Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:35:16 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
> 
>>> Oh, I don't know that that's sufficient.  At least here in the US, it
>>> still has to be somebody's *fault*.
>> Yep - your own :-P
> 
> I wish more people would realise this.  But the trend over the last 
> several years has been to blame someone else in order to hit the 
> "jackpot" with a sizable judgment.  The most famous was Stella, who won a 
> judgment against McDonald's because she put a hot cup of coffee between 
> her legs and got burned.
> 
> All things about the proper temperature to serve coffee at and whatnot 
> aside, *she* decided to put a cup of hot liquid there.  McDonald's didn't 
> make her do that.
> 
> (The judgment she won was reduced significantly upon appeal - that fact's 
> not often discussed by people who site this case).
> 
> I'm not a big fan of McD's, but the result was that they also had to put 
> a warning on the cup that states that the contents are hot.  As if it was 
> impossible to tell that.
> 


Only in this case, it really might have been McD's fault. Coffee should 
be served at a drinkable temperature, maybe a bit warmer to keep it warm 
in the cup for a while. That temperature would not have resulted in the 
burns the woman got. The coffee had to be at a much higher temperature, 
in which case someone at McD's had either fiddled with the machine or 
ignored it's maintenance. If she had sipped it instead of spilling it 
first, she would have got burns through her mouth and throat instead.

Post a reply to this message