The Truth about the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit

[HannibalX]

[/quote]

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

[/quote]
If they drank it and burned themselves, once again, it's hot coffee. That will happen.
If the cup fell apart and it burned them, cups are going to fail. It happens. Once again, a lawsuit would be frivolous.
If the coffee melted the cups time and time again and hurt people and McDonald's did nothing to rectify the faulty cups, that's negligence.
Sort of like cigarette people selling cigarettes and hiding the fact that cigarettes kill.
Had they said "Look folks, these are gonna kill you if you smoke them" the lawsuit would have been frivolous.


[/quote]

It's not like cigarettes at all. There is no expectation that coffee is going to kill you or give you 3rd degree burns. What planet are you from?

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Actually a jury decided the case, not a Judge or a lawyer; IE people like us right now...

You mean sheeple such as yourself.

There have been many such lawsuits found in favor of the defendant, this was only the start of it all. I can tell you honestly believe what you say, which is the sad part.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Actually a jury decided the case, not a Judge or a lawyer; IE people like us right now...

You mean sheeple such as yourself.

There have been many such lawsuits found in favor of the defendant, this was only the start of it all. I can tell you honestly believe what you say, which is the sad part.

Yes, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a sheep... right.

And if it were up to you we would be giving 100% of our income to the gubberment correct?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

[/quote]
If they drank it and burned themselves, once again, it's hot coffee. That will happen.
If the cup fell apart and it burned them, cups are going to fail. It happens. Once again, a lawsuit would be frivolous.
If the coffee melted the cups time and time again and hurt people and McDonald's did nothing to rectify the faulty cups, that's negligence.
Sort of like cigarette people selling cigarettes and hiding the fact that cigarettes kill.
Had they said "Look folks, these are gonna kill you if you smoke them" the lawsuit would have been frivolous.


[/quote]

It's not like cigarettes at all. There is no expectation that coffee is going to kill you or give you 3rd degree burns. What planet are you from?
[/quote]

Yes but there is an expectation that you shouldn't spill hot coffee on yourself, or that you should probably let hot coffee, french fries, pizza, etc.. cool off before you put them in your mouth.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Actually a jury decided the case, not a Judge or a lawyer; IE people like us right now...

You mean sheeple such as yourself.

There have been many such lawsuits found in favor of the defendant, this was only the start of it all. I can tell you honestly believe what you say, which is the sad part.

There are certainly frivolous lawsuits - this just isnt one of them.

 

[BlancoNino]

It seems like McDonald's could have been liable for what happened, but I don't understand how a burn could leave somebody out 160,000 dollars....or 2.7 million for that matter.

Of course coffee can't burn anyone without user error. Coffee is hot...right? Do we need warnings that say don't spill this on yourself or you will get 3rd degree burns? What if people can't read? Do we need picture? What if they are blind and deaf...brail writing on the cups? Of course not...we draw a line at common sense...and honestly I think that it's pretty common sense that "coffee is hot".

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims of people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

That says it all right there folks. McDonalds knew about the problem well in advance and didn't try to fix it. They are at fault, even if she spilled the drink.

It's not a problem. People slip and fall on cement.. Should all cement be turned into mattresses? People crash cars.. should all mobility be removed from cars so people cannot crash them?

You are dumb.

The spilled drink is not the issue dumbass.

Yes it is, if the coffee stayed in the cup how the hell would it burn you?

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

When you drink coffee, do you let it cool off a little or do you just start chugging right when its done brewing?

The expectation of the customer is that the drink is ready for consumption when it is served.

This all had been argued in court already - and you lost. Feel free to keep going if you want.

Actually, the McDonald's case is the ONLY self inflicted hot coffee injury case that has won. Every case before and after has failed. Why? Because the McDonald's case was inadequately defended by their inept insurance company's defense team who failed to take the case seriously.

There was a rash of these kinds of lawsuits after the McDonald's case. All lost.

The ambulance chaser spam the OP has graciously spammed even further for them is a pathetic attempt by them to justify what is the most famously successful case of their absurdity. What they fail to tell you is they now lose every similar case they try. Why? because that little piece of spam is bullsh!t.

A clue: Go to every gourmet coffee website you can find and see what their ideal brewing and serving temps are.

Whoops!

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: maziwanka
I gotta run, but this is definitely a good read.

I learned about this in my first year civil procedure class.

don't be so quick to jump to conclusions about "frivolous" lawsuits. the marketing power of the parties sued is amazing.

+ronnie

http://www.siegfriedandjensen.com/cases.html

This has been spammed all over and shredded to death. What you are helping to spam is ambulance chaser propaganda.

The ONLY truth about the McDonald's coffee case it that the insurance company didn't take it seriously, and did not present an adequate defense. In short, it was handed to the ambulance chasers by McDonald's insurance company and their incompetence. McDonald's has learned from their mistake and will no longer allow it's insurance company to represent it in lawsuits.

You have to be kidding.

You may think that's how it should have been, but knowing your product is dangerous, and that failure is likely (obviously coffee is going to get spilled) in such a manner as to make that danger meaningful, and failing to do something about it is negligent.

That's what negligence is. If it were intentional, that would be called assault, not negligence.

Now, maybe you don't believe in the concept of negligence, but you've got no leg to stand on in terms of the laws of your country.

This coming from a Canadian, gee didn't see that coming. This is why every product in America now has to say "do not consume" its frickin DRANO I knew I shouldn't consume it. Where do you draw the line? Putting something on a sharpie permanent marker "Do not shove up your ass with the cap still on." I mean where does stupidity end?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: fire400

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: tagej
Pale Rider, they knew about the 'hazard'... duuuuuuh. Ya think spilling hot coffee on yourself could cause burns??

140 degree coffee isn't causing third degree burns.

depends on the condition of skin. if skin is already burned to a degree, burning it some more will cause a 3rd degree burn. for infants or senior folks, yeah, 3rd degree burns are likely to occur.

of course the solution is to try your best to not spill coffee at all.

"who the hell drinks coffee anyway?" -shi_ is gross anyway.

good luck boys and girls. law suits are no fun. some take years to resolve. GL HF DD

Let me put it more clearly and completely:

140 degree coffee largelly mitigates the risk of third degree burns, while providing customers with the product they expected to receive (i.e. 'hot' coffee).

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Actually a jury decided the case, not a Judge or a lawyer; IE people like us right now...

You mean sheeple such as yourself.

There have been many such lawsuits found in favor of the defendant, this was only the start of it all. I can tell you honestly believe what you say, which is the sad part.

There are certainly frivolous lawsuits - this just isnt one of them.

Exactly.

Do we need tort reform? Hell yes we do. But this just wasn't a frivilous case.

NO WHERE DO YOU SEE ME SAY I THINK THE PERSON WAS ENTITLED TO 2.7 MILLION DOLLARS

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: maziwanka
I gotta run, but this is definitely a good read.

I learned about this in my first year civil procedure class.

don't be so quick to jump to conclusions about "frivolous" lawsuits. the marketing power of the parties sued is amazing.

+ronnie

http://www.siegfriedandjensen.com/cases.html

This has been spammed all over and shredded to death. What you are helping to spam is ambulance chaser propaganda.

The ONLY truth about the McDonald's coffee case it that the insurance company didn't take it seriously, and did not present an adequate defense. In short, it was handed to the ambulance chasers by McDonald's insurance company and their incompetence. McDonald's has learned from their mistake and will no longer allow it's insurance company to represent it in lawsuits.

You have to be kidding.

You may think that's how it should have been, but knowing your product is dangerous, and that failure is likely (obviously coffee is going to get spilled) in such a manner as to make that danger meaningful, and failing to do something about it is negligent.

That's what negligence is. If it were intentional, that would be called assault, not negligence.

Now, maybe you don't believe in the concept of negligence, but you've got no leg to stand on in terms of the laws of your country.

This coming from a Canadian, gee didn't see that coming. This is why every product in America now has to say "do not consume" its frickin DRANO I knew I shouldn't consume it. Where do you draw the line? Putting something on a sharpie permanent marker "Do not shove up your ass with the cap still on." I mean where does stupidity end?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

[/quote]
If they drank it and burned themselves, once again, it's hot coffee. That will happen.
If the cup fell apart and it burned them, cups are going to fail. It happens. Once again, a lawsuit would be frivolous.
If the coffee melted the cups time and time again and hurt people and McDonald's did nothing to rectify the faulty cups, that's negligence.
Sort of like cigarette people selling cigarettes and hiding the fact that cigarettes kill.
Had they said "Look folks, these are gonna kill you if you smoke them" the lawsuit would have been frivolous.


[/quote]

It's not like cigarettes at all. There is no expectation that coffee is going to kill you or give you 3rd degree burns. What planet are you from?
[/quote]

We'll try it one more time:
Coffee is HOT.
It's always served HOT.
If you spill something from a cup, it may get on you.
HOT things spilling on you will BURN you.
Humans do not enjoy BURNS.

Regardless of the "degree of BURNS" that the HOT coffee spilling from the cup causes you, McD's isn't responsible for your stupidity or accident.

Specifically in this case, she was "holding it between her knees". Do you believe that holding a styrofoam cup of HOT liquid that may BURN you between your knees if the smartest and/or best course of action?

 

[SlowSpyder]

I am amazed at the amount of people who actually think McDonalds is somehow responsible for this.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

If they drank it and burned themselves, once again, it's hot coffee. That will happen.
If the cup fell apart and it burned them, cups are going to fail. It happens. Once again, a lawsuit would be frivolous.
If the coffee melted the cups time and time again and hurt people and McDonald's did nothing to rectify the faulty cups, that's negligence.
Sort of like cigarette people selling cigarettes and hiding the fact that cigarettes kill.
Had they said "Look folks, these are gonna kill you if you smoke them" the lawsuit would have been frivolous.


[/quote]

It's not like cigarettes at all. There is no expectation that coffee is going to kill you or give you 3rd degree burns. What planet are you from?
[/quote]

We'll try it one more time:
Coffee is HOT.
It's always served HOT.
If you spill something from a cup, it may get on you.
HOT things spilling on you will BURN you.
Humans do not enjoy BURNS.

Regardless of the "degree of BURNS" that the HOT coffee spilling from the cup causes you, McD's isn't responsible for your stupidity or accident.

Specifically in this case, she was "holding it between her knees". Do you believe that holding a styrofoam cup of HOT liquid that may BURN you between your knees if the smartest and/or best course of action?[/quote]

Your argument is moot. The court found her responsible for the spill. Again the spill isn't the issue.

McDonalds had 700 documented cases of burns, many 3rd degree burns and didn not fix their problem. They were at fault, case closed - this was decided long ago.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: maziwanka
I gotta run, but this is definitely a good read.

I learned about this in my first year civil procedure class.

don't be so quick to jump to conclusions about "frivolous" lawsuits. the marketing power of the parties sued is amazing.

+ronnie

http://www.siegfriedandjensen.com/cases.html

This has been spammed all over and shredded to death. What you are helping to spam is ambulance chaser propaganda.

The ONLY truth about the McDonald's coffee case it that the insurance company didn't take it seriously, and did not present an adequate defense. In short, it was handed to the ambulance chasers by McDonald's insurance company and their incompetence. McDonald's has learned from their mistake and will no longer allow it's insurance company to represent it in lawsuits.

You have to be kidding.

You may think that's how it should have been, but knowing your product is dangerous, and that failure is likely (obviously coffee is going to get spilled) in such a manner as to make that danger meaningful, and failing to do something about it is negligent.

That's what negligence is. If it were intentional, that would be called assault, not negligence.

Now, maybe you don't believe in the concept of negligence, but you've got no leg to stand on in terms of the laws of your country.

Actually, no.

There have been DOZENS of similar lawsuits involving self inflicted coffee burns since the McDonald's case. All have lost. Find me another successful lawsuit involving a self inflicted coffee injury that has been successful.

You cannot. If there was, that lawyer propaganda spam would list them.

Sorry, but read my second post. You're just wrong. Look to ANY gourmet coffee site to see that the ideal brewing and serving temp is exactly what McDonald's was serving it at.

And McDonald's coffee is not better because they lowered the temp. It is better now because they are using premium beans and charging a premium for them.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

If they drank it and burned themselves, once again, it's hot coffee. That will happen.
If the cup fell apart and it burned them, cups are going to fail. It happens. Once again, a lawsuit would be frivolous.
If the coffee melted the cups time and time again and hurt people and McDonald's did nothing to rectify the faulty cups, that's negligence.
Sort of like cigarette people selling cigarettes and hiding the fact that cigarettes kill.
Had they said "Look folks, these are gonna kill you if you smoke them" the lawsuit would have been frivolous.


[/quote]

It's not like cigarettes at all. There is no expectation that coffee is going to kill you or give you 3rd degree burns. What planet are you from?
[/quote]

Yes but there is an expectation that you shouldn't spill hot coffee on yourself, or that you should probably let hot coffee, french fries, pizza, etc.. cool off before you put them in your mouth.[/quote]

Food and liquid are quite different. Liquid flows, spreads and absorbs.

Anyways, you went to dunkin donuts back then, and your coffee wass served at a reasonable temperature, in a much sturdier, spillproof cup, and its already milked + sugared.

You went to mcdonalds, and you get served corrosive liquid in a pliable liquid cup, that you have to add your own sugar and milk to, so you're forced to open it before you can even drink it. In a drive through.

I just dont understand how anyone thinks that mcdonalds isnt responsible for the degree of the damage that was caused. You'd fare better from a moderately concentrated hydrochloric acid spill on your lap than 180F coffee.

 

[AMDZen]

Pale Rider defends that women like it was his own mother. I can only assume he burned himself back around that time when McDonald's coffee was "too hot." Frankly, too hot is different for everyone. I have to let coffee cool no matter where I buy it from because I dont like it really hot. I see people at my work get the coffee and throw it in the microwave for 30 seconds because the scorching hot wasn't hot enough. Crazy.

Here is another point, given the defendants age and the timeline that McDonalds served this coffee that was "TOO hot" do you honestly believe that this was the defendants first time getting McDonalds coffee? If this was something that had been going on for such and such time period, don't you think the women should have been aware that the coffee was hot at McDonalds? And if not, if previous trips rendered the coffee not "too hot" then is it really McDonalds fault as a company or was it perhaps a simple employee mistake? People make mistakes you know, this women proved that by spilling it on herself, its a shame when the world we live in preaches that you should sue anyone at anytime for making one.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: maziwanka
I gotta run, but this is definitely a good read.

I learned about this in my first year civil procedure class.

don't be so quick to jump to conclusions about "frivolous" lawsuits. the marketing power of the parties sued is amazing.

+ronnie

http://www.siegfriedandjensen.com/cases.html

This has been spammed all over and shredded to death. What you are helping to spam is ambulance chaser propaganda.

The ONLY truth about the McDonald's coffee case it that the insurance company didn't take it seriously, and did not present an adequate defense. In short, it was handed to the ambulance chasers by McDonald's insurance company and their incompetence. McDonald's has learned from their mistake and will no longer allow it's insurance company to represent it in lawsuits.

You have to be kidding.

You may think that's how it should have been, but knowing your product is dangerous, and that failure is likely (obviously coffee is going to get spilled) in such a manner as to make that danger meaningful, and failing to do something about it is negligent.

That's what negligence is. If it were intentional, that would be called assault, not negligence.

Now, maybe you don't believe in the concept of negligence, but you've got no leg to stand on in terms of the laws of your country.

Actually, no.

There have been DOZENS of similar lawsuits involving self inflicted coffee burns since the McDonald's case. All have lost. Find me another successful lawsuit involving a self inflicted coffee injury that has been successful.

You cannot. If there was, that lawyer propaganda spam would list them.

Sorry, but read my second post. You're just wrong. Look to ANY gourmet coffee site to see that the ideal brewing and serving temp is exactly what McDonald's was serving it at.

And McDonald's coffee is not better because they lowered the temp. It is better now because they are using premium beans and charging a premium for them.

I'm sure it's great for taste. Going raw dog feels better too. That doesnt mean you should go raw with a 2 cent whore, which is certainly the culinary equivalent of mcdonalds.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I am amazed at the amount of people who actually think McDonalds is somehow responsible for this.

You and me both, back when this case was originally filed and won I couldn't believe it. I was flabbergasted. ANd everyone I ever spoke to around that time were all in agreement that the women got lucky. Frankly, its disgusting.

 

[ggnl]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

We'll try it one more time:
Coffee is HOT.
It's always served HOT.
If you spill something from a cup, it may get on you.
HOT things spilling on you will BURN you.
Humans do not enjoy BURNS.

Regardless of the "degree of BURNS" that the HOT coffee spilling from the cup causes you, McD's isn't responsible for your stupidity or accident.

Specifically in this case, she was "holding it between her knees". Do you believe that holding a styrofoam cup of HOT liquid that may BURN you between your knees if the smartest and/or best course of action?

But, it's completely unreasonable for to assume that none of the millions of people that buy their coffee will ever spill it on themselves. It's BOUND to happen some time, and when it does it's going to cause serious injuries because of the high temps involved. In my mind, its essentially an admission on McD's part that they know people will occasionally be severely burned by their product but they won't make any efforts to mitigate the risk because it hurts their bottom line. If that isn't negligence I don't know what is.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

If they drank it and burned themselves, once again, it's hot coffee. That will happen.
If the cup fell apart and it burned them, cups are going to fail. It happens. Once again, a lawsuit would be frivolous.
If the coffee melted the cups time and time again and hurt people and McDonald's did nothing to rectify the faulty cups, that's negligence.
Sort of like cigarette people selling cigarettes and hiding the fact that cigarettes kill.
Had they said "Look folks, these are gonna kill you if you smoke them" the lawsuit would have been frivolous.

It's not like cigarettes at all. There is no expectation that coffee is going to kill you or give you 3rd degree burns. What planet are you from?
[/quote]

We'll try it one more time:
Coffee is HOT.
It's always served HOT.
If you spill something from a cup, it may get on you.
HOT things spilling on you will BURN you.
Humans do not enjoy BURNS.

Regardless of the "degree of BURNS" that the HOT coffee spilling from the cup causes you, McD's isn't responsible for your stupidity or accident.

Specifically in this case, she was "holding it between her knees". Do you believe that holding a styrofoam cup of HOT liquid that may BURN you between your knees if the smartest and/or best course of action?[/quote]

Your argument is moot. The court found her responsible for the spill. Again the spill isn't the issue.

McDonalds had 700 documented cases of burns, many 3rd degree burns and didn not fix their problem. They were at fault, case closed - this was decided long ago.

[/quote]

The spill is the issue. Without spilling, there is no issue. If you don't handle HOT liquids with some sort of intelligence and respect, it's your own fault completely. If the coffee is too HOT for you, then let it cool down. If you don't like waiting for your HOT coffee to cool down, buy coffee somewhere else. It's not like coffee is an absolute must have item. You know it's HOT. If you've bought it from McD's before, you know it's very HOT. You either let it cool down or you buy somewhere else.

Is it a gun maker's responsibility if you accidentally pull the trigger and kill someone? Even if it's a very light trigger? Lighter than the industry standard? Absolutely not. You have to handle things that could potentially be dangerous with intelligence and respect.

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I am amazed at the amount of people who actually think McDonalds is somehow responsible for this.

Makes my head hurt.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: maziwanka
I gotta run, but this is definitely a good read.

I learned about this in my first year civil procedure class.

don't be so quick to jump to conclusions about "frivolous" lawsuits. the marketing power of the parties sued is amazing.

+ronnie

http://www.siegfriedandjensen.com/cases.html

This has been spammed all over and shredded to death. What you are helping to spam is ambulance chaser propaganda.

The ONLY truth about the McDonald's coffee case it that the insurance company didn't take it seriously, and did not present an adequate defense. In short, it was handed to the ambulance chasers by McDonald's insurance company and their incompetence. McDonald's has learned from their mistake and will no longer allow it's insurance company to represent it in lawsuits.

You have to be kidding.

You may think that's how it should have been, but knowing your product is dangerous, and that failure is likely (obviously coffee is going to get spilled) in such a manner as to make that danger meaningful, and failing to do something about it is negligent.

That's what negligence is. If it were intentional, that would be called assault, not negligence.

Now, maybe you don't believe in the concept of negligence, but you've got no leg to stand on in terms of the laws of your country.

This coming from a Canadian, gee didn't see that coming. This is why every product in America now has to say "do not consume" its frickin DRANO I knew I shouldn't consume it. Where do you draw the line? Putting something on a sharpie permanent marker "Do not shove up your ass with the cap still on." I mean where does stupidity end?

You're right, it is part of why those labels are there - essentially companies covering their asses against things that really would be frivolous.

As for other hot coffee cases losing, if they were all serving coffee at the industry standard temperature, with no history of legitimate complaints, etc, then the lawsuits should fail.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

If they drank it and burned themselves, once again, it's hot coffee. That will happen.
If the cup fell apart and it burned them, cups are going to fail. It happens. Once again, a lawsuit would be frivolous.
If the coffee melted the cups time and time again and hurt people and McDonald's did nothing to rectify the faulty cups, that's negligence.
Sort of like cigarette people selling cigarettes and hiding the fact that cigarettes kill.
Had they said "Look folks, these are gonna kill you if you smoke them" the lawsuit would have been frivolous.

It's not like cigarettes at all. There is no expectation that coffee is going to kill you or give you 3rd degree burns. What planet are you from?

We'll try it one more time:
Coffee is HOT.
It's always served HOT.
If you spill something from a cup, it may get on you.
HOT things spilling on you will BURN you.
Humans do not enjoy BURNS.

Regardless of the "degree of BURNS" that the HOT coffee spilling from the cup causes you, McD's isn't responsible for your stupidity or accident.

Specifically in this case, she was "holding it between her knees". Do you believe that holding a styrofoam cup of HOT liquid that may BURN you between your knees if the smartest and/or best course of action?[/quote]

Your argument is moot. The court found her responsible for the spill. Again the spill isn't the issue.

McDonalds had 700 documented cases of burns, many 3rd degree burns and didn not fix their problem. They were at fault, case closed - this was decided long ago.

[/quote]

The spill is the issue. Without spilling, there is no issue. If you don't handle HOT liquids with some sort of intelligence and respect, it's your own fault completely. If the coffee is too HOT for you, then let it cool down. If you don't like waiting for your HOT coffee to cool down, buy coffee somewhere else. It's not like coffee is an absolute must have item. You know it's HOT. If you've bought it from McD's before, you know it's very HOT. You either let it cool down or you buy somewhere else.

Is it a gun maker's responsibility if you accidentally pull the trigger and kill someone? Even if it's a very light trigger? Lighter than the industry standard? Absolutely not.[/quote]

The temp was the issue, not the spill. People were burned without spilling the drink. The court decided that your point of view was incorrect. Good day.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

If they drank it and burned themselves, once again, it's hot coffee. That will happen.
If the cup fell apart and it burned them, cups are going to fail. It happens. Once again, a lawsuit would be frivolous.
If the coffee melted the cups time and time again and hurt people and McDonald's did nothing to rectify the faulty cups, that's negligence.
Sort of like cigarette people selling cigarettes and hiding the fact that cigarettes kill.
Had they said "Look folks, these are gonna kill you if you smoke them" the lawsuit would have been frivolous.

It's not like cigarettes at all. There is no expectation that coffee is going to kill you or give you 3rd degree burns. What planet are you from?

We'll try it one more time:
Coffee is HOT.
It's always served HOT.
If you spill something from a cup, it may get on you.
HOT things spilling on you will BURN you.
Humans do not enjoy BURNS.

Regardless of the "degree of BURNS" that the HOT coffee spilling from the cup causes you, McD's isn't responsible for your stupidity or accident.

Specifically in this case, she was "holding it between her knees". Do you believe that holding a styrofoam cup of HOT liquid that may BURN you between your knees if the smartest and/or best course of action?[/quote]

Your argument is moot. The court found her responsible for the spill. Again the spill isn't the issue.

McDonalds had 700 documented cases of burns, many 3rd degree burns and didn not fix their problem. They were at fault, case closed - this was decided long ago.

[/quote]

The spill is the issue. Without spilling, there is no issue. If you don't handle HOT liquids with some sort of intelligence and respect, it's your own fault completely. If the coffee is too HOT for you, then let it cool down. If you don't like waiting for your HOT coffee to cool down, buy coffee somewhere else. It's not like coffee is an absolute must have item. You know it's HOT. If you've bought it from McD's before, you know it's very HOT. You either let it cool down or you buy somewhere else.

Is it a gun maker's responsibility if you accidentally pull the trigger and kill someone? Even if it's a very light trigger? Lighter than the industry standard? Absolutely not.[/quote]

I'd certainly think they shared a certain part of responsibility if they didnt tell you it comes preloaded with hollow points, and package it in a brown paper bag.