Braineack

iTrader: (62)

dude yeah they do.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Oh forget it.

I'm going to go cut all of my brake brackets in half to reduce the amount of aluminum used. I don't give a ---- that it will make them all less safe, because I am a company and I deserve maximum profitability regardless of the potential harm to human life.

has never been more accurate.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

What are you going to do when Boost Jews buys your turbo kit, goes faster than he expected on his first track day, crashes the car, then sues you for it because it made the car faster than he expected while steering with his knees? I suspect the car will be more than 40% more powerful than initially designed.

I get it, the coffee was too hot; she still introduced the vulnerability by holding it with her knees. If I take my gun and shoot it with my toes, Smith & Wesson are not liable for me mishandling my gun.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

The coffee was not a trap, nor a design failure. The coffee cup was designed to be held by hands while stationary.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Because it's the same thing.

I bet you think Ford Pinto drivers were completely responsible for their actions too, right? I mean, they were the ones driving the cars - it certainly wasn't Ford's fault for making a car that wasn't up to industry standards.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

TreyCool, you would like the book The Appeal by John Grisham

Savington

iTrader: (31)

She bought it at a drive-through, you ignorant moron.

rharris19

iTrader: (41)

I really like that last line. They shouldn't be doing something, but shouldn't be responsible for doing it as well.

If served at a reasonable temperature, the injury wouldn't have been as extensive as it was. Mcdonalds wouldn't have been liable because a reasonable person would expect a certain degree of injury from a 135* cup of coffee. Now add in the fact that it is a 190* cup of coffee and the physical damage is X% more than expected by a reasonable person. This is where the liability comes in. If it was 135*, then it would all fall on her, but the temperature served was grossly negligent.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Fucktard, she was riding in the car with the lid off, held by her knees. Who is the bigger moron?

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Reading sucks, I prefer interspecies pornography.

I'll check it out.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

What is more negligent, 500*f coffee, or riding around in the car with hot *** coffee between your knees with no lid? 80/20 was definitely unreasonable.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

I dont' know enough about it. However, consumers have a responsibility to educate themselves before purchasing.

elesjuan

iTrader: (11)

I cannot fathom how YOU think that taking the lid off a coffee cup full of hot coffee and placing it between your legs while in a ------- moving car was EVER a good idea????????????????????

Trey's S&W reference was the same god damn thing. You buy an item from a company and the responsibility of use is on you. If YOUR company sold me a turbo kit, I installed it then immediately blew my motor up because the turbo was capable of cramming more air into my motor than it could physically handle, does that make YOU liable for the damages??? NO! IT'S THE SAME GOD DAMN THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, McDonalds is guilty. They're guilty of existing to make a profit, because I guess that's just wrong now. Do you give all the money your company makes away to people who don't deserve it?

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Dude, he lives in California...he gives all the money he makes away to taxes.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,616503,00.html
This dude cranked up the hot water and burned his genitals in the shower. The shower can make water really hot, the dude tested the water temp with his genitals (possibly the most brilliant idea I've heard in my life), and by California standards the landlord should have been responsible because he adjusted the water heater to an unsafe range.

rharris19

iTrader: (41)

There in lies the difference with how you and I see it. If served at a reasonable temp, then it would all fall on here because what she did was not intelligent. Putting the coffee between your legs and taking off the lid is right up there with letting me out on the track at night. It's pretty dumb.

The reasonable expectation for coffee is to get it at around 135*, which would not cause the need to skin graphs if spilled. The party that brought the possibility of the injury into the case was negligent in making sure both parties knew the severity of possible consequences due to the vast difference in perceived and actual risks.

It's like giving the snake handler a corral snake from the bin after he has been handling rat snakes all day and that is what he thinks he is working with. You take a different approach to things when you know the risks are higher if something does go wrong.

rharris19

iTrader: (41)

To an extent deemed reasonable. Asking what temp the coffee is served at before you get it would not fall into the range of reasonable and expected due diligence.

I would need to review the specifics of the case more, but he turned it up and burned himself. She did not going into mcdonalds and ask for the coffee to be 40-50* hotter, just in the same as the land lord would be responsible if he turned it up without telling the tenant. The tenant can adjust the temp based on the cold/hot handles, but the reasonable expectation is not to be able to get burned in the shower.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

It's not the same thing, dude. A reasonable person will expect scalding hot water from the tap if they crank up the heat all the way. A reasonable person DOES NOT expect the coffee they are served to cause 3rd degree burns in under 10 seconds if they spill it on themselves.

The difference is what a reasonable person expects.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

I ask for a little ice in my coffee so I can drink it, when dining out. I'm not joking, ask Johnfag.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

A reasonable person expects fresh, hot coffee to burn the ---- out of them.