Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sushi on November 18, 2015, 11:42:12 am
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :P
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
"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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
<snip>
-
Call me retarded
ok.
...
...
She has consumed the product in the past implies that she is familiar with it, and familiar with the temperature at which it is served. She has probably sipped it right after getting it and gotten one of those loose-skin-on-the-roof-of-your-mouth burns. or are you arguing that McDonald's served it hot just this one time?
I tell you what, just so we don't waist time, hypothetically if it was universally and completely known by all humans that McDonald's coffee was effectively molten lava that needed an hour to cool off before it wouldn't just burn it's way through you and the floor beneath you whould that change your position? is her knowledge critical to your position?
-
Call me retarded
ok.
...
...
She has consumed the product in the past implies that she is familiar with it, and familiar with the temperature at which it is served. She has probably sipped it right after getting it and gotten one of those loose-skin-on-the-roof-of-your-mouth burns. or are you arguing that McDonald's served it hot just this one time?
I tell you what, just so we don't waist time, hypothetically if it was universally and completely known by all humans that McDonald's coffee was effectively molten lava that needed an hour to cool off before it wouldn't just burn it's way through you and the floor beneath you whould that change your position? is her knowledge critical to your position?
Whether she knew it was that hot or not doesn't matter. It could have happened to someone who'd never gone to McDonald's for coffee. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that your coffee won't be hot enough to cause third degree burns because causing third degree burns isn't the purpose of coffee on any level. It's not even on the list of things you should worry about. Making a mess if it's spilled? Obviously Burning your mouth a bit? Sure. Melting your flesh off? No. Coffee shouldn't be served that hot unless you specifically ask for it to be served that hot. It sure as hell shouldn't be the default temperature.
Comparing is to gasoline makes no sense. Gasoline being flammable is something it's reasonable to expect everyone to know. That your coffee can cause third degree burns is not.
-
Coffee is made by boiling water through ground coffee beans, it being hot enough to cause third degree burns IS something I am aware of and take precautions about and expect.
Or would be if a drank coffee, I drink tea which has similar properties.
-
BTW, thanks to whoever split this thread.
[edit]The E, thank you[/edit]
-
Coffee isn't supposed to be hot enough to cause third degree burns? As far as a little bit of googling can tell me, water doesn't need to be anywhere near the temperature in this case (180–190 °F / 82–88 °C) for that to happen.
That's not to say the coffee wasn't unreasonably hot in this case, just that the threshold can't really be called "able to cause third degree burns" because that's describing most coffee.
-
Coffee has a correct range of serving temperatures and it's not unreasonable to expect coffee to be served somewhere in that range. It should not be served at the boiling point of water! The correct range is 60 to 80 degrees depending on the quality of the coffee and whether you want it piping hot or not. The coffee in the McDonald's case was served at around 90 degrees a full 10 degrees hotter than that. So all that needed to be proved in the court case is that the extra temperature represented an unreasonable danger for the customers.
Coffee isn't supposed to be hot enough to cause third degree burns? As far as a little bit of googling can tell me, water doesn't need to be anywhere near the temperature in this case (180–190 °F / 82–88 °C) for that to happen.
There is a difference in the time taken to cause those burns though. The difference could have given the woman an extra 10-15 seconds to prevent the burns becoming as severe.
-
It soaked into her pants and car seat while she was strapped into a car, that held her in contact with it and is the reason why she got so burned and most people who spilled their coffee on themselves back then didn't.
-
To put more concisely, she won because there's an expected temperature for coffee, they served it significantly higher than that without notice, making it difficult to properly assess the risk of the situation.
Common sense only applies when something is common knowledge. Making their product not conform to common expectations in a way that would be non-obvious, with no warning about the difference, is dangerous, and where they got in trouble. If it were standard temperature coffee, or just an anomaly that heated it more, they'd likely have won instead.
-
I feel like there's also an expected degree of induced self loathing and diarrhea from eating fast food that McDonalds routinely exceeds as well, does anyone else think we should be able to sue them for that?