hustler

iTrader: (6)

If I crank up the hot **** and put my genitals in the water, I expect my genetic legacy to experience some discomfort.

palmtree

iTrader: (4)

I see both sides.

It's a restaurant's responsibility by law to provide food that is safe. Just like there are hand washing laws so poop bacteria doesn't get in our food, the restaurant should not be serving food/beverage that is hotter than the temperatures that legally sanitize dishes (~185*).

On the other hand, it is the consumer's responsibility to handle a hot beverage correctly. Aren't there warning disclaimers on coffee cups to handle the hot beverage carefully?

In this case, I believe the fault was on both parties. That is where the gray area is. I believe Mickey D's is accountable for part, but not all of the medical expenses.


From my experience in the food industry, I believe the employees were most likely lazy and wanted to prevent people from bitching about cold coffee. Not to dock anyone's inteligence, but I doubt the minimum wage employee who brewed the coffee was thinking about profitability.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

But not to the level of requiring skin grafts.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

It came out during the case that McDonalds willingly brews the coffee at 185*F+ to get more coffee per bean. It was a corporate decision.

rharris19

iTrader: (41)

What I was trying to say with that is the rebuttal by the landlord is that the temperature is still controllable by the tenant, but the tenant wouldn't expect that even on the hottest setting, it would be able to burn him.

This made me happy as I get crap from my wife sometimes because I do this at home. I have never done this in public, so maybe I should try it at Starbucks the next time I am there to see what kind of looks I get.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Right, the woman getting the coffee and request ice the same way I did.

Ask her how she drinks it "lava hot" and get back to me. I want to know how people do this.

Man up and get this coffee press. Thank me later. I can't drink most coffees because Starbucks and about 99% of the others get the beans too hot and its gets that nasty, ashy taste. If I asked for "a little ice in my coffee so I can drink it now" and someone laughed at me, I'd burn-down the coffee shop.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

No, it's not even remotely the same thing. Guns are inherently dangerous, and if you aim one at your foot and pull the trigger, you kind of know what's about to happen. Hot coffee is inherently dangerous too, but If you spill hot coffee, you don't expect to need skin grafts afterward.

If you want a reference that works, Trey's S&W is sold to him as a BB gun. He takes it and aims it at his foot, but it turns out that he was sold a .22LR instead. He is a retard for aiming a gun at his foot, but can you honestly say with a straight face that the gun store that sold him the .22LR instead of the BB gun he thought he was getting isn't remotely liable for the additional damages caused to Trey's foot over what a BB gun would have caused?

The difference is in what was expected when the risk was taken. This is not difficult, so I really don't understand why you guys can't grasp the concept.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

FYI, I've taken a semester long course in tort and insurance law and specifically studied this case in multiple classes, so I'm not just talking out of my *** here.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

You're suggesting the woman realized that some injury was expected and placed the coffee between her knees in the moving car after acknowledging the risk. So what severity did she have in mind and is it McDonald's job to make consumers aware of the temperature of coffee and its effect on skin?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Please don't bring this right-wing fallacy into play Trey, I beg of you. It's not a case that had a out-of-left-field result like many try to play it off as.

/Back to lurking in politics.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Liberal scum!!!

Savington

iTrader: (31)

A reasonable person would expect the possibility of injury, yes.

Discomfort, perhaps some burns if she left it there for an extended period of time. Certainly not burns requiring skin grafts within 2-7 seconds of contact.

Yes, they have a duty to adequately warn customers of dangers which are not readily apparent.

SPL (strict product liability) negligence occurs when a defendant sells a product that is unreasonably dangerous beyond ordinary expectation.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

I suppose that since I pour boiling water into a coffee press every day, that does not make me a "reasonable person"? I expect the stuff in that coffee press to melt my skin. This is my final question.

How hot do you brew your coffee? 130*f? Have fun drinking coffee flavored water.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Fixed that for legal purposes, time for me to head out to go do some other stuff.

But props for using something better than a Mr. Coffee, I don't see many coffee aficionados around car forums. I'm not much of a fan of the French Press style, but it definitely provides some good coffee. However, for legal purposes, anyone who knows coffee that is slightly better than a tepid bitter drink that you have to dump milk and sugar in to fix isn't exactly the average or normal consumer for purposes of the case Hustly.

palmtree

iTrader: (4)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

that label was added after lawsuit, iirc.

Faeflora

iTrader: (2)

Brain u nevr answer my txtx

hustler

iTrader: (6)

I try to be an elitist with anything I do. Coffee, wine, cars, turbo parts, ---- leakage, fissures, cat litter, whatever.

rharris19

iTrader: (41)

It will all go back to what is a reasonable temperature range to allow the use of just that warning to properly convey the risk associated with how hot the coffee is. From what I understand they have significantly lowered the temperature of the coffee and added that label. Together, those two leave McDonalds little to no exposure to a liability from the customer harming themselves.

If they only had that label on there, but where still serving it at 190*, then that wouldn't eliminate exposure to a liability. The expectation when having coffee is that it is hot, but to properly convey that it is "skin graph needed if spilled on self" hot, you would need more than that.

nitrodann

Its a hard case,
However I truly do think that if someone risks injuring themselves intentionally, and they find that they injure themselves more than they had planned to risk, its hardly fair to blame it on somebody else.
The .22slr reference isnt true, the guy loads the bullets in, he knows its not a BB gun.
Coffee is made with boiling or near boiling water, if I choose to risk minor injury, and instead manage to get a major injury thats not someone elses fault.

Savington, If your turbo kit actually makes 240rwhp rather than your claimed 200rwhp, and somebody tries to do a skid surrounded by a crowd of pedestrians, risking possibly hitting the first 2 rows, but instead hits 3 rows of people due to extra power, is it your fault at all?

Dann