Very sad story for the elder gal. I’m sure it was a terrible experience. But not one that makes McD’s the culpable party. Hot is part of the hot coffee experience, though. I bet she was more careful next time. Very unfortunate… she should have had it in a cup holder. She was a victim of her clumsiness.
So was my brother. Blame it on the coffee for being hot? I feel terrible for her. Coffee is frickin’ hot, though. Coffee, right out of a percolator, is hot as hell. That’s how most consumers want it. Hard to make a tepid percolator. Ah, but one clumsy move makes it the coffee’s, and coffee maker’s, fault. My ass.
Got nothing to do with empathy. It’s about legal culpability. I wouldn’t wish the burns on Stalin. The legal system is inherently unemphatic, as it should be. But now , we can blame anyone for our own carelessness, and sue, so long as we hurt ourselves with their wares.
Shoot, now we can’t play yard darts/ Jarts anymore.
Here’s one I believe, if true, would maker McD’s culpable. Similar situation, but no mistake made by the client. The company caused it, not her negligence in handling the product. Michael Scott should have sued the waffle maker company.
I better start considering suing Kiwi. I got many cuts over the years. Too sharp!
We can all agree there are two totem poles we are talking about here.
Individual responsibility versus paternalistic oversight.
I think we can all agree that neither extreme, taken alone, will fit every situation. There is going to some gradual balance between the two.
If it was completely individual responsibility, there would be no speeding laws, traffic rules, or food labels. If it was the opposite, then big brother would be watching over our entire lives making sure we didn’t hurt ourselves. Obviously, neither is ideal.
Let’s just agree that there are instances where life falls too far to one side versus the other.
Funny, I’m a school counselor who also works in law enforcement. Very familiar with empathy and the law. Not a lawyer, obviously. This is civil law, though, where the lawyer often has their way. Anyone who knows me would fess that I’m pretty empathic and knowledgeable about the law. I’m all for laws. There was none broken with the spilled coffee; thus, it became a civil matter. With the chemical stuff (as I’ve posted), you bet. I feel terribly for both; but only one was the victim of McD’s. The other essentially misused their product. It’s made to be consumed orally, not dumped onto one’s lap. Very unfortunate. Sue Toyota, no cup holders. It does bother me a tad that civil litigation has these loopholes. Not McD’s fault she didn’t have cup holders and spilled it on herself. Just my take. I’ll rest with that.
So if you slip and fall on a wet McDonald’s floor, that’s on you? Or should the restaurant provide a dining area that’s safe for its customers?
The jury in the coffee case found McDonald’s guilty of negligence (while also acknowledging that some of the responsibility fell on the burned woman) for selling coffee it knew could cause severe burns - indeed had caused severe burns numerous times over the years. So your argument seems to be that companies can never be negligent, and it’s up to all of us to protect ourselves.
She was in her son’s car. Sue the boy. Surely it was his driving that caused the spill. If she was in McD’s, slipped and spilled the coffee on herself, you bet. The coffee left the store and into her son’s Toyota with no cup holders. I buy their coffee because it’s that hot. Many people who work do, with the logic that they can drink it when they get to a job, and it will still be hot. Construction workers go through regularly with that in mind. I was one of 'em. So MCD’s was negligent over many millions served this dangerous product? No, it was user error, IMHO. Like I said, I’m willing to rest there.
Companies certainly can and often are negligent, like the one I posted about a legit criminal case regarding McD’s. Did you read it? You might understand my logic here, if you do.
Hope she went to Burger King from then on. I like my coffee hot (yes, that hot) when I’m on the road; as do millions of others. It’s why McD’s has such a strong clientele on planet coffee. Somehow we manage.
I see you’re not familiar with the facts of the case, which is no surprise.
Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid.
McDonald’s admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
Yes, tried to hold the cup between her knees. There you go. THAT is negligent. Sue Toyota. She chose to hold it between her knees, exposing herself to something very hot. Was there a camera in there to show the car had stopped. What proof, besides her side of the story, existed to show that this happened this way? 700 other people made the same mistake. Mistake. I’ve made the same mistake. Hell yeah, it burned. I need some $$$ !! I’d love to see how a criminal judge would have handled that. “Gotta be smarter than the coffee, sir, or don’t order it.”
McD’s employee “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we’re using in that regard right now;”
Good. Put a warning to the ignorant on there, so the rest of us can manage at our own risk. Whatever great winnings she got, must be a drop in their corporate bucket, because they sell the hell out of coffee. Right so. Working folks love it.
Great job of framing by the attorney. They slip through now and again. Good thing they have labels on them now. That would have made her think twice about putting it between her legs in a car.
The lawsuit referenced in this thread’s headline is indeed frivolous, in my opinion (we’ll see how it shakes out). The one we are discussing is not, however, not according to the many, many lawyers who wrote about it, and not according to the jury. So you can continue shaking your fist at this particular cloud, but it doesn’t much matter.
