OMG. I heated a piece of pizza in the microwave oven for 4 minutes and when I bit into it I burned my lips, tongue, and mouth. There's nothing on the pizza box or microwave oven warning me that molten cheese may be dangerous to my health. As soon as I get out of the emergency room, I'm seeing an attorney and suing them all for their negligence.

 

I got news for these bitchy little girls that call themselves "bikers"...
I test rode a Night Rod Special (liquid-cooled Harley) last weekend and got caught in traffic. Guess what? It gets just as hot on your legs as the air-cooled big twins!

My advice... suck it up or buy a Honda.

 

She wasn't driving. Why are you commenting about a case you obviously don't know anything about? And it's "you're." it's a contraction of "you" and "are." "your" indicates possession. Like "your comment indicates you don't know what the f you're talking about.
Interesting. Yet you didn't apparently bother do do a 5 minute search on google before spouting off...

No. But a Mickie D's manager repeatedly failed to fix the coffee maker, which heated coffee to a dangerous level that was dangerous to employees as well as customers.

And a mcdonalds executive made a policy that ALL mcd's restaurants will intentionally serve coffee at a temperature too hot to drink and dangerous upon purchase, so that it would be cooled down sufficiently enough when the customer got to work. And another executive chose to lowball at least SEVEN HUNDRED other complainants in lawsuits, and still chose to keep the policy of serving coffee that was unreasonably and dangerously hot. When SEVEN HUNDRED lawsuits are brought against a company in a short amount of time because their product is causing bodily harm and the reason can be very easily remedied, and the company makes an executive decision to ignore them, that is negligence. And that's how the jury saw it.

spilling fresh coffee on you should cause burns. But not third degree burns that slough large chunks of skin off and require hospitalization and skin graphs. This isn't a case of spilling coffee on someone's lap, it's a case of a policy to intentionally sell coffee that is far hotter than necessary and is dangerous, and intentionally ignoring complaints and claims of injury.

 

If the coffee was scolding hot you can't tell me when it was handed to her she couldn't feel the heat through the cup in her hand. She then puts it in between her knees to add sugar and cream. Sounds like she was a lot more than 20% at fault in my opinion.

 

Several accurate points made here. Nevertheless, since the case, I grappled with this issue:

Suppose one orders plain hot tea, not only at Micky Dees, but anywhere. That has to be REAL close to 212 degrees F. Should they cool off the tea after steeping to a certain temperature?

As in the coffee, I EXPECT my air cooled V-Twin Twinkie to get real hot...exhaust pipes too...



Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman | "Machete"‏ - YouTube

 

Hey just remember it was the corrupt Chicago ILLINOIS political machine that put a "community organizer" with no experience in the White House.

 

Check Mate!

 

So, cameraboy, what is your connection to this whole episode? Sorta hard to figure that out.

If anything is so hot as to cause 3rd degree burns, the heat should be able to be detected through whatever cup it's in. That is where the common sense and personal responsibility enter the story.
Are you trying to say that you couldn't tell that it's a boiling liquid inside a paper cup?

Personally, I don't care about all of the insight into what these executives were thinking, as if you really know that... the bottom line is that when I order a hot beverage I assume the responsibility once it enters my possession.

Apparently you are advocating that everyone needs a nanny to ensure that they don't injure themselves. Pretty pathetic.

 

This post shows your/you're (for the spelling ****'S) that your grasp of reality is off. Before the McD's case all restaurants and people that use real coffee pots on their/there (again for the spelling ****'S) home stoves always brewed coffee that was too hot to drink when it was first poured. And, made holding a paper cup, or metal camping mug too hot to hold comfortably and if attempted to be drunk right away it would most likely burn you/your/you are/you're (them ****'S are all over the place) mouth.

This lady showed she did not have the mental capacity to have a cup of hot coffee, because her actions showed she did not know how to use a paper cup filled with coffee.

Because of her and her ambulance chasing lawyer we can no longer get a good cup of hot coffee in America.

 

I'm sure she knew it was hot. and she should NOT have put it between her knees. But spilling it should have resulted in 1st or 2nd degree burns. NOT third degree burns requiring hospitalization and skin grafts. Especially when the company had over SEVEN HUNDRED injury claims in the recent past for just this reason and chose to still make it policy for the coffee to be much hotter than necessary.

Yup, I think you are right, and the plaintif felt the same way and ONLY wanted her medical bills covered. McDonalds offered her 800 dollars. She still sued for just the cost of her bills. The JURY was so disgusted with McD's corporate policy and treatment of the seven hundred other injured parties in other lawsuits, that they chose to award much more.
I don't claim to know what they were thinking. I only claim to know what their policy was, and what THEIR STATED REASON for that policy was.

If you are a rational human being, you assume that if you spill any on you, that you will be burned. But not so badly that your skin sloughs off and you need a skin graft. If that is the case, and you assume that a spill is going to result in 3rd degree burns, then I can't say much about your decision to purchase liquids that you think are that hot.
What's pathetic is that you need that false extension to absurdity in order to wrap your mind around what is not a simple concept, and you need to paint me with such a broad brush.

I believe in corporate responsibility as much as personal responsibility. And a company should not be allowed to make a product that is unnecessarily dangerous to the public, beyond the usual expectation of injury.

For example, every time you ride a motorcycle, you KNOW that there is a chance that your risers will fail and your handlebars can fall off and you might be seriously hurt. But you can EXPECT that the risers are made well enough that this should be a rare occurrence. If a company made risers that snapped in half, and SEVEN HUNDRED people filed lawsuits, but then that company decided that they still would not use better materials in their risers, and then yours broke and you were seriously injured, how would you feel?

Would you let it go, figuring that "hey, mechanical parts fail, and motorcycles are dangerous" or would you be pretty angry when you found out that the company KNEW that their product was injuring people, yet chose to continue making it that way?

I think you might ask them to pay your medical bills too.