20 degree decrease would bring McDonalds down to the standard temperature and people's assumptions about the temperature would be now much more accurate. It would thus remove their negligence.
Capabilities aren't relevent. Coffee, served at any temperature, is capable of being heated to a very high degree. That doesn't make the company that served it at a reasonable temperature negligent. We could continue to play this game. You introduce scenario, I say why it's wrong. :hihi:
Everything's relative. Doesn't matter if it's too hot for immediate consumption, but whether it's cost-effectively safe, while providing basically the same quality product. There's an industry standard that McDonalds was not adhering to. Their coffee wasn't just too hot for consumption, but much too hot.
i was a waiter for a while in college. i routinely made fresh coffee for people, and they loved it. sometimes i let it drip directly from the maker into the cup and brought that out. people love that because it is super fresh. the coffee and the customer both chill out for a while, waiting for the window of temperature perfection, then drink it before the window closes. i am glad they didnt just take my nuclear-hot fresh coffee and dump it on their dong and sue me. if they had i would have learned to let the coffee cool in the back, and not on the table.
so the industry as a collective is deciding what is legally safe in government courts? if mcdonalds doesnt like the way the rest of the industry does business, then let mcdonalds do their own thing.
Company A provides me with a product. If I am negligent, it can be harmful. Company B provides me with a product. If I am negligent, it can be harmful. How do you define reasonable? Any temperature required for the product to maintain heat for an adequate period of time is dangerous, as we already know. The emphasis should be on the user. If the cup wasn't defective, then the old lady is to blame. She took the lid off without properly securing the cup. She subsequently spilled it. But, in this case, pity won out over good sense.
The courts would ultimately decide, because if the industry standard was negligent the courts would start issuing judgements until the industry decided to change. McDonald's is free to do their own thing, but their own thing involved ignoring the dangers of their actions which constituted negligence in this case.
Explain this industry standard to me. How do they decide if 160 degrees is safe for consumers when we all know that 160 degrees can cause burns? Who is to say these standards are the right standards? And since when did industry standards become law? They are nothing more than standards, not laws. Do you advocate the government making laws to clarify these issues?
