Woman That Found Finger In Chili Arrested

[sgtmac_46]

I believe, IIRC, that it was put into the cup at over 170 degrees fahranheit (an undrinkable temperature). After the lawsuit the chains dropped the stored temperature to 130 fahranheit - still very hot but drinkable and not an outright hazard to any but the most careless. No lawyer sold me on this, I did some research and came to my own conculsion based upon my experience as a worker in fast food places and college cafeterias that dispensed coffee at a ridiculous and hazardous temperature.

The assertion that we have to build a society around the lowest common denominator is absurd. Basically, the argument goes, if you spill coffee on your self, the store is responsible for having hot coffee so 'hot'. In other words, they are responsible for not assuming that the individual is a moron, and preparing accordingly.

Some, apparently, want a society proof against fools. However, there is no such thing as proof against fools. Meanwhile, the coffers of litigating law firms grow fat.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

The assertion that we have to build a society around the lowest common denominator is absurd. Basically, the argument goes, if you spill coffee on your self, the store is responsible for having hot coffee so 'hot'. In other words, they are responsible for not assuming that the individual is a moron, and preparing accordingly.

Some, apparently, want a society proof against fools. However, there is no such thing as proof against fools. Meanwhile, the coffers of litigating law firms grow fat.

That is not what I said. Nowhere near it, in fact.

 

[Kacey]

I believe, IIRC, that it was put into the cup at over 170 degrees fahranheit (an undrinkable temperature). After the lawsuit the chains dropped the stored temperature to 130 fahranheit - still very hot but drinkable and not an outright hazard to any but the most careless. No lawyer sold me on this, I did some research and came to my own conculsion based upon my experience as a worker in fast food places and college cafeterias that dispensed coffee at a ridiculous and hazardous temperature.

This is correct. While, in my opinion, Liebeck was an idiot to put a cup of coffee between her thighs, the coffee was at a temperature that was well above that specified in company manuals, a change that had recently been made to ensure the freshness of the coffee and to prevent scalding injuries such as Liebeck suffered. The burns were so severe that she required several sessions of surgery to repair the damage caused by the scalding coffee. Therefore, the McDonald's in question was in the wrong, by the published policies of own organization.

Also, one must remember that juries are often given information that is not reported in the media, which is used in the process of determining culpability and, for those found guilty, appropriate reparation and/or punishment. I believe that the amount of the award was excessive; however, I also think that, given the information provided to the jury about what was determined to be a deliberate disregard for company policy, McDonald's was liable for the damages Liebeck suffered. Does that, in my opinion, free her from some responsibility for choosing to put that cup of coffee between her thighs? No, I don't think it does - but neither would most people expect to get 2nd and 3rd degree burns from a cup of coffee, no matter how badly the choice of storage location.

 

[Don Roley]

I think I should step in and ask people to look at the famous hot coffee case. It was not a normal situation.

The woman said that the coffee she had been handed in the drive thru window was too cold and aksed for it to be heated. The staff try to get people out of the drive thru lane ASAP. The guy on duty put the cup in a microwave oven. The oven did not have a timer, it was pre-set for various functions like defrosting certain items. The coffee was heated so hot that it melted through the bottom of the cup, leaving melted plastic on the woman which gave her third degree burns. Boiling water can't give you that alone.

So it was not a case of someone taking regular coffee and spilling it on themselves.

I thought that it was as well, until a friend posted a link to a site about the case. The facts seem to be a bit more complicated than a casual reading of the bare facts makes out.

 

[sgtmac_46]

That is not what I said. Nowhere near it, in fact.

I didn't categorize YOUR argument as such, I categorized the argument, in general, that we should play to the lowest common denominator as damaging to western civilization. I stand behind that assertion.

I do assert that the coffee case is a symptom of that very thing. If it isn't playing to the lowest common denominator to assert that we need to 'fool proof' coffee at an appropriate temperature so that grown adults don't harm themselves by ordering 'hot coffee' and getting 'hot coffee', then we are deciding that every function within our society needs to be designed around the 'idiot'.

Moreover, I propose that the drive to 'idiot proof' society is, as much, a result of the huge potential profits on the part of litigators, as well as a societal view of entitlement that says 'I'm not responsible for anything I do, someone else because they didn't realize I was an idiot, and seek to protect me from myself'.

Again, I assert, there is no proof against fools, and to make the standard of safety in our society as anything that a fool can use without the possibility of injuring himself, then I say that standard is too high.