The Gaming Den

If you are dumb enough to take a cup full of liquid - regardless of how hot it is - and put it between your legs and open it up, it is your fault when the liquid spills all over yourself.

Oh I SEE so if McDonalds had been selling pure sulphuric acid as coffee then it would by that definition still have been HER fault.

Excellent argument you have going there, love the corporate responsibility angle.

I still maintain that it doesn't even matter that she spilled it as to whether or not McDonald's was at fault for simply even supplying a beverage that was at unsafe temperatures as a matter of intentional policy when they were aware that already 700 other people had been burnt by their product.

700 people already burned.

I don't care if she spilled it on accident, on purpose, imaginarily, or though no fault of her own. It doesn't matter. What matters is that liquid fire was handed to her in the guise of a potable beverage. That is why McDonald's deserved to get it stuck to them in the punitive damage. Nothing to do with how it got spilled.

For the compensation, the jury did even dock the lady for spilling it, but that was a much lesser figure than the punitive damage which was the actual hammer.


Oh, and I fixed this for you Neeeek.

Neeeek wrote:Was the coffee too hot? Yes.

The case would be arguable if the product weren't dangerous. Since it is dangerous McDs can suck it.

PL wrote:Oh I SEE so if McDonalds had been selling pure sulphuric acid as coffee then it would by that definition still have been HER fault.

Yes, it would have been the woman's fault for spilling it. However since selling something else instead of what's on the label isn't legal, McDonald's would have born some sort of responsibility. You can't properly prepare/treat for sulphuric acid if the label says coffee.

Coffee, however, is known to be hot, just as obviously as bunk beds are known to be high off the ground. If corporate responsibility means that you have to stick a sign on a bunk bed that says, "Caution: Gravity Works," then we're all doomed to live in a country where companies continually have to guess what the stupidest person is going to do with their product and print warnings against it. It's a waste of time and money.

Millions of people across the country bought McDonald's coffee. 700 couldn't figure out how to use it.

Maj wrote:saying something about coffee being hot when it was scalding

Hot = getting into the shower and not liking that temperature a little bit and turning it down.

Scalding - going to the fvcking hospital.

Last I checked Maj it also wasn't legal to sell food that was unsafe for consumption, or to market something as immediately edible when it actually isn't. Since there are actual damages arising from these instances, that falls under false advertising as well as whatever laws govern food preparation and serving.

Still, she spilled it, fine, her fault, whatever. McDo is responsible for selling a product outside of safety guidelines. So, let's take the portion of the damage that she would have caused to herself by spilling a safe product on herself, like 140 degree coffee, and subtract that from the damage she received by spilling an unsafe product on herself, like the 180 degree coffee that she actually did spill.

Oh, wait, that's what the jury already did.

People do dumb shit, and this was a dumb thing that would have done significantly less damage if the product was fucking safe to be used as intended. Her fault she spilled it, fine, whatever. The damage that spilling a safe or drinkable cup of coffee on herself is fvcking miniscule compared to the damage done by McDonald's corporate practices.

FrankTrollman wrote:The fact that people who support evil corporations making money at the expense of human suffering have somehow tricked you into taking the side of the evil corporation is appalling. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Read back; I haven't taken any side. An assumption based on negative definition is equally appalling. Both corporation and victim were fuckwits.

Also, I always buy coffee in paper or a hard-shell plastic, and wait for it to cool a little before even opening because I know it will hurt.
I've never incurred coffee scalds in the hundreds of times I've purchased coffee with proper precautions taken while handling so my safety doesn't exactly come from good luck.
Shit like this doesn't happen to any random citizen. It takes a special someone.
Sure, give her the suit and fix her up, but for fuck's sake don't let that old woman buy coffee or from McDonald's ever again.

A Cynic wrote:Hot = getting into the shower and not liking that temperature a little bit and turning it down.

Scalding - going to the fvcking hospital.

Scalding happens with tap water. It's the point at which the temperature of the liquid involved starts to kill off your cells. Liquids generally start scalding around 120 degrees. That's 30 degrees cooler than the temperature at which I start sipping my tea, so I wouldn't purchase a drink at 120 degrees because it would be way too cold. It's also not hot enough to kill off any potential bacteria, and thus the Department of Health regulations won't allow it to be sold, either.

TarkisFlux wrote:Last I checked Maj it also wasn't legal to sell food that was unsafe for consumption, or to market something as immediately edible when it actually isn't. Since there are actual damages arising from these instances, that falls under false advertising as well as whatever laws govern food preparation and serving.

The problem is that coffee is something that some people like really hot, and some people don't. I actually took the temperature of my tea and I like it at around 150 degrees. My husband prefers his around 110. So a restaurant has to make sure that what they're serving is hot enough that after cooling it by pouring it from its holding container into a cup and adding sugar and cream that consumers like me will still want to drink it.

Or I suppose they could just sell lukewarm coffee and hope their sales don't pitch into the abyss.

And that doesn't even touch the fact that coffee that's not kept really hot tastes like garbage (Which I can't really argue because we're talking McDonald's coffee).

I really don't think you're grasping just how hot 180 degrees is here, Maj.

You can't just handwave it away with 'oh, it's 30 degrees hotter than what I drink it's no big deal'. I'm not going to let you.

clikml wrote: 700 people already burned.

You say 700 people like that's an argument in your favor. It's not.

That's less than one per million cups of coffee McDonald's sold. If you are basing your decisions on what the least competent/lucky/reasonable of a million people do, you are making bad decisions.

Under standard tort law, if changing would have cost McDonald's 1/800 of a cent per cup or more, they had no reason to do so.

The damages were bullshit, which is why the judge reduced them, then the appellate court reduced them again.

Lago wrote:I really don't think you're grasping just how hot 180 degrees is here, Maj.

It doesn't matter.

The argument is that businesses shouldn't be allowed to sell food as being instantly comestible when it's not, or food that's so hot it's dangerous.

The problem is that coffee is automatically dangerous - it can't be sold at a temperature that isn't dangerous. And there will always be people who don't want it or can't drink it as hot as it comes, making it not instantly consumable.

It doesn't matter how hot the coffee actually is; it's common knowledge that the stuff is served hot enough to cause you burns if spilled. That should lead anyone with a brain to the conclusion that sticking it near some of the most prized and sensitive skin on your body is a bad idea.

Maj, I think the difference that they're trying to make is this:

Coffee at 150*F = Hot
150*F is 65*C (35* lower than boiling at sea level (100*C))

Any liquid at 180*F = Contact Weapon
180*F is 82*C (18* lower than boiling at sea level (100*C))

They sold her a contact weapon and she thought she had coffee. The vendor is at fault for not telling the customer that mere contact with this substance will cook the very meat on their bones.

When you cook a steak, the more it's cooked, the firmer it become, correct?

That is why the old lady couldn't move, the meat of the muscles of her inner thighs was cooked solid.

She had no choice and couldn't move.

Which makes what they sold her even more sinister.

They sold her a contact weapon that prevents the victim from seeking help easily.

I don't even know if those kinds of weapons are allowed by the Geneva conventions on conduct in war. Then again, I'm not sure if Napalm or Flame-throwers are either.

I've seen people argue equivalency of evil, but equivalency of danger?

Yes, hot coffee, fluids that will strip the flesh from your bones on contact, super heated high pressurised steam in a cup... its all the same. Right?

Phone,

Even if we assume that there was no evil; handing over substances that are dangerous to an other person without ensuring that the other person can handle them safely is pretty dangerous.

Actually, I don't know if we're disagreeing or agreeing.

Also, Koumei, what did the amerks say when they used flamers against the Japanese?

"Whoops! weaboos wuz in pill box on iwo jima attack; sry gais, are baed."

Seriously, who uses a flamer not in an enclosed space to drive out those inside?

I'm not saying it's morally wrong, but it's how they're best used in combat.

And never tell me that nothing will never be used in combat due to 'moral' reasons. If you're holding a flamer and I'm in a pillbox shooting at your combat engineer squad as they're marching by or torching my sides supply depots, I can expect to have to shoot you when you try to flush me out with your "not for personel" equipment.

Sheesh, it's like giving prisoners real honest-to-god knives for eating with, and expect them to not repurpose them for shiving each other.

The only real solution is banning the use of such equipment; with possibly the restricting such equipment to non-front line zones.

Also, I noticed incendiaries are on that list you have; I guess Hitler broke a lot of rules with his London bombings.

Not like any war is clean, or good.

Actually, I don't know if we're disagreeing or agreeing.

I can understand why, I used a tiny amount of unlabelled sarcasm. That can confuse.

What I don't get is how I managed to read your post, which appears to contain no sarcasm labelled or otherwise and now I don't know if we agree or not anymore.

You've really lost me there, just a big mildly sociopath ramble that doesn't seem to actively state anything much that I can determine.

About Napalm, I know that's illegal. I do know that America has invented a jelly-like substance that sticks to people and burns violently for periods of time, but it's not Napalm. it's something else. (We use it on people all the time, we just altered the recipe so it's technically not napalm any more despite acting the same as napalm.)

Neeek, if 700 people sustained injuries requiring medical treatment and bothered complaining to McDonald's, you can be the actual number of people injured was way higher.

Phone,

We agree that people should be sold items that are essentially weapons, right?

I think that's the only real issue.


Koumei,

Yeah, that's what I figured. They use it, but only get in trouble if caught.

What I meant by the use of incendiaries by Hitler is that he was publicly flouting Geneva conventions when using them. The allies didn't know that the Holocaust was going on, or at least they said as much.

I'm not sure on how the details of "the big reveal: hitler's a bigger jerk than anyone could have guessed" really came about. I've heard that allied pilots saw the camps, and that the allies might have heard stories beforehand.


Count,

fire jelly sounds... delicious, if it was a food.


Also, for what Boolean said, reported incidences always are outnumbered by actual incidences. Sometimes by several orders of magnitude.

I'm guessing that the 700 were people that received deep tissue burns of some kind. While the potential 700 to 70,000 others that were burned didn't feel that they needed to report their injury.

Judging__Eagle wrote: That is why the old lady couldn't move, the meat of the muscles of her inner thighs was cooked solid.

Nah, they gave her skin grafts. If that had happened, they would have just amputated.

But she wasn't able to move at first because of the burns, right?

I don't mean her whole thigh being turned into a roast ham, but if even a few millimetres of muscle on the outermost edges of your body are not working properly then it will make any actions after the fact greatly difficult.

Judging__Eagle wrote:Phone,

We agree that people should be sold items that are essentially weapons, right?

I think that's the only real issue.

Er, what?

No really, what?

So to go back to my initial confusion inducing sarcasm its now OK for McDonalds to sell, as coffeee...

Hot Coffee, Coffee so hot it kills you, Coffee so hot it is explosive super heated steam, and now all new... A grenade in a cup!

No really, what?