[Sushi]

Mostly I don't care, except that I'm annoyed by people wasting the time and resources of a justice system that has much better things to do.

[StarSlayer]

Mostly I don't care, except that I'm annoyed by people wasting the time and resources of a justice system that has much better things to do.

Yes too bad they are taking a break from litigating damages for hot coffee spills.

[Scotty]

Mostly I don't care, except that I'm annoyed by people wasting the time and resources of a justice system that has much better things to do.

Yes too bad they are taking a break from litigating damages for hot coffee spills.

You could probably pick a better case to mock, since that one started with third degree burns and skin grafting.

[StarSlayer]

Mostly I don't care, except that I'm annoyed by people wasting the time and resources of a justice system that has much better things to do.

Yes too bad they are taking a break from litigating damages for hot coffee spills.

You could probably pick a better case to mock, since that one started with third degree burns and skin grafting.

It's still typically heralded as the case that brought the whole frivolous litigation thing into the national consciousness.

[Bobboau]

if I poured gasoline all over my body and lit it on fire I'd probably have some nasty burns too, doesn't mean shell should assume I don't know that and be held legally liable for not warning me about it.

[Scotty]

Mostly I don't care, except that I'm annoyed by people wasting the time and resources of a justice system that has much better things to do.

Yes too bad they are taking a break from litigating damages for hot coffee spills.

You could probably pick a better case to mock, since that one started with third degree burns and skin grafting.

It's still typically heralded as the case that brought the whole frivolous litigation thing into the national consciousness.

Which doesn't really mean that it's a frivolous lawsuit.  It only became a lawsuit when McDonald's offered an $800 settlement for nearly twenty grand in damages.

if I poured gasoline all over my body and lit it on fire I'd probably have some nasty burns too, doesn't mean shell should assume I don't know that and be held legally liable for not warning me about it.

If you accidentally spilled a bit of it on yourself and it spontaneously burst into flame they damn well would be.  Your analogy is horrible.

[Bobboau]

if it was well known and obvious that gasoline spontaneously burst into flames when it came into contact with human flesh and there were very common simple tings I could do to prevent that from happening they shouldn't be.

[Phantom Hoover]

It's not obvious though, one of the factors in the ruling against McDonalds was that they were deliberately keeping their coffee very hot to discourage people from getting free refills.

[Dragon]

if I poured gasoline all over my body and lit it on fire I'd probably have some nasty burns too, doesn't mean shell should assume I don't know that and be held legally liable for not warning me about it.

Actually, you are warned that it's flammable. It says so on most things it's reasonable to keep gasoline in. Since Shell didn't sell you fire, so they're not the ones responsible for telling you that fire may hurt you. Gasoline isn't hypergolic with human flesh, although its vapors are easily ignited by static discharges and stuff like that (big deal is made of avoiding static anywhere near where fuel is handled).

[Bobboau]

"Gasoline isn't hypergolic with human flesh"
tell Scotty not me.

so, kinda looks like someone you all hold and an authority has clearly dictated that this case was justified. so I guess there is not arguing about it. it is known.

[NGTM-1R]

it is known.

That you didn't know the details of the case? Yes.

so, kinda looks like someone you all hold and an authority has clearly dictated that this case was justified.

This however is completely unproven and an incredible reach considering no other person in this thread has asserted anything to hint at such an authority. Do you just assume that everyone who disagrees with you is part of a conspiracy?

[Bobboau]

well, lets see here. details of the case from memory:
a grandmother bought coffee from a mcdonalds.
was served at near boiling temperatures.
she tried to add sugar while in the car.
she dropped it in her lap and couldn't get it off her before it cooked off her skin on her lap area.
how'd I do?

bunch of people acting oddly vocal/proud about being on the other side of 'conventional wisdom' on some random well known event. acting like any one who disagrees with them is simply uneducated. I tend to assume they saw a tv show or something about it that played a 'oh hey it turns out common sense is wrong' angle and now they think they're special cause they think they know something that they think most people are getting wrong.

why don't you just admit you are a reptilian? we can all see it.

[Scotty]

The "couldn't get it off before it cooked off her skin" happened in between two and seven seconds at that temperature.  The lawsuit would never have even happened if McDonald's had been willing to offer a reasonable settlement; they offered $800 to cover $18,000 in damages (the original damages asking amount was $20,000).

The result is an excellent example of why to take a lawsuit to court (when damages can't be agreed upon or are insufficient).

The issue I took with your analogy was that it equated deliberately setting oneself on fire with accidentally spilling overhot coffee.  I said your analogy was horrible (and it still is), and never once offered any opinion, comment, or implication about your education or lackthereof over the case or its details.

Now, that said:

so, kinda looks like someone you all hold and an authority has clearly dictated that this case was justified.

This however is completely unproven and an incredible reach considering no other person in this thread has asserted anything to hint at such an authority. Do you just assume that everyone who disagrees with you is part of a conspiracy?

You may want to read what he said again, NGTM-1R.  While the implication is obvious that he doesn't agree, he's pretty clearly saying that the judge who allowed it to trial and presided over the case also pretty clearly thought that the case had merit.  If a judge does not qualify as an authority on what cases are and are not justified before reaching court, who, then, could possibly decide?

[Bobboau]

ok, fine. you fill a pot with water and put it on the stove, boil it, then pick it up and accidentally spill the boiling water on your leg causing 3rd degree burns so severe that is causes the loss of your foot and you have $50,000 in medical bills.

you sue the stove company, the pot company, and/or the water department.

[Scotty]

Still doesn't work.  One of (if not) the deciding factor(s) of the McDonald's case is that the end-consumer has exactly zero input on how hot the coffee was, and that it was served to them already able to cause third degree burns in a matter of seconds.  If you can't see how the franchise's active and willing involvement in rendering the coffee hot enough to be dangerous matters then I'm not surprised you don't agree with its validity.

It doesn't make you correct.

[Bobboau]

doesn't make me incorrect.
the customer has exactly more than zero input in if they will be buying that coffee. the temperature of the product is known, she has bought it before, as evidenced by the fact she has developed preferences for what additives to put in it.

[Phantom Hoover]

ok, fine. you fill a pot with water and put it on the stove, boil it, then pick it up and accidentally spill the boiling water on your leg causing 3rd degree burns so severe that is causes the loss of your foot and you have $50,000 in medical bills.

you sue the stove company, the pot company, and/or the water department.

well in a civilised country you wouldn't be expected to pay the bill for having your horrifying injuries treated so in this scenario my heart still isn't bleeding for the poor capitalists at the pot company

[NGTM-1R]

the temperature of the product is known, she has bought it before, as evidenced by the fact she has developed preferences for what additives to put in it.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Putting creamer or sugar or Splenda in your coffee means you put creamer/sugar/Splenda in your coffee anywhere; at home, at Taco Bell, at work. It does not immediately follow that you would start the process over again with every new sources of coffee. Quite the opposite.

It also does not follow that just because it was dangerous this time she would necessarily know it was dangerous from previous times, because it doesn't necessarily follow it was dangerous previously. She doesn't have her hand on the percolator settings and probably can't even see them. There's no control on her end.

[Aesaar]

doesn't make me incorrect.
the customer has exactly more than zero input in if they will be buying that coffee. the temperature of the product is known, she has bought it before, as evidenced by the fact she has developed preferences for what additives to put in it.

Call me retarded, but I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that the drink you ordered isn't going to be hot enough to literally melt the flesh off your bones when it's served to you.  Coffee is meant for drinking, not boiling pasta.

[Grizzly]

<snip>