It's not my fault I gamble!

Even though I often use the Mcdonald's hot-coffee lawsuit as an example of lawsuits gone wild and the collapse of personal responsiblity and common sense, I can see the other half of the argument holding an ounce of merit.

It's about what a reasonable person expects when they are handed a cup of coffee. Should a reasonable person expect to be burned if they spill the coffee?

If I was arguing in favor of a reasonable person knowing that they are holding a dangerous item, I'd maybe compare it with going to walmart, getting some hedge clippers and accidentally cutting your finger off with them. Should we hold Walmart liable because a product they sell has the *potential* to do bodily harm if mis-handled? I think it again comes down to the reasonable person...is it reasonable to be aware of the danger of putting your finger between the blades of a hedge clipper and seeing if they work on your finger? Reasonable person most likely says yes, so, it's personal responsibility not to do it, and if you do it, it's your own dumb fault, not walmart's fault for not employing a team of hedge-trimmer safety managers who supervise the customer at all times.

Going back to McD's, is it reasonable to expect to be burned by coffee if you spill it on yourself. I think yes, it is. But burned *that* badly? I'm not sure. And therein lies the grey area and why you have experts testifying about coffee temperatures. If a reasonable person doesn't realize it is *that* hot and *that* dangerous, I guess it could be seen as a fraudulent sale if there wasn't an explicit warning regarded the excessive heat of the coffee. We're sort of trying to define what coffee "is", and my guess is that it probably isn't, to a reasonable person, something that will lead to 3rd degree burns. But there are a lot of fine lines and I'd still fight on the side of personal responsibility and common sense with most issues like this.

 

That woman's lawyers showed pretty conclusively that McDonalds was holding its coffee -- as a matter of corporate policy -- at unsafe temperatures. If they would have just paid her medical bills to begin with, they wouldn't have been hit with a big judgment.

As Fenian said, she had third-degree burns. You would never get that from coffee you brewed at home. Never.

Now, if I will stipulate that this country is full of frivolous lawsuits (the judge and his dry cleaning come to mind) will everyone stipulate that the McDonald's coffee case is, in fact, not one of them? It's risen to the level of a tort-reform urban legend.

 

A more reasonable parallel to your Wal-Mart vs. McDonalds arguement would be if there was a large spill on Aisle 5 at Wal-Mart in which people kept slipping and falling, yet Wal-Mart didn't clean it up. You would argue that a reasonable person should know not to go down Aisle 5 because it may be slippery. A plaintiff's lawyer would argue that Wal-Mart should have cleaned up the mess.

There was a radio commercial I heard from a law firm soliciting clients. They cited a case where a young kid fell through some broken stairs on playground equipment, got hurt, hired the firm, and sued. The town's defense was that lawsuits like the kid's were the reason why playgrounds were closed. The law firm's arguement was that lawsuits like their's were the reason why broken stairs on playground equipment gets fixed.

 

McDonald's has never brewed its coffee hotter than that I get at home or anyone else's.

The very fucking definition of frivolous.

 

And Simon proves, once again, that he doesn't know shit.

Seriously, go read about the case. The information is widely available. Educate yourself.

 

Ragu --

You don't have the facts of the case right.

The car was parked. She wasn't driving.

Her lawyers argued, successfully, that McDonald's held its coffee at a much higher temperature (180-190 degrees by company mandate) than home coffee (130-140 degrees) and higher than other places that served coffee.

Now, I know it has become popular CW to argue that hot coffee is hot coffee and you have only yourself to blame if you spill it on yourself. That's certainly the argument that the McDonald's folks put forward.

But the woman's lawyers argued -- successfully, I might add -- that the difference between serving coffee at 190 degrees and at 140 degrees made the difference between the woman having two or three seconds to react and remove the coffee from her skin and having 15 to 20 seconds. They also argued that the temperature difference was the difference between the red welt you get from spilling coffee on yourself at home and having to have skin grafts to your genitals.

Now, reasonable people can disagree with the decision -- that much, I freely admit. But I don't think it's reasonable to continue to cite the case as an example of a frivolous lawsuit. Clearly, after discovery, we learned that McDonalds held their coffee at a much higher temperature than other similar establishments. The company now holds its coffee at a lower temperature, and everyone is probably safer as a result.

 

And I dare you to pour the percolating water from a legitimate coffee maker into your lap.

Yep, real surprise ... same treatment as ole grandma.

 

LOL.... if liquid is on your skin for 15-20 seconds and it hasn't burned you.... news flash ... it ain't gonna happen.

Might as well serve it with ice cubes.

 

Most establishments were NOT serving coffee 50 degrees below McDonald's standard.

 

Wasn't she driving with it between her legs?