Cant be in the U.S. 14th amendment and all. Corporations would go nuts.
No - it's definitely in the US too: The 'calculus of negligence' from United States v Carrol Towing - When assessing the standard of care, the courts may take into account the nature of practicable precautions the defendant could/ought to have taken to avoid the breach. Because McD has more resources than an ordinary citizen, the court can hold that they have a higher standard of care because it's easier for them to avoid a breach.
Your original quote has nothing to do with resources with which to avoid a breech, it has to do with ruling in favor of the plantiff for political considerations.
The law doesnt make the distinction.
What you are discussing is the ability of wealthy individuals to vet their actions and yes there is a difference in the law in that you can be expected to take provisions that you ought to have, but it doesnt having anything to do with erring on the side of consumers without being unreasonable to the company.
The law doesnt err on the side of being unfair to anyone, it isnt unfair to expect that MCD should, having researched coffee temperatures, know not to serve it that hot. It might be unfair to expect Joe schmoe convience and gas to have the same level of care[because they cant and havent done any research], but that has nothing to do with erring on the side of the consumer, it has to due with the legal definition of negligence.
While I admit that the injury sustained was pretty gruesome, I can't (or at least I don't want) to put the blame on McDs.
When I make coffee or tea at home I boil water, this puts it at 212 F which could very well burn me, yet this is no big deal, everyone does it everyday.
I am concerned that some people are proposing that I must be coddled by corperations as soon as I leave my house. Once I set foot in McDs (not that I actually eat that stuff) I'm not and adult anymore and McDs has to look after me like I'm a little kid who hasn't learned that hot things might burn you and care should be taken in their handling.
Now, were I in charge of McDs I would have liked to have paid for at least some of the medical expenses, if for no other reason than it's good customer relations. In the current climate however that would be tatamount to admitting wrongdoing and thus expose me to a bigger lawsuit so in the end I can't even say if I feel sorry for her because my lawyer tells me I'll get sued.
ALocksly on
Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
Judging by the temperature of other fast food places, 15-20 degrees lower on average, at least.
So just to finish this up, your claim is that, were you in charge of McD's, you could order that coffee be served at 165F, and in doing so, absolutely guarantee that there would never ever be a single instance among 10 billion cups around the world of coffee served at 180F?
There's a difference between being the omnipotent benevolent deity and having a corporate policy that minimizes risk.
While I admit that the injury sustained was pretty gruesome, I can't (or at least I don't want) to put the blame on McDs.
When I make coffee or tea at home I boil water, this puts it at 212 F which could very well burn me, yet this is no big deal, everyone does it everyday.
I am concerned that some people are proposing that I must be coddled by corperations as soon as I leave my house. Once I set foot in McDs (not that I actually eat that stuff) I'm not and adult anymore and McDs has to look after me like I'm a little kid who hasn't learned that hot things might burn you and care should be taken in their handling.
Now, were I in charge of McDs I would have liked to have paid for at least some of the medical expenses, if for no other reason than it's good customer relations. In the current climate however that would be tatamount to admitting wrongdoing and thus expose me to a bigger lawsuit so in the end I can't even say I fell sorry for her because my lawyer tells me I'll get sued.
You dont serve the tea at that temperature though and your coffee maker doesnt make it at that temperature. You serve tea after letting it steep. It steeps off the burner. Then after the tea steeps you serve it.
Judging by the temperature of other fast food places, 15-20 degrees lower on average, at least.
So just to finish this up, your claim is that, were you in charge of McD's, you could order that coffee be served at 165F, and in doing so, absolutely guarantee that there would never ever be a single instance among 10 billion cups around the world of coffee served at 180F?
There's a difference between being the omnipotent benevolent deity and having a corporate policy that minimizes risk.
Outside of machine malfunction, very easily. The coffee machines are very accurate in their temperatures and if there was a serving policy at 160f, then when a machine served something hotter it would be removed and serviced.
Its pretty simple really, the corporation could not be liable for any coffee that was at 180f, because it would have to be the result of individual action or machine malfunction.
While I admit that the injury sustained was pretty gruesome, I can't (or at least I don't want) to put the blame on McDs.
When I make coffee or tea at home I boil water, this puts it at 212 F which could very well burn me, yet this is no big deal, everyone does it everyday.
I am concerned that some people are proposing that I must be coddled by corperations as soon as I leave my house. Once I set foot in McDs (not that I actually eat that stuff) I'm not and adult anymore and McDs has to look after me like I'm a little kid who hasn't learned that hot things might burn you and care should be taken in their handling.
Now, were I in charge of McDs I would have liked to have paid for at least some of the medical expenses, if for no other reason than it's good customer relations. In the current climate however that would be tatamount to admitting wrongdoing and thus expose me to a bigger lawsuit so in the end I can't even say I fell sorry for her because my lawyer tells me I'll get sued.
You dont serve the tea at that temperature though and your coffee maker doesnt make it at that temperature. You serve tea after letting it steep. It steeps off the burner. Then after the tea steeps you serve it.
True but I still handle the cup and pot and all, I am "responsible" for the boiling water while I wait for it to cool a bit.
My hot water dispenser maintains at 98 C, I usually use it as soon as it beeps though and then its at 100 C. I don't have a coffee maker but I have no reason to doubt you that they run cooler.
edit: honestly though my real problem is with the litigious environment that forces corperations to treat me like a child and when they do screw up they feel that they can't admit it or apologize for fear of a massive lawsuit. I honestly would not be surprised to pick up a pencil one of these days and read "warning, may cause injury if stuck in eye" on the side
ALocksly on
Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
Hm. That actually has puzzled me in the past. Is the "no apologies" policies due to the fact that the admission would make people more likely to sue or because it'd somehow be admissible in court?
Cos the latter just sounds dumb.
Or is it not admissible in court but would still bite you in the ass in some other way? Ie. it'd give the other side a good hint where to look for their arguments or something...
Hm. That actually has puzzled me in the past. Is the "no apologies" policies due to the fact that the admission would make people more likely to sue or because it'd somehow be admissible in court?
Cos the latter just sounds dumb.
Or is it not admissible in court but would still bite you in the ass in some other way? Ie. it'd give the other side a good hint where to look for their arguments or something...
I believe its the former but then I am not a lawyer. As I understand it an apology is tatamount to an admission of wrongdoing.
again though, not a lawyer.
edit: I think the way it works is that anytime the big company is willing to settle for med bills and an apology any competent lawyer will push that into the millions of dollars range, thus they feel if the give an inch, miles will be taken. So...no inch
ALocksly on
Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
Your original quote has nothing to do with resources with which to avoid a breech, it has to do with ruling in favor of the plantiff for political considerations.
The law doesnt make the distinction.
I said "justice system" intentionally to refer to the consequences of the legal system, not a literal reading of laws. But, that's a completely different issue that I really don't want to argue about.
As you say, even on a literal reading of the laws, this judgement makes perfect sense.
So just to finish this up, your claim is that, were you in charge of McD's, you could order that coffee be served at 165F, and in doing so, absolutely guarantee that there would never ever be a single instance among 10 billion cups around the world of coffee served at 180F?
What part of "on average" do you not understand?
Exactly. Your point is... that McD's serves inferior coffee? Was that ever even contested?
The point is that McDonalds shouldn't be making a dangerous product for the sake of covering up for a crappy product. It would be like a clothing manufacturer that makes their products with chemicals designed to make their customers go blind so that they won't notice how ugly they are.
You're fabircating evidence at this point. It was never established in this case or anywhere else that McDs keeps coffee at 185F for more than 20 minutes.
It would have had to have been at least in that range in order to result in the burns, which meant that it would have to be at least in that range when it left the pot. Or are you telling me that McDonalds always dumps their coffee after 20 minutes before starting fresh, for the sake of quality control?
The technicality of shaving razors cutting people less when they are sharper was nothing more than a distraction that had zero relevance the discussion at hand. Nevertheless, I switched to "scissors' to sidestep the dipshit tactics.
Really? Name one mass market consumer level brand scissor that is sharp enough to be that unsafe under the conditions you listed.
Wrong. Many people get coffee on a cold morning to warm up.
Many people buy electric heaters to heat up the house. 185 degrees strikes me as a bit excessive, however. It also seems to be a bit excessive compared to the other businesses that also served coffee, at much lower temperatures.
Yes, they would, if held on the skin a few seconds longer. In fact, had she not been wearing particularly moisture-absorbent clothing (you know, sweat pants), then even this coffee would probably not have been held against one spot long enough and in enough quantity to cause these burns.
I can vouch for at least the last point from personal experience, Boiling water on a bare leg left a little redness, boiling water on a foot in a thick sock left blisters. Both cases were a pot (approx 1/2 gallon) of actively boiling water (212 F)
ALocksly on
Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
Yes, they would, if held on the skin a few seconds longer. In fact, had she not been wearing particularly moisture-absorbent clothing (you know, sweat pants), then even this coffee would probably not have been held against one spot long enough and in enough quantity to cause these burns.
Really? You've tested this then, have you?
Obviously, all the other people who had suffered burns had been wearing sweatpants at the same time as well!
Yes, they would, if held on the skin a few seconds longer. In fact, had she not been wearing particularly moisture-absorbent clothing (you know, sweat pants), then even this coffee would probably not have been held against one spot long enough and in enough quantity to cause these burns.
"Let's hit the drive through at McDonald's and get some coffee."
"I really shouldn't. The pants I'm wearing could make that hazardous."
McD's should just keep serving coffee at that temperature. It would systematically and very slowly remove stupid people from the planet.
But in all seriousness: COFFEE, OR ANY OTHER BEVERAGE OR LIQUID, SHOULD NOT SIT IN BETWEEN YOUR LEGS WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING, AN ACT THAT GENERALLY REQUIRES YOU TO MOVE YOUR LEGS.
If her car didn't have a cupholder, she shouldn't have been at a drive-through ordering hot coffee of ANY temperature.
McD's should just keep serving coffee at that temperature. It would systematically and very slowly remove stupid people from the planet.
But in all seriousness: COFFEE, NOR ANY OTHER BEVERAGE OR LIQUID, SHOULD NOT SIT IN BETWEEN YOUR LEGS WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING, AN ACT THAT GENERALLY REQUIRES THAT YOU MOVE YOUR LEGS.
If her car didn't have a cupholder, she shouldn't have been at a drive-through ordering hot coffee of ANY temperature.
McD's should just keep serving coffee at that temperature. It would systematically and very slowly remove stupid people from the planet.
But in all seriousness: COFFEE, NOR ANY OTHER BEVERAGE OR LIQUID, SHOULD NOT SIT IN BETWEEN YOUR LEGS WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING, AN ACT THAT GENERALLY REQUIRES THAT YOU MOVE YOUR LEGS.
If her car didn't have a cupholder, she shouldn't have been at a drive-through ordering hot coffee of ANY temperature.
She was not driving. Got anything else?
Even if I was being mind-numbingly sarcastic, here's another shot:
Was she holding the cup in her hands or between her legs while removing the lid from the cup to add cream and sugar?
McD's should just keep serving coffee at that temperature. It would systematically and very slowly remove stupid people from the planet.
But in all seriousness: COFFEE, NOR ANY OTHER BEVERAGE OR LIQUID, SHOULD NOT SIT IN BETWEEN YOUR LEGS WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING, AN ACT THAT GENERALLY REQUIRES THAT YOU MOVE YOUR LEGS.
If her car didn't have a cupholder, she shouldn't have been at a drive-through ordering hot coffee of ANY temperature.
She was not driving. Got anything else?
Even if I was being mind-numbingly sarcastic, here's another shot:
Was she holding the cup in her hands or between her legs while removing the lid from the cup to add cream and sugar?
McD's should just keep serving coffee at that temperature. It would systematically and very slowly remove stupid people from the planet.
But in all seriousness: COFFEE, NOR ANY OTHER BEVERAGE OR LIQUID, SHOULD NOT SIT IN BETWEEN YOUR LEGS WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING, AN ACT THAT GENERALLY REQUIRES THAT YOU MOVE YOUR LEGS.
If her car didn't have a cupholder, she shouldn't have been at a drive-through ordering hot coffee of ANY temperature.
She was not driving. Got anything else?
Even if I was being mind-numbingly sarcastic, here's another shot:
Was she holding the cup in her hands or between her legs while removing the lid from the cup to add cream and sugar?
Not sure. She probably did it in not the best way, given that she spilled it all over. That doesn't excuse McDonald's for serving a product much more hazardous than one might reasonably expect it to be.
McD's should just keep serving coffee at that temperature. It would systematically and very slowly remove stupid people from the planet.
But in all seriousness: COFFEE, NOR ANY OTHER BEVERAGE OR LIQUID, SHOULD NOT SIT IN BETWEEN YOUR LEGS WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING, AN ACT THAT GENERALLY REQUIRES THAT YOU MOVE YOUR LEGS.
If her car didn't have a cupholder, she shouldn't have been at a drive-through ordering hot coffee of ANY temperature.
She was not driving. Got anything else?
Even if I was being mind-numbingly sarcastic, here's another shot:
Was she holding the cup in her hands or between her legs while removing the lid from the cup to add cream and sugar?
Not sure. She probably did it in not the best way, given that she spilled it all over. That doesn't excuse McDonald's for serving a product much more hazardous than one might reasonably expect it to be.
I think it's highly possible that she would have gotten the same kinds of burns with a less-than-85-degrees-Celsius hot drink.
Granted, I'm no expert, but I really don't think it's unreasonable to do your best to handle your drink as carefully as possible if you expect it to be hot. The degree of the burns suck and that's what bit McD's ass in this particular case (medical bills are high), but it does not excuse the fact that she could have been more careful in its handling.
Personally, I take no side on this debate, being that all it proves is people are stubborn and careless and more than a little short-circuited in the head.
Do I blame the truck's manufacturer, the driver, or me when I'm crossing the road and forgot I was in London and BAM get splattered across the highway, while it's revealed that the truck had faulty brakes?
Shitty analogy, but dammit it's the only way I can try to picture myself in such a situation, being that I probably would've asked the people at the drive-through to add my desired amount of cream and sugar for me while making my coffee. Or, you know, used the flat part of my dashboard.
I have a sneaky feeling she was undoing the lid while it was sitting in her lap, since she'd need both hands to open the cream and sugar packets. If THAT were the case, then maybe the argument could've been about the impracticality of the cream and sugar packets.
Do I blame the truck's manufacturer, the driver, or me when I'm crossing the road and forgot I was in London and BAM get splattered across the highway, while it's revealed that the truck had faulty brakes?
If the truck company had known for a long time that they were producing trucks with faulty breaks, the truck would normally have had time to stop, several other people had been splattered, and they just decided to keep producing the trucks with faulty breaks anyway and try to keep it as quiet as possible, I'd say your survivors would have an excellent case against the truck company.
I have a sneaky feeling she was undoing the lid while it was sitting in her lap, since she'd need both hands to open the cream and sugar packets. If THAT were the case, then maybe the argument could've been about the impracticality of the cream and sugar packets.
Clearly, basing all lawsuits on your 'feelings' would make things go a lot quicker.
I never said to base lawsuits on anything, nor did I ever claim they were facts. Show me where I ever said that that was a fact, or that that should have been the basis of the lawsuit.
I just see a lot of "feeling" and "if" and "could've".... What's your definition of a fact again?
Maybe I was just making a barely-sincere sidenote? Or did you miss the part about me getting dizzy?
If all you wanted to do was play 'what if' with the laws of physics and speculate ignorantly about what might have been going on, based on some kind of psychic vibe, then I'm not sure why you're bothering contributing to the debate.
Hey guys, it's highly possible that if gravity didn't exist, she wouldn't have gotten burnt at all! And I've got a sneaky feeling she had an elephant in the car with her, so maybe the argument should have been about the impracticality of carting around large mammals!
If all you wanted to do was play 'what if' with the laws of physics and speculate ignorantly about what might have been going on, based on some kind of psychic vibe, then I'm not sure why you're bothering contributing to the debate.
Hey guys, it's highly possible that if gravity didn't exist, she wouldn't have gotten burnt at all! And I've got a sneaky feeling she had an elephant in the car with her, so maybe the argument should have been about the impracticality of carting around large mammals!
Did you miss the "barely-sincere" remark or not? Or the dizzy remark?
And it's not ignorance, I don't think, nor am I defying any laws of physics. Doc stated that something was unknown. I speculated given that there are only a few options that she could've had: dashboard, hands, or lap.
Hands or lap would've likely ended up burning her in that way, while the dashboard depends on placement; right in front of her past the steering wheel would've likely caused a spill toward the windshield, while to the side above the radio would've likely missed that particular part of her body.
I didn't think it was unreasonable to suppose that she possibly had it in her lap while she was undoing the lid, being that you do in fact need two hands to open a cream or sugar packet from McD's, and being that at least one hand is needed to hold a cup in her hand.
She could, of course, have held it in her hand and ripped the packaging open with her teeth + one hand, but I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you.
That is:
1) She put the cup in her lap, took off the lid, put the lid down, and then used both her hands (now free, you see) to add cream and sugar. At some point during the process, the coffee spills and nails her right in the region.
2) She took off the lid of the cup with one hand while the other held the cup, put the cup in her lap, put the lid down, and proceeded to use her hands (now empty because the cup is in her lap) to add cream and sugar. At some point during the process, the coffee spills and nails her right in the region.
3) She took off the lid of the cup with one hand while the other held the cup, then put the lid down, then used the hand that had been holding it (now free because the lid has been put down) to pick up either the cream or the sugar, and used her teeth to open the package, intending to add whatever's inside the package to the coffee. At some point during the process, the coffee spills and nails her right in the region, being that it is very likely she was holding it over her lap.
4) Placing the cup on the dashboard at either of the previously mentioned locations (right in front of her, which typically slants AWAY from the passenger, or to the side, over the radio) would've unlikely resulted in a burning of the region specified in the case.
Explain to me how these are unreasonable speculations.
[EDIT]'d in case some people need me to hold their hands through the entire process, because clearly logic doesn't work out as well as some might think.
Hey guys, it's highly possible that if gravity didn't exist, she wouldn't have gotten burnt at all! And I've got a sneaky feeling she had an elephant in the car with her, so maybe the argument should have been about the impracticality of carting around large mammals!
I think that's another key difference between your parody and my original post.
I didn't say "should." I said "could." And believe it or not, that makes all the difference.
Wow, it's great to see you guys debating what might have happened in this case. You know what would have been interesting? If the lady in question could get together in some sort of forum, state their case, and ask each other questions about their behavior.
Then maybe instead of having some random guys on the internet share their thoughts, you could have a group of 12 unbiased individuals sit in on it, and ponder the matter amongst themselves.
Oh wait, they did that already. McDonalds lost. Get over it. If you have strong, compelling evidence to call the verdict into question, then have at it. But if all you have is "Well, what if blah blah blah," chances are, they already had a chance to go over that.
Judging by the temperature of other fast food places, 15-20 degrees lower on average, at least.
So just to finish this up, your claim is that, were you in charge of McD's, you could order that coffee be served at 165F, and in doing so, absolutely guarantee that there would never ever be a single instance among 10 billion cups around the world of coffee served at 180F?
Well theres a difference between that and making it POLICY to serve coffee at 185° F
Jeedan on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
edited November 2006
There's really only one point that needs to be made amongst the fucking idiocy permeating this thread: it's the same thing I said the last time this topic came up. Breakfast is not an extreme sport. Can anyone justify how any occurence in the simple act of eating, the mishap of one second results in $20,000 of medical bills, and permanent, extensive scarring, and the food perparer is not responsible for it? The fact is, the warning on the cup was misleading. To be accurate, it should've read, 'Contents may cause serious injury and death,' because at the temprature it was served at, that's exactly what drinking the coffee would do.
Reasonable people, when they order something meant to be consumed by people, assume that the substance is not directly harmful to themselves. They dont think "Oh, this coffee is so hot its going to burn my mouth" they think "Oh, this coffee is hotter, and tastes better than the cooler coffee"
This portion of the debate is completely devoid of any reason whatsoever on your part. Your claim that people are paying to burn their mouths 10 billion times over, because that suits them better than the lower-temp flavor of McDonald's coffee, is one of the most absurd and ridiculous attempts at an argument I have ever read from you in this forum. I'm not the only one here who has attempted to bring this to your attention. Please, I beg you, stop it. Let's at least keep this within some reasonable boundary of rationality. Bottom line: it's what their customers prefer, and the number of people who get burned by it is 1 in 24 million. The other 23,999,999 just seem to, on average, prefer it that way. Even if, according to your completely unverifiable theory, they don't know exactly why they prefer it that way.
Its in the god damn lawsuit! Did you bother to fucking read it?
Yes, I've read several briefs on it. It isn't in the lawsuit. You made it up. What is in the lawsuit was expert testimony that, statistically, 1 in 24 million was no different than 0.
It was not a matter of comparing costs of settlement vs. profits of coffee. If that was their policy, they would have settled. The very existence of this lawsuit itself disproves your theory. They never would have taken it to court with such a policy, because not only does it contradict the policy itself, but it also exposes the policy to a judge, who would not like it.
There's a difference between being the omnipotent benevolent deity and having a corporate policy that minimizes risk.
Agreed. So, would you say that a number that is statistically equivalent to zero is "minimized?" Or, rather, did we not already state earlier that minimizing is unacceptable, and that zero-tolerance is the burden?
Its pretty simple really, the corporation could not be liable for any coffee that was at 180f, because it would have to be the result of individual action or machine malfunction.
Wait - what happened to zero tolerance? Are you saying that even by changing their policy, people could still get burned? Anyone care to do a statistical analysis on how many? Oh wait - an expert already did. And his testimony was that it wasn't predictable, because it was statistically zero to begin with. You could implement a 160F policy and possibly see an increase in burns, for all we know. Because the burns that did occur were already so freaking rare that you were more likely to win the jackpot lottery. They were statistical anomalies. Freak occurrences. They aren't managable through global policy.
It was part of the testimony in the trial. The absorbent pants she was wearing are what allowed a large enough quantity to be held against her skin for a long enough time.
There's really only one point that needs to be made amongst the fucking idiocy permeating this thread: it's the same thing I said the last time this topic came up. Breakfast is not an extreme sport. Can anyone justify how any occurence in the simple act of eating, the mishap of one second results in $20,000 of medical bills, and permanent, extensive scarring, and the food perparer is not responsible for it? The fact is, the warning on the cup was misleading. To be accurate, it should've read, 'Contents may cause serious injury and death,' because at the temprature it was served at, that's exactly what drinking the coffee would do.
Alright, let me put an equally simple point to you: McDonald's put a spill-proof lid on the coffee before serving it to her. That lid was specifically designed to make it damn near impossible to spill the coffee, at least in any dangerous amount. She removed the lid. To me, case closed.
Posts
No - it's definitely in the US too: The 'calculus of negligence' from United States v Carrol Towing - When assessing the standard of care, the courts may take into account the nature of practicable precautions the defendant could/ought to have taken to avoid the breach. Because McD has more resources than an ordinary citizen, the court can hold that they have a higher standard of care because it's easier for them to avoid a breach.
The law doesnt make the distinction.
What you are discussing is the ability of wealthy individuals to vet their actions and yes there is a difference in the law in that you can be expected to take provisions that you ought to have, but it doesnt having anything to do with erring on the side of consumers without being unreasonable to the company.
The law doesnt err on the side of being unfair to anyone, it isnt unfair to expect that MCD should, having researched coffee temperatures, know not to serve it that hot. It might be unfair to expect Joe schmoe convience and gas to have the same level of care[because they cant and havent done any research], but that has nothing to do with erring on the side of the consumer, it has to due with the legal definition of negligence.
When I make coffee or tea at home I boil water, this puts it at 212 F which could very well burn me, yet this is no big deal, everyone does it everyday.
I am concerned that some people are proposing that I must be coddled by corperations as soon as I leave my house. Once I set foot in McDs (not that I actually eat that stuff) I'm not and adult anymore and McDs has to look after me like I'm a little kid who hasn't learned that hot things might burn you and care should be taken in their handling.
Now, were I in charge of McDs I would have liked to have paid for at least some of the medical expenses, if for no other reason than it's good customer relations. In the current climate however that would be tatamount to admitting wrongdoing and thus expose me to a bigger lawsuit so in the end I can't even say if I feel sorry for her because my lawyer tells me I'll get sued.
There's a difference between being the omnipotent benevolent deity and having a corporate policy that minimizes risk.
You dont serve the tea at that temperature though and your coffee maker doesnt make it at that temperature. You serve tea after letting it steep. It steeps off the burner. Then after the tea steeps you serve it.
Outside of machine malfunction, very easily. The coffee machines are very accurate in their temperatures and if there was a serving policy at 160f, then when a machine served something hotter it would be removed and serviced.
Its pretty simple really, the corporation could not be liable for any coffee that was at 180f, because it would have to be the result of individual action or machine malfunction.
True but I still handle the cup and pot and all, I am "responsible" for the boiling water while I wait for it to cool a bit.
My hot water dispenser maintains at 98 C, I usually use it as soon as it beeps though and then its at 100 C. I don't have a coffee maker but I have no reason to doubt you that they run cooler.
edit: honestly though my real problem is with the litigious environment that forces corperations to treat me like a child and when they do screw up they feel that they can't admit it or apologize for fear of a massive lawsuit. I honestly would not be surprised to pick up a pencil one of these days and read "warning, may cause injury if stuck in eye" on the side
Cos the latter just sounds dumb.
Or is it not admissible in court but would still bite you in the ass in some other way? Ie. it'd give the other side a good hint where to look for their arguments or something...
I believe its the former but then I am not a lawyer. As I understand it an apology is tatamount to an admission of wrongdoing.
again though, not a lawyer.
edit: I think the way it works is that anytime the big company is willing to settle for med bills and an apology any competent lawyer will push that into the millions of dollars range, thus they feel if the give an inch, miles will be taken. So...no inch
I said "justice system" intentionally to refer to the consequences of the legal system, not a literal reading of laws. But, that's a completely different issue that I really don't want to argue about.
As you say, even on a literal reading of the laws, this judgement makes perfect sense.
What part of "on average" do you not understand?
The point is that McDonalds shouldn't be making a dangerous product for the sake of covering up for a crappy product. It would be like a clothing manufacturer that makes their products with chemicals designed to make their customers go blind so that they won't notice how ugly they are.
It would have had to have been at least in that range in order to result in the burns, which meant that it would have to be at least in that range when it left the pot. Or are you telling me that McDonalds always dumps their coffee after 20 minutes before starting fresh, for the sake of quality control?
Really? Name one mass market consumer level brand scissor that is sharp enough to be that unsafe under the conditions you listed.
Many people buy electric heaters to heat up the house. 185 degrees strikes me as a bit excessive, however. It also seems to be a bit excessive compared to the other businesses that also served coffee, at much lower temperatures.
Really? You've tested this then, have you?
Obviously, all the other people who had suffered burns had been wearing sweatpants at the same time as well!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
"Let's hit the drive through at McDonald's and get some coffee."
"I really shouldn't. The pants I'm wearing could make that hazardous."
Get real.
But in all seriousness: COFFEE, OR ANY OTHER BEVERAGE OR LIQUID, SHOULD NOT SIT IN BETWEEN YOUR LEGS WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING, AN ACT THAT GENERALLY REQUIRES YOU TO MOVE YOUR LEGS.
If her car didn't have a cupholder, she shouldn't have been at a drive-through ordering hot coffee of ANY temperature.
She was not driving. Got anything else?
Was she holding the cup in her hands or between her legs while removing the lid from the cup to add cream and sugar?
Not sure. She probably did it in not the best way, given that she spilled it all over. That doesn't excuse McDonald's for serving a product much more hazardous than one might reasonably expect it to be.
Granted, I'm no expert, but I really don't think it's unreasonable to do your best to handle your drink as carefully as possible if you expect it to be hot. The degree of the burns suck and that's what bit McD's ass in this particular case (medical bills are high), but it does not excuse the fact that she could have been more careful in its handling.
Personally, I take no side on this debate, being that all it proves is people are stubborn and careless and more than a little short-circuited in the head.
Do I blame the truck's manufacturer, the driver, or me when I'm crossing the road and forgot I was in London and BAM get splattered across the highway, while it's revealed that the truck had faulty brakes?
Shitty analogy, but dammit it's the only way I can try to picture myself in such a situation, being that I probably would've asked the people at the drive-through to add my desired amount of cream and sugar for me while making my coffee. Or, you know, used the flat part of my dashboard.
I have a sneaky feeling she was undoing the lid while it was sitting in her lap, since she'd need both hands to open the cream and sugar packets. If THAT were the case, then maybe the argument could've been about the impracticality of the cream and sugar packets.
I like going in circles. It makes me dizzy.
Burn severity decreases exponentially as temperature decreases linearly.
If the truck company had known for a long time that they were producing trucks with faulty breaks, the truck would normally have had time to stop, several other people had been splattered, and they just decided to keep producing the trucks with faulty breaks anyway and try to keep it as quiet as possible, I'd say your survivors would have an excellent case against the truck company.
It's a classic case of corporate negligence.
Clearly, basing all lawsuits on your 'feelings' would make things go a lot quicker.
I just see a lot of "feeling" and "if" and "could've".... What's your definition of a fact again?
Maybe I was just making a barely-sincere sidenote? Or did you miss the part about me getting dizzy?
Hey guys, it's highly possible that if gravity didn't exist, she wouldn't have gotten burnt at all! And I've got a sneaky feeling she had an elephant in the car with her, so maybe the argument should have been about the impracticality of carting around large mammals!
And it's not ignorance, I don't think, nor am I defying any laws of physics. Doc stated that something was unknown. I speculated given that there are only a few options that she could've had: dashboard, hands, or lap.
Hands or lap would've likely ended up burning her in that way, while the dashboard depends on placement; right in front of her past the steering wheel would've likely caused a spill toward the windshield, while to the side above the radio would've likely missed that particular part of her body.
I didn't think it was unreasonable to suppose that she possibly had it in her lap while she was undoing the lid, being that you do in fact need two hands to open a cream or sugar packet from McD's, and being that at least one hand is needed to hold a cup in her hand.
She could, of course, have held it in her hand and ripped the packaging open with her teeth + one hand, but I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you.
That is:
1) She put the cup in her lap, took off the lid, put the lid down, and then used both her hands (now free, you see) to add cream and sugar. At some point during the process, the coffee spills and nails her right in the region.
2) She took off the lid of the cup with one hand while the other held the cup, put the cup in her lap, put the lid down, and proceeded to use her hands (now empty because the cup is in her lap) to add cream and sugar. At some point during the process, the coffee spills and nails her right in the region.
3) She took off the lid of the cup with one hand while the other held the cup, then put the lid down, then used the hand that had been holding it (now free because the lid has been put down) to pick up either the cream or the sugar, and used her teeth to open the package, intending to add whatever's inside the package to the coffee. At some point during the process, the coffee spills and nails her right in the region, being that it is very likely she was holding it over her lap.
4) Placing the cup on the dashboard at either of the previously mentioned locations (right in front of her, which typically slants AWAY from the passenger, or to the side, over the radio) would've unlikely resulted in a burning of the region specified in the case.
Explain to me how these are unreasonable speculations.
[EDIT]'d in case some people need me to hold their hands through the entire process, because clearly logic doesn't work out as well as some might think.
[EDIT]'d to add #4.
[EDIT]'d to fix a typo.
I didn't say "should." I said "could." And believe it or not, that makes all the difference.
Then maybe instead of having some random guys on the internet share their thoughts, you could have a group of 12 unbiased individuals sit in on it, and ponder the matter amongst themselves.
Oh wait, they did that already. McDonalds lost. Get over it. If you have strong, compelling evidence to call the verdict into question, then have at it. But if all you have is "Well, what if blah blah blah," chances are, they already had a chance to go over that.
Well theres a difference between that and making it POLICY to serve coffee at 185° F
Yes, I've read several briefs on it. It isn't in the lawsuit. You made it up. What is in the lawsuit was expert testimony that, statistically, 1 in 24 million was no different than 0.
It was not a matter of comparing costs of settlement vs. profits of coffee. If that was their policy, they would have settled. The very existence of this lawsuit itself disproves your theory. They never would have taken it to court with such a policy, because not only does it contradict the policy itself, but it also exposes the policy to a judge, who would not like it.
Agreed. So, would you say that a number that is statistically equivalent to zero is "minimized?" Or, rather, did we not already state earlier that minimizing is unacceptable, and that zero-tolerance is the burden?
Wait - what happened to zero tolerance? Are you saying that even by changing their policy, people could still get burned? Anyone care to do a statistical analysis on how many? Oh wait - an expert already did. And his testimony was that it wasn't predictable, because it was statistically zero to begin with. You could implement a 160F policy and possibly see an increase in burns, for all we know. Because the burns that did occur were already so freaking rare that you were more likely to win the jackpot lottery. They were statistical anomalies. Freak occurrences. They aren't managable through global policy.
What part of "zero tolerance" or "statistical insignificance" don't you understand?
That gets a big ol' LOL. The heating coil in a home heater is WAY hotter than 185F.
It was part of the testimony in the trial. The absorbent pants she was wearing are what allowed a large enough quantity to be held against her skin for a long enough time.
I never said that wearing sweat pants made it her fault. It does, however, lend a lot of creedence to the statistical outlier argument.
Right, and the difference was testified to be statistically unpredictable due to the insignificantly small number of actual burns.
Alright, let me put an equally simple point to you: McDonald's put a spill-proof lid on the coffee before serving it to her. That lid was specifically designed to make it damn near impossible to spill the coffee, at least in any dangerous amount. She removed the lid. To me, case closed.