Over the years, there have been some fairly interesting comments. Some have been silly, some have been rude, and others have been thought-provoking. For the most part, I think I've only deleted comments that were out and out spam, such as those promising cheaper mortgages or various herbal remedies to a miscellany of ailments. Censorship isn't my bag, so if someone feels the need to make an ass out of themselves or drop f bombs in the comment thread, I can live with it. That said, I simply have to reply to the many comments about McDonald's and Stella Liebeck's case.
First off, let's talk about the hot coffee. Yes, coffee is supposed to be hot. I understand that. But 180-190 degrees is simply too hot for human consumption. I have a 180 degree thermostat in my car; would you want to drink water from a radiator, or would you think that's a bit too hot? If you're into third-degree burns, you're more than welcome to come sip from my radiator. Seriously though – no one expects to run up thousands of dollars in medical bills and need reconstructive surgery if they spill some hot coffee on themselves.
Second, I want to talk about Stella and her negligence. Could she have been more careful? Yes. Does that relieve McDonald's of responsibility? No. Why not? Because, quite frankly, the world is full of idiots. They cut us off in traffic. They can't figure out how to work their digital cable. They're afraid of "the Internets," as if there's more than one. They buy the herbal remedies spammers sell. They email their credit card numbers and social security numbers to complete strangers. Hell, 1,658,853 idiots voted to re-elect Rick "I'll sue you for making my wife fat" Santorum. I'm willing to bet money that by the end of the day, you'll run across an idiot. We all know the world is full of idiots. So do manufacturers and vendors – so they have a responsibility to try and make their products at least somewhat idiot-proof. In the law, the concept is referred to as foreseeability. If it's reasonably forseeable that some idiot will injure him or herself in a certain way, the manufacturer should either warn the idiot or try and prevent the idiot from causing the injury in the first place. Maybe it means putting stupid warning labels on products. Or disclaimers on tv shows/commercials. Or the little warning on your dash to use the brake before you move the car out of park. Much has been said about the lack of an appropriate warning label on Stella's coffee cup. Look at that last sentence. I called it a coffee cup. In actuality, it was a Styrofoam cup with golden arches all over it. The cup didn't specifically say coffee. Without some kind of a warning on it that the cup in fact contains hot liquid, some idiot might think the cup is full of soda, or water, or some other beverage that isn't hot. In Stella's case, perhaps the label should have said, "WARNING. This product is so ridiculously hot that if you spill it on yourself, portions of your flesh will melt. If you try and gulp this coffee down, you'll lose your sense of taste and need throat surgery. So for God's sake, PLEASE be careful with this cup of dangerously hot liquid." Once more, in case I wasn't clear – ANY DRINK THAT CAUSES THIRD DEGREE BURNS IS TOO HOT TO DRINK. And anyone who doesn't think McDonald's should have at least paid for the woman's medical bills is an idiot.
On the subject of McDonald's: I am not McDonald's. I don't work for them. I eat there only occasionally. I point this out because some people, for some reason, seem to think that their comments posted here about the quality of food at McDonald's will somehow make it to Ronald McDonald or whoever is running the show over there. As far as I know, they won't. I've had some really interesting visitors on this site, like from the White House and The Pentagon, but I don't recall anyone visiting from McDonald's. The odds are that if any McDonald's employees make it over here, it's to read more about "Free" creditreport.com and my experience with them. So, if you're not a fan of Quarter Pounders (Royale with cheese to my French readers), perhaps your comments should go to McDonalds.com.
At any rate, keep the comments coming.
I’m a paralegal who works for a plaintiff’s attorney and part of my job sometimes, is to flesh out different arguments for certain cases. I’ve never understood why people don’t understand the concept of “unintended consequences” when it comes to the MacDonalds case. Imagine, a mom and a three year old toddler standing in line, the person standing in front of them orders a cup of hot coffee. The person puts the lid on the coffee,(or not)turns around, not seeing the toddler, trips and spills scalding coffee on the toddler’s face, resulting in third degree burns which require skin grafting and permanently scarring the little tyke for life. Where is the comparative fault in that? Was the toddler at fault? How about his mother? Was the bloke who bought the coffee aware that the coffee could cause third degree burns in less than six seconds?? Was he at fault? In other words, if a liquid was this hot in an industrial work situation, and the employees were in direct contact or proximity of this type of “dangerous condition” what type of warning AND barrier precautions do you think would exist??? Quite a few!!! When this case is framed properly the aguments of comparative fault are ludicrous!!! (not to mention outright disgusting) People would recoil in horror over the toddler, but isn’t it commical when a woman’s genital area (her lap) is given third degree burn in six seconds. “OMG, why didn’t that “stupid woman” look at what she was doing! etc. Blah,blah,blah,! Personal Responsibility!!!! Blame the victim. Shit happens!! Pick a defense! Shame on the media for spinning this story as someone who made money for the inconvience of having to change her clothes. (while leaving out the horrific injury she suffered)Talk to any firefighter who’s had to undergo skingrafting and see if they want to do it again??? Meanwhile, the Tort reformers brag about how they can get the media to frame and headline stories this way, and the defense bar and corperations love it.
So much for “corperate responsibility”, I guess “responsibility” is only for us litte people.
“180-190 degrees is simply too hot for human consumption”
Every major coffee vendor in the world disagrees with you, as has been pointed out to you several times, but honesty comes hard to Justinian Lane.
http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_and_stella_liebe.html
You also lie when you claim that Liebeck’s cup didn’t have a warning. It did have a warning, as has been pointed out to you several times. But honesty comes hard to Justinian Lane.
http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_and_stella_liebe.html