If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Upworthy)   Twenty years later, the New York Times finally unveils all the facts about the woman who won millions for spilling hot McDonald's coffee on her lap, like she wasn't driving, she was seriously hurt, 1994 was TWENTY YEARS AGO   (upworthy.com) divider line 484
    More: Followup, years ago, coffee  
•       •       •

18227 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2014 at 1:17 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



484 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-16 09:28:20 PM  
I thought that happened to Kramer.
 
2014-02-16 09:39:02 PM  
She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact
 
2014-02-16 09:42:23 PM  

cman: She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact


And she then chose to sue instead of accepting that her own actions led to her injuries.

Any ridicule coming from that is justified.
 
2014-02-16 09:43:41 PM  

cman: She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact


Stupid jury
 
2014-02-16 09:51:27 PM  
Every Upworthy link needs the Video Tag.
 
2014-02-16 09:51:34 PM  

Notabunny: cman: She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact

Stupid jury


Lawyers can be good when it comes to bullshiat
 
2014-02-16 09:55:07 PM  

cman: She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact


Go father than that. She chose to buy the coffee. She chose to leave the house. It is all her fault
 
2014-02-16 09:56:25 PM  

cman: Notabunny: cman: She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact

Stupid jury

Lawyers can be good when it comes to bullshiat


And knowingly serving a dangerous product is irrelevant?
 
2014-02-16 09:58:22 PM  

Notabunny: cman: Notabunny: cman: She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact

Stupid jury

Lawyers can be good when it comes to bullshiat

And knowingly serving a dangerous product is irrelevant?


It wasn't dangerous until people mishandled the cup
 
2014-02-16 10:03:14 PM  

cman: Notabunny: cman: Notabunny: cman: She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact

Stupid jury

Lawyers can be good when it comes to bullshiat

And knowingly serving a dangerous product is irrelevant?

It wasn't dangerous until people mishandled the cup


The cup is irrelevant. Mc Donald's knew its coffee was dangerous at the served temperature. Mc Donald's bragged about serving the industry's hottest coffee and paid off previous plaintiffs. Mc Donald's knew their product, as they served it, was injuring people, but they continued to serve a dangerous product.
 
2014-02-16 10:03:19 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: cman: She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact

Go father than that. She chose to buy the coffee. She chose to leave the house. It is all her fault


There are plenty of situations where it wouldn't have been her fault.

1. If the cup were defective and the bottom fell out, not her fault

2. If the McDonalds employee failed to properly affix the lid, leading it to spill all over her, not her fault

3. If the McDonalds employee fumbled the cup as he was handing it to her, spilling all over her, not her fault.

None of those were the case however.  She went to McDonalds, bought the same cup of coffee that millions of other people managed to not injure themselves with day in and day out, and decided to place it between her legs in a moving vehicle (well, not sure if it was moving or she was parked, but that's a minor detail) and then remove the lid.

McDonalds shouldn't have been responsible for her carelessness.
 
2014-02-16 10:05:55 PM  

Notabunny: cman: Notabunny: cman: Notabunny: cman: She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact

Stupid jury

Lawyers can be good when it comes to bullshiat

And knowingly serving a dangerous product is irrelevant?

It wasn't dangerous until people mishandled the cup

The cup is irrelevant. Mc Donald's knew its coffee was dangerous at the served temperature. Mc Donald's bragged about serving the industry's hottest coffee and paid off previous plaintiffs. Mc Donald's knew their product, as they served it, was injuring people, but they continued to serve a dangerous product.


When you spill a drink, it can get all over you. You learn this at a very young age. You also learn at a very young age that hot things burn when they make contact with the body. She should have had the common sense to not put a hot coffee between her legs.
 
2014-02-16 10:09:27 PM  

cman: Notabunny: cman: Notabunny: cman: Notabunny: cman: She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact

Stupid jury

Lawyers can be good when it comes to bullshiat

And knowingly serving a dangerous product is irrelevant?

It wasn't dangerous until people mishandled the cup

The cup is irrelevant. Mc Donald's knew its coffee was dangerous at the served temperature. Mc Donald's bragged about serving the industry's hottest coffee and paid off previous plaintiffs. Mc Donald's knew their product, as they served it, was injuring people, but they continued to serve a dangerous product.

When you spill a drink, it can get all over you. You learn this at a very young age. You also learn at a very young age that hot things burn when they make contact with the body. She should have had the common sense to not put a hot coffee between her legs.


When you continue to serve your customers a product which you know will cause 3rd degree burns, you can be sued. A global corporation learns this at a very young age. Mc Donald's should have had the common sense to serve a safe produce.
 
2014-02-16 10:17:50 PM  

Notabunny: cman: Notabunny: cman: Notabunny: cman: Notabunny: cman: She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact

Stupid jury

Lawyers can be good when it comes to bullshiat

And knowingly serving a dangerous product is irrelevant?

It wasn't dangerous until people mishandled the cup

The cup is irrelevant. Mc Donald's knew its coffee was dangerous at the served temperature. Mc Donald's bragged about serving the industry's hottest coffee and paid off previous plaintiffs. Mc Donald's knew their product, as they served it, was injuring people, but they continued to serve a dangerous product.

When you spill a drink, it can get all over you. You learn this at a very young age. You also learn at a very young age that hot things burn when they make contact with the body. She should have had the common sense to not put a hot coffee between her legs.

When you continue to serve your customers a product which you know will cause 3rd degree burns, you can be sued. A global corporation learns this at a very young age. Mc Donald's should have had the common sense to serve a safe produce.


Mocking does not befit you. I would recommend calling me names instead.

Anyways, I can appreciate your mindset, and the argument I was going to throw your way would have thrown us into an infinite loop. I will go back to saying that she knowingly bought a hot drink and you will go back to the 3rd degree burn dangerous product argument.

Since I hate GOTO 10s, I will GOTO 50 instead: even you have to admit that the award was a bit excessive.
 
2014-02-16 10:19:33 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Peter von Nostrand: cman: She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact

Go father than that. She chose to buy the coffee. She chose to leave the house. It is all her fault

There are plenty of situations where it wouldn't have been her fault.

1. If the cup were defective and the bottom fell out, not her fault

2. If the McDonalds employee failed to properly affix the lid, leading it to spill all over her, not her fault

3. If the McDonalds employee fumbled the cup as he was handing it to her, spilling all over her, not her fault.

None of those were the case however.  She went to McDonalds, bought the same cup of coffee that millions of other people managed to not injure themselves with day in and day out, and decided to place it between her legs in a moving vehicle (well, not sure if it was moving or she was parked, but that's a minor detail) and then remove the lid.

McDonalds shouldn't have been responsible for her carelessness.


They served hot coffee they knew was too hot. She asked initially for assistance with medical bills which was refused and led to the law suit. There are no winners in this but the case is not as frivolous or as simple as people want to think it is
 
2014-02-16 10:27:03 PM  

cman: Notabunny: cman: Notabunny: cman: Notabunny: cman: Notabunny: cman: She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact

Stupid jury

Lawyers can be good when it comes to bullshiat

And knowingly serving a dangerous product is irrelevant?

It wasn't dangerous until people mishandled the cup

The cup is irrelevant. Mc Donald's knew its coffee was dangerous at the served temperature. Mc Donald's bragged about serving the industry's hottest coffee and paid off previous plaintiffs. Mc Donald's knew their product, as they served it, was injuring people, but they continued to serve a dangerous product.

When you spill a drink, it can get all over you. You learn this at a very young age. You also learn at a very young age that hot things burn when they make contact with the body. She should have had the common sense to not put a hot coffee between her legs.

When you continue to serve your customers a product which you know will cause 3rd degree burns, you can be sued. A global corporation learns this at a very young age. Mc Donald's should have had the common sense to serve a safe produce.

Mocking does not befit you. I would recommend calling me names instead.

Anyways, I can appreciate your mindset, and the argument I was going to throw your way would have thrown us into an infinite loop. I will go back to saying that she knowingly bought a hot drink and you will go back to the 3rd degree burn dangerous product argument.

Since I hate GOTO 10s, I will GOTO 50 instead: even you have to admit that the award was a bit excessive.


Yeah, that was kind of jerky. Sorry. I've been kind of a jerk today. The jury awarded an 80-20 split largely because she removed the lid. When this happened, I though the award should have been higher because I didn't think it was enough to get Mc Donald's to change its policy. I was wrong. Mc Donald's did lower the temperature.
 
2014-02-16 10:30:32 PM  
Can we get a show of hands of Farkers who actually are lawyers?

The law has nothing to do with justice or logic.
 
2014-02-16 10:45:03 PM  

2wolves: Can we get a show of hands of Farkers who actually are lawyers?

The law has nothing to do with justice or logic.


I am. And this is dumb - almost every law has to do with justice and logic. They might not all live up to that ideal, but for every law, you'll find someone arguing that passing it is in the interests of justice and that it makes sense.
 
2014-02-16 10:47:26 PM  

cman: She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact


How is that the essential fact? Isn't it arguable that its a store's duty to not sell coffee which is unnecessarily and unexpectedly hot to the point that simply spilling it will give you third degree burns?
 
2014-02-16 10:49:52 PM  

cman: even you have to admit that the award was a bit excessive.


Howso?  The little NYT movie points out that it was two days revenue just for coffee at McDonalds.  It's not even two days McDonalds revenue or anything, just the coffee money.

And McDonalds was already a multibillion dollar company.  The dollar amount might be a lot for a family, but it was tiny for the company, and that was the standard against which the judgement was measured.
 
2014-02-16 10:51:13 PM  

cman: Since I hate GOTO 10s, I will GOTO 50 instead: even you have to admit that the award was a bit excessive.


The whole point of punitive damages is that its supposed to hurt. And the damages were so small compared to McD's actual revenues, it was still barely anything.
 
2014-02-16 10:57:26 PM  
This woman was careless with a cup of hot coffee.  It does not matter that she was a passenger, it doesn't matter that the coffee was hot (it's supposed to be), it doesn't matter that McDonald's serves hot coffee.  She was careless, and she didn't want to take any responsibility for it.  So she found a liberal lawyer who helped her not take responsibility for her carelessness.  She deserved nothing.
 
2014-02-16 11:08:15 PM  

Lsherm: This woman was careless with a cup of hot coffee.  It does not matter that she was a passenger, it doesn't matter that the coffee was hot (it's supposed to be), it doesn't matter that McDonald's serves hot coffee.  She was careless, and she didn't want to take any responsibility for it.  So she found a liberal lawyer who helped her not take responsibility for her carelessness.  She deserved nothing.


So if someone is careless, they deserve 100% of anything that happens to them? Its impossible, in your mind, for 2 people to both be at fault in a given situation?

Next time you make a single mistake at work, you should evicted, your family should leave you, and your hands should be chopped off. I mean, if you make a mistake, you clearly deserve it.
 
2014-02-16 11:09:40 PM  
Wow, and you get to the end of that claptrap to find out McDonald's coffee is now held at a temperature 10 degrees lower, which would still cause burns on an old woman who spilled it on her lap and let it sit there for 15 minutes.

Maybe her daughter can sue Diamond for making matches that are too hot.
 
2014-02-16 11:10:32 PM  

Lsherm: Wow, and you get to the end of that claptrap to find out McDonald's coffee is now held at a temperature 10 degrees lower, which would still cause burns on an old woman who spilled it on her lap and let it sit there for 15 minutes.

Maybe her daughter can sue Diamond for making matches that are too hot.


If Diamond made a match which exploded and burned your face, pretty sure you could sue them.
 
2014-02-16 11:16:54 PM  

DamnYankees: Lsherm: This woman was careless with a cup of hot coffee.  It does not matter that she was a passenger, it doesn't matter that the coffee was hot (it's supposed to be), it doesn't matter that McDonald's serves hot coffee.  She was careless, and she didn't want to take any responsibility for it.  So she found a liberal lawyer who helped her not take responsibility for her carelessness.  She deserved nothing.

So if someone is careless, they deserve 100% of anything that happens to them? Its impossible, in your mind, for 2 people to both be at fault in a given situation?

Next time you make a single mistake at work, you should evicted, your family should leave you, and your hands should be chopped off. I mean, if you make a mistake, you clearly deserve it.


Let me ask you a question:  if someone accidentally shoots their own foot with a gun they bought because it had a lighter trigger than they were expecting, would you blame the gun manufacturer?  Or would you blame the idiot that shot himself?

Who do you sue if you make your shower too hot?  Yourself?  At what point does your responsibility for self-preservation kick in?  Do you walk around with a helmet?  If you bang your head on a door frame do you blame the guy that built your house?

There is a serious discussion to be had about where the delineation is between what you can do to protect yourself and what is considered circumstance beyond your control, but coffee that is 10 degrees hotter than what you think it should be - when those 10 degrees wouldn't have made a difference in your burn because you let it settle on your legs because you're too old to feel it initially - that's not one of those times.  That's a lawyer run amok looking for a payday.
 
2014-02-16 11:18:31 PM  

Notabunny: And knowingly serving a dangerous product is irrelevant?


(fark independent voice on) Of course.  A company can sell whatever they want, even if it's knowingly toxic or dangerous.  The consumer takes responsibility when they buy a product, and if they find that the product is not to their liking, then they can choose to not patronize that company any more.

Don't you understand it's never the corporation's fault? (/fark independent)
 
2014-02-16 11:19:13 PM  

DamnYankees: If Diamond made a match which exploded and burned your face, pretty sure you could sue them.


Are you sure you're a lawyer?  McDonald's didn't make coffee that was unusual, nor did it make coffee that set out to burn people.  It made coffee that was just like all other fast food coffee at the time.
 
2014-02-16 11:21:11 PM  

Lsherm: if someone accidentally shoots their own foot with a gun they bought because it had a lighter trigger than they were expecting, would you blame the gun manufacturer?


Depends - was the expectation about the trigger weight reasonable?

If a gun manufacturer made such a light trigger than a reasonable person would not expect the gun to go off, then yes.

Manufacturers have responsibilities for the goods they make.

Lsherm: Who do you sue if you make your shower too hot?  Yourself?  At what point does your responsibility for self-preservation kick in?


Like I said, reasonability. Lets say you go to a hotel and you step in a shower. You turn the water to the middle of the hot setting - not the hottest, not the coldest. You jump in and the water is warming up. All of the sudden the water becomes 500 degrees and you get burns over your whole body.

You don't think the hotel should have any liability there? Are you just against all product liability and negligence laws?
 
2014-02-16 11:22:23 PM  

Lsherm: DamnYankees: If Diamond made a match which exploded and burned your face, pretty sure you could sue them.

Are you sure you're a lawyer?  McDonald's didn't make coffee that was unusual, nor did it make coffee that set out to burn people.  It made coffee that was just like all other fast food coffee at the time.


Whether or not the coffee was the same as other companies is not dispositive; its certainly evidence, but its not the only evidence which matters. It's possible for an entire industry to be acting negligently or recklessly with regards to a certain practice.
 
2014-02-16 11:23:58 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: She went to McDonalds, bought the same cup of coffee that millions of other people managed to not injure themselves with day in and day out


*ahem*

documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000

And she didn't get $2.7 million as is sometimes claimed. The final judgement was $640,000 and even then they settled before the appeal so it's impossible to know how much she actually got.
 
2014-02-16 11:26:03 PM  

SphericalTime: Notabunny: And knowingly serving a dangerous product is irrelevant?

(fark independent voice on) Of course.  A company can sell whatever they want, even if it's knowingly toxic or dangerous.  The consumer takes responsibility when they buy a product, and if they find that the product is not to their liking, then they can choose to not patronize that company any more.

Don't you understand it's never the corporation's fault? (/fark independent)


Except that McDonalds never misrepresented the coffee.  They never led her to believe it would be safe for her to spill all over her lap, or recommended that she open it up in a moving car.  Any reasonable person should know that coffee is hot and that you can cause burns if you spill it on yourself.

The coffee was perfectly safe had she used it as intended.  She misused it by opening it up in a moving vehicle.
 
2014-02-16 11:28:29 PM  

fusillade762: TuteTibiImperes: She went to McDonalds, bought the same cup of coffee that millions of other people managed to not injure themselves with day in and day out

*ahem*

documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000

And she didn't get $2.7 million as is sometimes claimed. The final judgement was $640,000 and even then they settled before the appeal so it's impossible to know how much she actually got.


Compared to the number of cups of coffee McDonalds sold in that same time period that's still millions of cups sold to number of people who managed to hurt themselves.

Do you also support them pulling those tiny magnetic balls from the market because kids were eating them?
 
2014-02-16 11:28:47 PM  
Seems the Fark Freepers are as usual ignoring the  fact  that  Mickey Ds knowingly served coffee at a weapons grade temperature.  The McDs I managed always had  the  drive thru coffee pot full of fresh tasty SCALDING hot coffee so that the  girls working could give a free sample to the weeny waggers that came through; the  Cops loved it all they had to do was go to  the  Hospital to find the pervert.

MCDs knew the  coffee could cause serious burns- we had several workman's comp claims- yet continued to serve it to people in vehicles knowing there was more than a reasonable chance it could be spilled injuring the person; they chose to continue to expose their paying customers to that danger because they had someone at the  corporate office that liked hot coffee.
 
2014-02-16 11:29:01 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Any reasonable person should know that coffee is hot and that you can cause burns if you spill it on yourself.


Well, this is why we have juries - to decide what's reasonable. What you've just said here is absurd. The idea that any reasonable person should expect third degree burns if they spill coffee doesn't comport with the reality I live in. I've spilled coffee on myself and not been burned at all (in any medical sense). Why would it be reasonable of me to expect to be burned?

TuteTibiImperes: The coffee was perfectly safe had she used it as intended.  She misused it by opening it up in a moving vehicle.


Negligence law doesn't pivot on "intended use" - it's about "expected use". And McDonalds was certainly in a position to expect that people drink coffee in cars.
 
2014-02-16 11:30:25 PM  
assets.amuniversal.com
 
2014-02-16 11:35:52 PM  

DamnYankees: TuteTibiImperes: Any reasonable person should know that coffee is hot and that you can cause burns if you spill it on yourself.

Well, this is why we have juries - to decide what's reasonable. What you've just said here is absurd. The idea that any reasonable person should expect third degree burns if they spill coffee doesn't comport with the reality I live in. I've spilled coffee on myself and not been burned at all (in any medical sense). Why would it be reasonable of me to expect to be burned?

TuteTibiImperes: The coffee was perfectly safe had she used it as intended.  She misused it by opening it up in a moving vehicle.

Negligence law doesn't pivot on "intended use" - it's about "expected use". And McDonalds was certainly in a position to expect that people drink coffee in cars.


So your argument is that it comes down to the degree of the burns?  Had she received only first degree burns she'd have to take full responsibility for her actions?

As far as 'expected use' goes, sure, McDonalds should expect that people drink coffee in their cars.  If their cups were somehow defective and led to the lids falling off while drinking the coffee in cars leading to burns, they'd be at fault.  McDonalds shouldn't have to expect that people would open a full cup nestled in their crotch while in a moving vehicle.
 
2014-02-16 11:36:32 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: fusillade762: TuteTibiImperes: She went to McDonalds, bought the same cup of coffee that millions of other people managed to not injure themselves with day in and day out

*ahem*

documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000

And she didn't get $2.7 million as is sometimes claimed. The final judgement was $640,000 and even then they settled before the appeal so it's impossible to know how much she actually got.

Compared to the number of cups of coffee McDonalds sold in that same time period that's still millions of cups sold to number of people who managed to hurt themselves.

Do you also support them pulling those tiny magnetic balls from the market because kids were eating them?


Meh. I don't have kids, so I couldn't care less. Though if I did have some I wouldn't let them play with my balls.
 
2014-02-16 11:38:56 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: SphericalTime: Notabunny: And knowingly serving a dangerous product is irrelevant?

(fark independent voice on) Of course.  A company can sell whatever they want, even if it's knowingly toxic or dangerous.  The consumer takes responsibility when they buy a product, and if they find that the product is not to their liking, then they can choose to not patronize that company any more.

Don't you understand it's never the corporation's fault? (/fark independent)

Except that McDonalds never misrepresented the coffee.  They never led her to believe it would be safe for her to spill all over her lap, or recommended that she open it up in a moving car.  Any reasonable person should know that coffee is hot and that you can cause burns if you spill it on yourself.

The coffee was perfectly safe had she used it as intended.  She misused it by opening it up in a moving vehicle.


That's the catch. The coffee was so hot it was dangerous. And Mc Donald's knew it. The'd already settled many cases out of court. PS, the car was parked.
 
2014-02-16 11:39:13 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: So your argument is that it comes down to the degree of the burns?  Had she received only first degree burns she'd have to take full responsibility for her actions?


Possibly. I don't have enough expertise to know what's reasonable; does normal coffee cause first degree burns, and is it not feasible to lower the temperature while maintaining the integrity of the product? I'd need to be educated more on the matter. All I'm saying is that its far from obvious that McDonalds has no fault at all.

TuteTibiImperes: McDonalds shouldn't have to expect that people would open a full cup nestled in their crotch while in a moving vehicle.


I guess that's a question for a jury.

Also, the vehicle wasn't moving in this case.
 
2014-02-16 11:39:30 PM  
This is from Retro Report a few months ago. Retro Report does great work. Direct like to the video so you can skip the Upworthy crap.

The video is very much worth watching if only to see how the news media totally distorted the story (out of laziness and malice) and how many people (not the woman involved) exploited it for gain. It's really great stuff about how easily the truth gets mangled and how hard it is to correct the record.
Again, watch the whole video.
 
2014-02-16 11:59:27 PM  

JerseyTim: This is from Retro Report a few months ago. Retro Report does great work. Direct like to the video so you can skip the Upworthy crap.

The video is very much worth watching if only to see how the news media totally distorted the story (out of laziness and malice) and how many people (not the woman involved) exploited it for gain. It's really great stuff about how easily the truth gets mangled and how hard it is to correct the record.
Again, watch the whole video.


I will say that watching the whole thing does make her come off as more sympathetic.  I don't believe that she sued to 'get rich quick', but I still disagree with the verdict.

McDonalds had a legitimate reason to serve the coffee at the temperature they did, as they mentioned, and served 24 millions cups without incident for every instance of a burn.  Selling a product with a .00000004% rate of injury doesn't rise to the level of negligence IMO.
 
2014-02-17 12:03:46 AM  

DamnYankees: 2wolves: Can we get a show of hands of Farkers who actually are lawyers?

The law has nothing to do with justice or logic.

I am. And this is dumb - almost every law has to do with justice and logic. They might not all live up to that ideal, but for every law, you'll find someone arguing that passing it is in the interests of justice and that it makes sense.


I can be dauntingly dumb on occasion.  This isn't one of them.
 
2014-02-17 12:46:57 AM  
This is like a gun thread but with more passion.
 
2014-02-17 01:18:58 AM  

thismomentinblackhistory: This is like a gun thread but with more passion.


This thread isn't passionate. No one really is putting any effort into their statements.
 
2014-02-17 01:27:34 AM  

cman: thismomentinblackhistory: This is like a gun thread but with more passion.

This thread isn't passionate. No one really is putting any effort into their statements.


Look at you white knighting the people who aren't putting any thought or effort into their statements. They aren't going to sleep with you.

/got nothin'
 
2014-02-17 01:29:36 AM  
McDonalds sells coffee?

/troll on
 
2014-02-17 01:30:18 AM  
What I'd like to know is why the hell most coffee is served as hot as it is. Yes, I'd love for the substance I'm trying to pour inside of me to be capable of burning through flesh, sounds great. It's cool, I'll just blow on the shiat for 5 minutes before I can even attempt to drink it.

Any baristas or coffee fanatics wanna enlighten me? Seems to be the rule at most places to serve it too hot to drink initially.
 
2014-02-17 01:30:59 AM  

cman: She chose to put the coffee between her legs and take off the cap.

That is the essential fact


Yeah, and if that had been the sum of the case then it'd have been dismissed, possibly even classed as frivolous (the lawyer given a black mark on their record for wasting the court's time and being disbarred if they kept it up).

When a company and a specific location have received repeated warnings from a regulatory agency that something's temperature exceeds the safety guidelines imposed by the states, though... that changes the threshold where things become your fault, though.

It's sort of like a hard-hat zone.  Sure, anyone walking under active construction is, in the larger sense, a moron.  But if the law says you need to have a sign posted and you have a long string of citations for not posting the warning signs, and someone walks under your construction and gets brained by a brick... well, you're liable by way of demonstrably neglecting your due diligence.

TuteTibiImperes: McDonalds had a legitimate reason to serve the coffee at the temperature they did, as they mentioned, and served 24 millions cups without incident for every instance of a burn.  Selling a product with a .00000004% rate of injury doesn't rise to the level of negligence IMO.


Basically the same answer of above.  If a regulatory agency sends you repeated official notices that something is potentially dangerous according to state-established guidelines, yes, you have the  option of going with your own internal safety assessments instead... but if something goes wrong the state guidelines are what shield you from a certain amount of liability, and if you're willfully ignoring them a lot of things kind of become your fault.

I mean, not full liability, maybe, but partial liability is more than enough for a court to make you cover someone's medical expenses and so on.
 
2014-02-17 01:31:19 AM  
In other news. Didn't fark already cover this Follow-up
 
Displayed 50 of 484 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report