Again, watch the documentary. You're making assumptions. For instance the jury did assign some fault to the person who spilled the coffee on herself. That was factored into their decision.
They had complaints. And if you're selling coffee, and it's so hot it burns people (and not just one or two, but hundreds) you probably should look into it. the point of a knife is to cut. the point of coffee is not to burn you severely. Because it is more common for coffee to be spilled on you. And you should be able to spill coffee on you and NOT have it burn so bad you have to go to the doctors. Or if it is that hot, you'd hope they'd lower the temp. I'm honestly too tired to respond (not being snarky, honestly I'm just exhausted...so that's why I'm not responding much more)
The issue that I think we're having is over the temperature of the coffee. The point of coffee might not be to burn you, but it IS to be hot. Nobody wants cold coffee. Nobody wants luke warm coffee. The coffee is hot because people want it hot. If hot coffee is spilled on you, you're going to get burned. It's a byproduct of it being hot. So it's up the individual to wait until the coffee is cool enough to drink. If people were complaining about the temperature of the coffee, then yes, they should have changed it. I just don't think that someone who spilled the coffee on themselves should be able to blame the company for the damages. It was not intended to be safe enough to spill on yourself. Anyway, just my thoughts.
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-06/news/mn-223_1_highest-death-rate I buy coffee thinking "I hope it's hot until I'm done drinking it."
Your article (and point) is a little misleading. That was about the 85-87 #'s..and what Chevy Made car wasn't a piece of shit back then? I wonder how much of that death rate is related to idiot drivers vs really crappy cars (I'm guessing it was as much lazy/crappy cars by GM more than speed).
I was in this situation. At the drive-up, they handed me my food and dangerous coffee. The cars in line were pressuring me to move on, so I put the coffee, which I could barely hold, into my car's cupholder. It's self-contradictory to move fast while also being careful not to spill by dislodging the flimsy lid (coffee lids are stronger now; back then they were the same as iced drink lids). Some people will put the cup between their legs because either they are flustered by hurrying, or there's no empty cupholder. I mentioned a couple of times to the McDonalds outlets that I couldn't drink the coffee till long after I had finished the solid food, which needed something fluid to help me swallow it, so it was miserable eating it. They acted as if they'd heard this complaint before. I was glad this woman changed things, but Republicans were sarcastic for years, saying we live in a litigious society. (Deregulation just kicked the can down the alley from the legislative branch to the judicial branch.)
I drank two bottles of wine tonight. I'm just getting started. I feel great, but if I feel like shit tomorrow I'm going to look into filing a lawsuit against the winery. Have some fucking personal accountability people, this type of shit is pathetic. You spill coffee on yourself, you get burned.
getting burned, and what happened to this woman isn't exactly the same. you do know what 3rd degree burns means, right? Did you watch the video? You're honestly telling me this is normal from having coffee spilled on you? (if that doesn't work, here is the direct link: http://www.fortworthinjuryattorneyblog.com/McDonalds1.jpg) or this? http://plotmistress.com/wp-content/uploads/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-2-Copy.jpg or this? http://www.neufeldlawfirm.com.php53....com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/images-2.jpeg No one, I repeat NO ONE, expects to get this badly burned from spilling coffee. If someone knew that the coffee was this hot, they wouldn't place it anywhere near their legs or body, lid on or off. Let alone near a small child.
It's true all along, and they knew about it since at least 85-87 cars were made. Sheesh. I wonder how much of the coffee spills are related to idiot drivers. All of them!
That article was strictly about those 3 years of cars. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are still unsafe now. How do I know that, based on the article you linked? the article was from 1990. Also, it's a lot harder to adjust/fix/redesign cars based on crash test results/incidences of death, than it is to lower the temperature of the water used to make coffee (which is just above whats normally safe because they're trying to squeeze as much money out of the coffee grounds). And besides all that, I'm not sure what your point was. Chevy was wrong to sell a car they knew was performing poorly in the safety tests/accidents. They sold cars that weren't safe. What is your grand point? link semi related to car deaths http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver-fatality-stats-by-auto-make/ Corvette not on it, but the Nissan 350Z is #1 (of the era included in this study).
She shares part of the blame for improper use of the cup. However, but not for the fact the coffee was too hot to begin with there isn't a burn. The problem started with McDonalds. They own it 90%.
GM disputes Corvette Death Rate (1994): http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...AfIaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pkcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3863,816612 2002 http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/assets/images/2002/Aug-26-2002/SUV-report.pdf 2007 http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf Really? Ford Mustang. 280-Z. Whatever. All those sports car makers build cars knowing people will die in them.
It's OK to make a product that can be harmful if misused. We see it all over the place, be it cars, guns, alcohol, tobacco, cheeseburgers, aspirin, etc. I don't see why McDonalds needs to be absolved.
Whats the point in bringing up other products then? It's not like the woman poured the coffee over herself, or used coffee improperly or in a fashion that is uncommon. Like I said before, if she knew that the coffee was so hot it could cause 3rd degree burns ("caution: Hot!" does not implicitly suggest that it was 3rd degree burn hot), she wouldn't have done what she did. McDonalds holds a responsibility to sell items that aren't unsafe to the consumer.
MacDonald's didn't pour coffee on anyone. They hold no more responsibility than GM. Millions of people consumed their coffee, billions of times (likely) without incident. Unsafe isn't a reasonable word in this case.
