I am SOOOO Mad!

Originally posted by Gareth Eckley "Comical. First of all, in the US, if you are a coach, you know that every kid on your team has signed a waiver of liability for you, the facility and the organization." I am confused, does this mean that as long as someone has signed a waiver, that you have NO responsibility to take ALL reasonable steps to ensure their safety ? Waiver or no waiver, if you are reckless and allow or do not stop dangerous behaviour, you will and deserve to be sued if someone in your care gets hurt. With the McDonalds case it is all about the temperature it was served at. There was no case if the coffee was only hot , not scalding hot.:mad: Well, then following that logic, knowing that eating in a car and not paying attention to traffic had caused many accidents, and occasion lethal ones, perhaps all companies that have a drive-through shuold be sued to stop them, because they support the dangerous behavior of eating while driving... and they do know that most people that purchase food in a drive through will start consuming it... pretty much as quickly as they can unpack it. You know, the potential harm of a traffic accident is much bigger then even a 3rd degree burn on a thigh or arm. What bugs me abouthe whole concept is that we are very wiling to accept much higher risks without giving them much thuoght (in spite of warnings about the danger of not paying attention to the road...) I just don't believe in the concept of, oh, I got hurt doing something that I shouldn't have been doing in the first place, but now that I hurt myself, I wanna sue the maker of a product that i hurt myself with, cause they didn't acount for what I might do, and failed to protect me. So, couple of people here say that as a maker or a seller of a product taht can be misused you'd be aware of people's use of it, and try to make it as safe as possible... So, can you please explain to me why it's such a problem that the coffe was served hotter than expected, and caused a burn... or even a few dozen of them... But the fact that people get into accidents eating in the car and not paying attention to the road much more often is a non issue? Why the double standard? Where do you draw the line? Is it okay that you bite into a burge, block yuor view o the road and get into an accident? But if the burger was hotter than you expected and, then you sue the burger maker for your crash? What if the burger was too cold and you gotticked offabout it and then got into an accident because you were too busy being ticked off and didn't notice a pedestrian on the road? I mean, you could argue the case that if the burger was done properly,you wouldn't have been ticked off, and therfore yur diminished capacity is the burger-makers fault. I don't agree that 80% of the burden belongs to McD. I'd say it's more like 10%. - When you get hot liquid from a restaurant, especialy coffe or tea, I expect them to be closeto boiling hot, and treatthem with that amount of caution. - Also, I expect to spill drinks when driving a car. Therefore, anything that would be even remotely uncomfortable (not to mention dagerous) doesnt' go in the car with me. So, the McD's fault amouts to, ouch, the coffe was hotter than i thought it would be. Damn, I took a risk, and ended up on the losing end this time. I was buyng coffee from them frequently, I'd know it's hotter than others, and treat it that way. I would never ina milion years blame McD for my taking a bad risk. Had i not taken that risk the coffe temperature would not matter. had the coffe been cooler, instead of a third degree bur, I'd have a second degree burn or a first, or just pants that look like I had peed myself and a smelly stain in my car. I just can't see how McDonalds gets the 80% of the blame. What might be more fair would to offer to cover the cost of medical treatment of a kind of a burn a 160 degree coffe would do vs. 180 degree coffe - or whatever the temperature differential is between the average with dive through's vs. mc Donalds.

Originally posted by Gareth Eckley "Comical. First of all, in the US, if you are a coach, you know that every kid on your team has signed a waiver of liability for you, the facility and the organization." I am confused, does this mean that as long as someone has signed a waiver, that you have NO responsibility to take ALL reasonable steps to ensure their safety ? Waiver or no waiver, if you are reckless and allow or do not stop dangerous behaviour, you will and deserve to be sued if someone in your care gets hurt. With the McDonalds case it is all about the temperature it was served at. There was no case if the coffee was only hot , not scalding hot.:mad: Well, then following that logic, knowing that eating in a car and not paying attention to traffic had caused many accidents, and occasion lethal ones, perhaps all companies that have a drive-through shuold be sued to stop them, because they support the dangerous behavior of eating while driving... and they do know that most people that purchase food in a drive through will start consuming it... pretty much as quickly as they can unpack it. You know, the potential harm of a traffic accident is much bigger then even a 3rd degree burn on a thigh or arm. What bugs me abouthe whole concept is that we are very wiling to accept much higher risks without giving them much thuoght (in spite of warnings about the danger of not paying attention to the road...) I just don't believe in the concept of, oh, I got hurt doing something that I shouldn't have been doing in the first place, but now that I hurt myself, I wanna sue the maker of a product that i hurt myself with, cause they didn't acount for what I might do, and failed to protect me. So, couple of people here say that as a maker or a seller of a product taht can be misused you'd be aware of people's use of it, and try to make it as safe as possible... So, can you please explain to me why it's such a problem that the coffe was served hotter than expected, and caused a burn... or even a few dozen of them... But the fact that people get into accidents eating in the car and not paying attention to the road much more often is a non issue? Why the double standard? Where do you draw the line? Is it okay that you bite into a burge, block yuor view o the road and get into an accident? But if the burger was hotter than you expected and, then you sue the burger maker for your crash? What if the burger was too cold and you gotticked offabout it and then got into an accident because you were too busy being ticked off and didn't notice a pedestrian on the road? I mean, you could argue the case that if the burger was done properly,you wouldn't have been ticked off, and therfore yur diminished capacity is the burger-makers fault. I don't agree that 80% of the burden belongs to McD. I'd say it's more like 10%. - When you get hot liquid from a restaurant, especialy coffe or tea, I expect them to be closeto boiling hot, and treatthem with that amount of caution. - Also, I expect to spill drinks when driving a car. Therefore, anything that would be even remotely uncomfortable (not to mention dagerous) doesnt' go in the car with me. So, the McD's fault amouts to, ouch, the coffe was hotter than i thought it would be. Damn, I took a risk, and ended up on the losing end this time. I was buyng coffee from them frequently, I'd know it's hotter than others, and treat it that way. I would never ina milion years blame McD for my taking a bad risk. Had i not taken that risk the coffe temperature would not matter. had the coffe been cooler, instead of a third degree bur, I'd have a second degree burn or a first, or just pants that look like I had peed myself and a smelly stain in my car. I just can't see how McDonalds gets the 80% of the blame. What might be more fair would to offer to cover the cost of medical treatment of a kind of a burn a 160 degree coffe would do vs. 180 degree coffe - or whatever the temperature differential is between the average with dive through's vs. mc Donalds.