Conservatives and liberals alike live in a black and white world. They just can't see the shades of gray. Moderates understand that there is a balance point between personal accountability and public responsibility.
Of course. Companies do, and should, take their own cost benefit analysis to see whethere they should have taken action or settled with all the different injured parties. McDonalds just didn't appear to care.
you cannot sell billions of cups of coffee (and i think it is entirely possible that mcdonalds sells more than anyone in the world) and not expect any situation other than constant injury. people are clumsy, it is a constant. just like i cannot start a soccer league and expect people wont tear their acls regularly. injuries will happen, and happen often. that doesnt mean anyone is negligent. life has risks.
Change of subject, but I wonder why they don't make the cup so that it softens at whatever temeprature is agreed upon to be unsafe. Then sagging cups would warn the vendor that his coffee is too damn hot for safety. The key factor is that Macdonald's sold coffee that was hotter than generally accepted safe temperatures and other vendors did not. That is why they lost the case.
Costumers know that coffee is "hot", but they don't know that McDonald's coffee is served much hotter than than usual, for basically no reason. Customers aren't psychic. There's certain assumptions we can make based on prior usual experience, such as knowing that coffee is hot, but it's impossible to know without being warned, that a particular cup of coffee is being served much hotter than people are accustomed to. The company should include a functioning safety for the weapon, behind that there's no cost-effective way to make the product any safer and thus the company owes no consumer any more than that. This, again, is not the same situation.
Injuries aren't the point - injuries based on something you cost cost-effectively control are. It sure doesn't, but it also doesn't mean somebody isn't negligent.
my experience with coffee, whether i make it, or purchase it, as well as the experience of all the coffee drinkers i know, is that when you buy coffee, that **** is so hot you cannot drink it, and you should never pour it on your crotch. no psychic powers necessary. also i would advise against pouring coffee on your crotch, even if you dont buy it at mcdonalds and it really is cooler, like cparso claims. in fact i will go so far as to say that any liquid that was involved in any cooking process within the last hour or so should not be poured on any crotch. ordinary people dont realize this, and and they sometimes go to dunkin donuts and pick up a cup, then deposit it in their trousers. but woe is them if they try that stunt at mcdonalds.
Yea, it's hot. And yet McDonald's is much hotter. For no reason. And could be cost-effectively reduced & made safer for consumers.
Ah, so if they serve it at 160 degrees instead of 180 degrees (which is what the lawsuit claims), then McDonald's would be ok? 160 degrees can still burn. I guess it's ok to burn consumers just a little bit!:grin:
i actually think they should have a warning label that says "hold up partner, this is mcdonald's coffee, specifically engineered not for crotches".
