a dirty car with crap in the cup holder so she couldn't use it? She should have also gone after the company that made those sweat pants. I'm sure there were more factors we can blame than McDonalds (80%) and the old lady (20%). From what I've read on this, there have been several other similar cases that were all thrown out of court (Bunn, for one). Face it, this court took pity on an old lady. McDonald's arrogant approach during the proceedings didn't help either, from the commentary I've seen on the case.
Oh, I understand the sad part is that you're both right, no matter how long you argue. I agree with you that Mc Donalds should have taken care of their business, this was clearly a liability waiting to happen for some time. On the other hand I agree with martin about the customer having to have some responsibility here. No one wins. Except the attorney's of course
Because it is not about this single incident. It's called NEGLIGENCE. Coffee should be served at a temperature that maximizes the cost-benefit analysis, which is what courts rely upon.
Then you agree with me, because I've continued to say that McDonalds only paid for a share of the judgement because they weren't completely at fault. :yelwink2: :grin:
Somewhat. I see alot of companies that "should" make red flags their number one priority but don't....they look at the odds of it not happening. Clearly they took a chance here and lost.
You can't possibly account for every factor, only the ones that play the most significant roles. The original amount definitely suggested that it was based on pity, it went to a higher court and was reduced, but maintained the same ruling. McDonald's arrogant approach only furthured the proof that they didn't care, contributing to the image of their negligence.
i think tigerwins makes a perfectly valid point about pizza. there are risks involved in everything. any product or service can result in injury if handled poorly. mere existence of injuries, even lots of them, doesnt mean the seller of the item is at fault. cigarettes coffee, playing sports, even normal food can cause injuries or health problems if not managed properly. society works best if individuals are in charge of managing thier own lives. when purchasing a product, you are the one saddled with the responsibility of knowing how to use that product, and you should accept that misuse or accidents will hurt you. the fact that mcdonalds knew that people were buring the crap out of themselves doesnt mean they should change or be considered negligent. it means that people are clumsy. i think we can all agree that spilling things is a common and easy thing to do, and that we should expect all liquids will be spilled regulalry. and hot liquids are gonna burn people. and coffee, as well as almost every item that is cooked for human consumption, starts at a temperature unfit for eating. things you eat, you have to wait for them. if you order a steak and it comes from the kitchen sizzling, you dont shove it down your throat or lay it in your lap before it cools. such is the nature of cooked food. it should come as no suprise that the cooking process involves levels of heat that are not safe.
So because they did nothing after some customers spilled coffee on them makes them negligent, even though the customers know the coffee is hot? That sounds like the same argument the anti-gun people make. It's not the customer's fault, it's the company's fault.
