Common Sense is Dead!!!

[hellosaltygoodness]

I don't see why they need a defense? It's on the cup, so anyone who somehow didn't realize that coffee was hot will now see it written in big letters. If they neither read the cup nor have any idea that coffee is served hot, that's not anyone elses fault.
You don't sue knife retailers when someone cuts themselves with it because it was "too sharp", because at some point people are responsible for their own stupid actions.

they gave a substance hot enough to melt the woman's skin to her, with nothing more than a cardboard cup as protection from the substance. writing the words "hot" on the cup does not excuse them recklessly endangering their customers, neither legally nor morally.

[spinner981]

i never said it was a "freaky occurrence," as businesses endangering both their employees and their customers in the pursuit of profit is unfortunately the norm rather than the exception, particularly in nations with fewer government regulations. i questioned how you find their continuation to endanger their customers defensible.

Because people are idiots and can turn anything into something dangerous. Even just counting the obvious things; cars, guns, fireworks, poisons/pesticides, etc. there are plenty of things that people sell that can cause some level of harm is mishandled. Its not just the big bad company messing up their products, its the very nature of what the product does and the inexperience of a customer using it.

[Independent voter]

Now you're just throwing out random non sequiturs instead of actually responding to any of the points made to you.

How does one lawsuit concerning a dangerous product we often use not pertain to the lawsuit of another dangerous product we often use?

Good civil suit lawyers will cherry pick juries who will side with them. The defense has to be up to the job.

[Revi]

It doesn't matter what disclaimer you put on something, if it can be established that you recognized that the product you provide has the potential to cause grievous damage and were negligent in responding to this danger.

Oh I realize it's not a legal defense, I've seen the stupid shit people can earn money through lawsuits. I do think it's a defense of MD though, as in people should side with them on this.

Your premise is basically the same as someone placing a warning label on a jack in the box: "warning: may be holding dagger and stab child in face." and then expecting this to be a legal defense when said jack pops out and stabs the child in the face. "It said so on the box!" is not a perfectly valid legal defense.

No. A children s toy equipped with a deadly weapon is not the same as serving coffee hot. The weapons only purpose would be harm, no benefits and horrible consequences, it's also completely unreasonable to expect people to be vary of children toys having knives.
Coffee on the other hand is expected to be hot, thus everyone should be cautious, it's the default reasonable approach to coffee. It also serves a purpose, having multiple benefits and only drawbacks if people act incredibly unreasonable.

[Kasierith]

Because people are idiots and can turn anything into something dangerous. Even just counting the obvious things; cars, guns, fireworks, poisons/pesticides, etc. there are plenty of things that people sell that can cause some level of harm is mishandled. Its not just the big bad company messing up their products, its the very nature of what the product does and the inexperience of a customer using it.

In terms of the coffee, the problem comes down to the fact that they are providing something for consumption that is too hot for consumption. The temperature of the coffee is not needed for it to be consumed; it is needed for rapid production so that they can hand a cup out in 10 seconds rather than 5 minutes. With things like cars and pesticides, the risk associated with their use is an inherent necessity in their function. With coffee at this temperature, it's not; its a product of expediency.

[hellosaltygoodness]

Because people are idiots and can turn anything into something dangerous. Even just counting the obvious things; cars, guns, fireworks, poisons/pesticides, etc. there are plenty of things that people sell that can cause some level of harm is mishandled. Its not just the big bad company messing up their products, its the very nature of what the product does and the inexperience of a customer using it.

what? boiling hot substances are an inherently dangerous thing, not something you just can choose to use in a dangerous fashion, ffs.

[spinner981]

Abuse or not, some parents need to accept the harsh reality that there are some kids on whom it just won't work.

Suggesting that some children are immune to all forms of discipline (even discipline the level of a drill sergeant) is a stretch at the very least. What kind of insane world would we live in where a person cannot learn from mistakes or have their behavior altered by conditioning by way of discipline (not counting obvious physical or mental shortcomings here)? That person would be unable to live in society, and would more than likely wind up in prison or dead by their own hand.

[Revi]

they gave a substance hot enough to melt the woman's skin to her, with nothing more than a cardboard cup as protection from the substance. writing the words "hot" on the cup does not excuse them recklessly endangering their customers, neither legally nor morally.

If the cup was insufficient protection, then it'd be their fault. If the women through carelessness or her own volition got the coffee out of the container and onto her skin, I don't see how the cups material makes any difference.

Everyone should be expected to know that coffee is hot and take the necessary precautions when handling it. Just as everyone should be expected to know that knives are sharp, or cleaning products are harmful when ingested.

[Kasierith]

Oh I realize it's not a legal defense, I've seen the stupid shit people can earn money through lawsuits. I do think it's a defense of MD though, as in people should side with them on this.

No. A children s toy equipped with a deadly weapon is not the same as serving coffee hot. The weapons only purpose would be harm, no benefits and horrible consequences, it's also completely unreasonable to expect people to be vary of children toys having knives.
Coffee on the other hand is expected to be hot, thus everyone should be cautious, it's the default reasonable approach to coffee. It also serves a purpose, having multiple benefits and only drawbacks if people act incredibly unreasonable.

My argument was completely valid in terms of the use of disclaimers as a defense. You're expanding it into other areas beyond that; specifically, what exactly is this dangerous attribute meant to do? When using a car, the dangerous attribute is a consequence of a metal box hurtling at speeds far beyond what man alone is capable of. When heating coffee up to this temperature, it's for the sake of expediency. And the courts decided that increasing the danger of the product for expediency was not a legal defense.

[Budong]

I would propose that Common Sense is not truly dead but in a deep coma waiting to wake up. When natural selection takes care of anyone dumb enough to burn themselves by drinking hot coffee or the parents of generations of children who can't think for themselves or take personal responsibility, then Common Sense might reawaken.

I wonder which end of the gene pool the posters in this thread belong? I hope you have a towel handy

[hellosaltygoodness]

If the cup was insufficient protection, then it'd be their fault. If the women through carelessness or her own volition got the coffee out of the container and onto her skin, I don't see how the cups material makes any difference.

you do realize that the very purpose of the coffee is to go not just on her skin, but in her mouth, right.

[GKLeatherCraft]

McDonalds required the franchiser to keep the coffee at 180F. Now they've lowered it but it's still hot. It is a frivolous case won by aggressive lawyers who picked the right jury, the defense didn't know what they were doing. There are literally dozens of things you have in your house that will injure you if used improperly, should you be awarded money each time you cut yourself on a carving knife or burn yourself with a clothes iron?

They actually haven't lowered it, their policy is still to serve Coffee between 176–194 °F (80–90 °C) I would have thought they would've lowered it since the Liebeck case, But instead they seem to have taken steps to improve warnings, and the cup itself, so it's more rigid, to help prevent further issues.
I can see both sides of that case, Yes, it's coffee, so you know to take care, and that if you spill it, it will burn, But I also believe they serve it way too hot, They know that because of how hot they can serve it, If you spill it, you have hardly any time to remove the clothing it's on, before you can get serious third degree burns, 2-7seconds is all it takes at those temps, which is bonkers.

[spinner981]

In terms of the coffee, the problem comes down to the fact that they are providing something for consumption that is too hot for consumption. The temperature of the coffee is not needed for it to be consumed; it is needed for rapid production so that they can hand a cup out in 10 seconds rather than 5 minutes. With things like cars and pesticides, the risk associated with their use is an inherent necessity in their function. With coffee at this temperature, it's not; its a product of expediency.

Thus the company warns the customer on the product itself. The customer is more than free to sit there and let it cool down, but most sensible people will prefer a quick cup of coffee that takes a few minutes to cool, over waiting twice or thrice as long for coffee on their way to work. There is a reason why companies try to serve their products to their customers faster; because that is what the customers want.

[Kasierith]

How does one lawsuit concerning a dangerous product we often use not pertain to the lawsuit of another dangerous product we often use?

Good civil suit lawyers will cherry pick juries who will side with them. The defense has to be up to the job.

You're obsessing over lawyers cherry picking juries without even paying attention to what the juries were given. You didn't even read the link I provided that broke down the evidence presented in the case.

- - - Updated - - -

Thus the company warns the customer on the product itself. The customer is more than free to sit there and let it cool down, but most sensible people will prefer a quick cup of coffee that takes a few minutes to cool, over waiting twice or thrice as long for coffee on their way to work.

And, again, a disclaimer is not a legal defense; it is, at best, a supplement to a defense.

[Revi]

you do realize that the very purpose of the coffee is to go not just on her skin, but in her mouth, right.

Instantly? When I make coffee at home or with any coffee maker, it is always too hot to start gulping down instantly. Expecting MD coffee to be similar isn't unreasonable.

[nextormento]

Common sense is the ignorant supposition that cultural knowledge is inherent knowledge, and is based on an absurd lack of sociological insight rather than intellectual prowess. There is no such thing as "common sense."

And numerous sociological studies have demonstrated that what we see as "common sense" is 1) not very common, at all, and 2) subject to so many exceptions[...]

I think you are confusing common sense with conventional wisdom.
Furthermore, sociological studies have 0 capacity to demonstrate anything.
And much more to the point, those two bits (common sense being not common, and being subject to exceptions) don't come from sociological studies but from conventional wisdom itself.

[spinner981]

And, again, a disclaimer is not a legal defense; it is, at best, a supplement to a defense.

If somebody drank pesticide or rat poison, wouldn't it be the same situation? Should people be required to sign a form recognizing that the coffee is hot in order to order said coffee?

[Kasierith]

Instantly? When I make coffee at home or with any coffee maker, it is always too hot to start gulping down instantly. Expecting MD coffee to be similar isn't unreasonable.

In one of the settlement cases, I can't remember if it was pre- or post- the case in question, the McDonalds employee spilled coffee on the customer by accident. Most of these cases have been along these lines: spilling coffee one way or another.

- - - Updated - - -

If somebody drank pesticide or rat poison, wouldn't it be the same situation? Should people be required to sign a form recognizing that the coffee is hot in order to order said coffee?

That depends. Are they purchasing said pesticide for the express purpose of consumption? Because last I checked, the basis for the coffee being too hot lawsuits was that McDonalds was serving a product for consumption that was dangerous if consumed at any point in the near future.

[Budong]

I think you are confusing common sense with conventional wisdom.
Furthermore, sociological studies have 0 capacity to demonstrate anything.
And much more to the point, those two bits (common sense being not common, and being subject to exceptions) don't come from sociological studies but from conventional wisdom itself.

Finally someone who gets extra time in the gene pool.

[Revi]

My argument was completely valid in terms of the use of disclaimers as a defense. You're expanding it into other areas beyond that; specifically, what exactly is this dangerous attribute meant to do? When using a car, the dangerous attribute is a consequence of a metal box hurtling at speeds far beyond what man alone is capable of. When heating coffee up to this temperature, it's for the sake of expediency. And the courts decided that increasing the danger of the product for expediency was not a legal defense.

Well that's the courts decision, and the US is quite notorious for the ability to sue (and win) for ridiculous things, it's even a very common joke in US-produced media. Just because the court ruled one way, doesn't make it the indisputable "truth". As I understood it, this discussion wasn't about purely legal fault, but about perceived fault in our eyes.

Benefit of heating the coffee to that temperature is as you say expediency, which, talking about cars, is the whole point of cars not being capped at lower speeds.