OT: Moron Sues Over Roof Jumping - Page 6

Imperious_Leader · #51 March 8th, 2005, 04:45 AM

Wow even my math is no good at 3:30am is there someone I can sue about that lol....well if you and Fyron agree I must then truely be wrong what was I thinking.....perhapes some sleep will help.

Sivran · #52 March 8th, 2005, 04:46 AM

Spilling coffee that is not at such a dangerous temperature is, as Fyron pointed out, no big deal. You stain your pants, you yell, you go on with life. So while you know that you just might spill it, you have a reasonable expectation that if you do you won't be badly burned.

It's not about whether she thought she was going to spill it, or if the thought even occured to her that she *might* spill it. It is not reasonable to expect that spilling coffee on yourself would cause burns severe enough to warrant hospitalization.

Strategia_In_Ultima · #53 March 8th, 2005, 05:31 AM

That wasn't the only time McDonalds got sued lately by some stupid.

A couple of idiots sued the Big M a while ago for.....

making them fat.

narf poit chez BOOM · #54 March 8th, 2005, 05:33 AM

And they would be perfectly in the right...If most food only made you a little fat if lot's of it were eaten.

A society is run on general expectations.

Fyron · #55 March 8th, 2005, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Imperious_Leader said:
Imperator if your quote about McDonalds lowering their coffee'stemperature is from the same article you linked tgo then I belive that it said that this was just this one McDonalds and was still not the corperate position.

True. Presumably the rest of them did something after the whole affair. Not to mention the copy-cat idiots intentionally spilling it on themselves to make a quick million...

Quote:

Forgive me but the temperature of their coffee and them giving rasor blades in their happy meals isn't even close to being the same thing there would be universal agreement that razor blades are dangerous there is not universal agreement that coffee should be 158 degrees or anyother number.

It was admittedly hyperbole. Let's replaces it with a toy car that has very sharp edges. When the kid picks it up to play with, it cuts his hands. Would McDonald's not be at fault for providing their customers with a needlessly dangerous toy? When I get a toy car, I don't expect it to cut me. When I buy coffee, I don't expect it to send me to the hospital as a result of a minor accident. Cause pain, yes. Maybe require some minor lotion or something, sure. Require hospitalization and extensive skin transplants, not to mention the horrible pain of *ahem* that area being horridly burnt and scarred, definitely not.

The exact temperature is not the issue. It can not possibly be known just how hot the coffee that the woman spilled was. If Slick's numbers are right, it could have been a bit hotter still... It is the fact that at 180 to 190 degrees (or hotter), the coffee was extremely dangerous. At around 160, it is still quite hot, but won't send you to the hospital over a spill.

Quote:

As for a reasonable expectation of first degree burns or scalding as aposed to third degree burns ....

Yes, spilling coffee on yourself is stupid. Spilling hot coffee on yourself is quite stupid. However, it is not unreasonable to expect to not need to be hospitalized as a result. With coffee as hot as it was, there was nothing at all she could do. The damage was done extremely rapidly. If McDonald's had acted sooner to remedy the dangerous product, which they knew full well to be dangerous, there would not have been a law suit (from this lady, at any rate). But they did not. They were negligent.

Quote:

If she could prove that she had never had their coffee before I might be slightly swayed but what kind of warning do you need before you open it right against your crotch it already says on it caution hot or something to that effect WARNING DO NOT OPEN AGAINST YOUR CROTCH

For the record, between the knees is a far cry from against your crotch... Again, it is probably not the smartest thing she could have done, but this is not what the lawsuit was about. It was about a needlessly dangerous product that the company knew to be dangerous but did nothing about.

Quote:

well if you and Fyron agree I must then truely be wrong what was I thinking.....perhapes some sleep will help.

That was just a silly joke. Pay it no heed.

Quote:

Sivran said:
The difference between 212 and 180 is also 32

I do believe that 180 - 158 = 22, not 32. So the differences are quite different.

Quote:

wow your all really good debaters I know when I'm licked...

Practice makes perfect.

Mephisto · #56 March 8th, 2005, 07:16 AM

Boys,
Atrocities brought the McD coffee case up already on January 2004. Growltigga had some very nice posts about the topic in this thread that sumarize it quite nicley:

Link

Long story short: As an European laywer my point of view is that you can only be sued if you are guilty of neglect. The amout payable can only be as high as the damage (no punitive damage, this is civil law, not criminal law) and of course every one has to stand in for his own neglect. So in the end if you spill anything, may it be hot or not, it is your own fault and no one else. You know that coffee is hot and that you are not supposed to spill it no matter how hot it is. You can't possibly argue that the women would be any more dilligent if you knew that the coffee was 180 instead of 165 degrees. She still knows that both are hot and that she shouldn't spill it. Just because it is more hot then you think doesn't change a thing about the fact that you spilled it, not McD.
Why should McD be required to tell you how hot your coffee is exactly (even if they could tell you the temerature when they serve it which the don't...)? Just don't spill hot stuff!

narf poit chez BOOM · #57 March 8th, 2005, 07:27 AM

If the issue is polarized, it comes down to 'Seller beware' or 'Buyer beware'. Modern capitalism is run on 'Seller beware', because otherwise you can be sold a pig in a poke.

Or so my elementary social studies course said, in one of those grades.

Mephisto · #58 March 8th, 2005, 07:37 AM

I would argue that, Narf. It is of course to some point a seller/buyer beware. But just how silly do you have to take your customers for? Common sence should be the border. Hot is hot, sharp is sharp and a dog or cat doesn't belong in the microwave. Even if the seller didn't told you that's just common knowledge. If someone fails to see this he shouldn't get money from the seller.

Mephisto · #59 March 8th, 2005, 07:46 AM

Imperator, the only influence the temperature has is the amount of time to make a first degree burn (sunlight burn) to a second degree (red skin) to a third degree (black skin/negrosis of tissue). The difference are mere seconds. The coffee served before and past the accident will both burn you.

Aiken · #60 March 8th, 2005, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Mephisto said:
Long story short: As an European laywer my point of view is that you can only be sued if you are guilty of neglect.

Exactly. Our (russian) law has a good principle, mentioned in the regulative Protection of Consumers Law - "consumer knows or should know ...". This exclude any chances for moronic american "kill yourself and let your widow sue someone" suits.