I am SOOOO Mad!

Phil: By the way, sorry for the double post - got a case of fat fingers and clicked submit twice. The difference between us is that you seem to think corporations are resposible for the gap between human action and responsbility while I believe there is no gap that corporations must cover. People make mistakes, that is a fact of life. We should not expect manufacturers to account for every conceivable mistake and adjust their products accordingly. For instance, given your logic, knife makers shouldn't make their knives sharpe since people might cut themselves, cars shouldn't go over 70 cause people will speed and get in wrecks, etc. McDs did nothing wrong, they served hot coffee to a woman who subsequently manipulated it in a vehicle AND she was physically unable to do so carefully. There are folks who look for others to blame and then there are of us who work to improve ourselves. Much more challenging to work on your own faults that sue others.

Originally posted by Bob McAdams A pool has a clearly posted policy that says: "Starting blocks may only be used in otherwise vacant lanes by certified swimmers." Only 4 of the 6 lanes are in use. Swimmer #5, who has a certification badge on his suit, informs the lifeguard that he is going to be practicing starts in one of the empty lanes. Why shouldn't this be allowed? I think this is where I came in. :p I've already said that I think that's OK, IF the facility management can make it work, which they may not be able to. They have to consider many factors including the GENERAL level of competence of their users, not just the most experienced. How confident are they that ALL their users will understand and follow the rules? Left turns aren't a good analogy, since ALL drivers are supposed to pass a road test -- not the case in public lap swim hours. (By the way, left turns aren't allowed on some of the busier streets in NYC.) They have to take into account the least competent users -- that's just a fact of life in public lap swim. They also have to consider how busy the facility is -- setting aside a lane takes one away from other users and an empty lane may not stay that way for long. If the facility can do it, fine -- I won't criticize them for not doing it.

Gareth: In America, where I live, we prefer coffee hot and know to take appropriate safeguards when drinking it while driving, most of us anyway. If I have a physical limitation that makes this a bad idea while driving, should I change my habits or sue others. By all means, sue another person. I don't believe I or anyone else on this forum has argued this is in any way similar to the Firestone tire issue. Here's something for you to ponder - who would be at fault if the lady spilled her coffee and burned herself because her firestone tires exploded? Since it's all about the temperature, I guess McDs is responsible again. Matter of fact, is there any scenario where someone spills coffee from McDs and it's their own fault in your blame filled world? Why must McD warn customers that coffee is hot. Isn't that a given? Are you aware that hot food served hot might actually be hot?

Emmett: Sporks should be outlawed, as you state. If you mistake it for a spoon it can impale your mouth. The spork manufacturers must know this and should be subject to lawsuits. I think we are on the same thought when I asked earlier what would have happened if she just dumped the coffee on her head. No amount of personal responsibility seems to mitigate this, in the minds of some. Speaking of toasters, I burned my hand on one yesterday. Who knew they were supposed to be hot? I'm calling a lawyer.

I don't see how knives are part of this argument. If everyone else's knives cause you a small cut (normal cup of coffee), and brand X causes gangrene/hand chopped off/whatever at a high rate (3rd degree burn from overly hot coffee), then maybe you'll have something. Hi Emmett, I am not a lawyer. So the information I'm giving is just what I have dug up (but it is not my imagining what is going on). Part of the suit is that you were using the product in its intended manner. So opening the lid to add cream and sugar (and accidently spilling) would be normal behavior for a cup of coffee, pouring it on your head or lap would not. (If you remember, she was held responsible for the spill.) This next section I think is what you want: An injury from a product is not a justification for suing the manufacturer. Rather, the consumer must be able to legitimately allege that the product was "defective", a legal term meaning essentially, that the product was unreasonably dangerous. A product can be unreasonably dangerous for various reasons. The design of the product could be defective, thus the entire line of products would be unreasonably dangerous. Generally, (although it varies from state to state), to determine whether the product is unreasonably dangerous, a balancing test will be employed in which the utility of the product is weighed against the danger it poses. In most cases, the plaintiff will be obligated to offer a reasonable alternative design that the manufacturer could have employed, which would have prevented the injury and which would not have substantially diminished the product's effectiveness. So the utility (morning beverage) is compared to the danger (3rd degree burns, hospitilization, etc.) The reasonable alternative design is to make the coffee the same temperature as everyone else. Even 10 degrees cooler would have substantially reduced the risk.

So, mattson, if this woman had just poured in her lap intionally, the outcome would have been the same? It's a great country - you can intentionally hurt yourself, drive up your alleged bills for pain and suffering in order to collect damages from someone else. In addition to coffee being hot, knives are sharp and can cause injury. If you've ever bought a very expensive knife you know they can be very sharp.

For those who refuse to look at the FACTS in this case but prefer to opinionize, here is information from the case. McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail; From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks; Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees; At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years; Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature; McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not; McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;” McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk; The case is all about the temperature. People make assumptions about actions they take. The average person assumes that drinking coffee from McDonalds is safe. I would assume that as they have been serving it for many years they would be doing so safely and responsibly. No one assumes that 3rd degree burns, skin grafts and months in hospital would result if by accident they or someone else spills coffee over them. For Aquageek who sees no need for corporate responsiblity, was the case of the "firestone tyres fitted to Suv's where they would explode on hot roads, the fault of the driver or the company making unsafe tyres ? BTW, I know that as soon as someone stops arguing over the facts in a case ( here it is the temp of the coffee ) and goes to global opinions over society, lawyers etc, etc, that they have realised that they have LOST the argument.

In response to the original post about diving in the YMCA in general swim sessions. As a swim coach and teacher i have to do a "Risk Assesment" for all factors that may affect the safety of the people who are in my care, just as the Y is responsible for the safety of people using it's facility. I would allow diving from the blocks IF: The pool depth is greater than 6 feet ( 2 metres ) All pool users know that this is happening. There is a clearly marked designated lane for this, closed off to other uses. The Lane is clearly marked ONE WAY, you dive in and swim to other end and get out. The swimmers in adjacent lanes who are nearest the ropes bordering on the diving lane swim AWAY, in the same direction, as the diver and are circle swimming in that lane. This is to avoid swimmers swimming head first into the diving zone. There were two lifeguards, One to watch pool and one to watch the diving lane and the divers. The diver has clearly demonstrated proficiency in diving, perhaps by doing a practice dive off the side (not the blocks), or is known to the lifeguards as being proficient. Even with all of this there is still a risk and there are people who would see an empty lane and would swim into it just because they are stupid !

Originally posted by Michael Heather Anyone remember what the real thread of this discussion is about without looking at the first post? Swimpastor can't practice starts from the blocks at his local pool......:cool: My wife tells me that I am a fountain of useless knowledge.:)

Originally posted by Gareth Eckley ... For Aquageek who sees no need for corporate responsiblity, was the case of the "firestone tyres fitted to Suv's where they would explode on hot roads, the fault of the driver or the company making unsafe tyres ? ... Not a good comparison. The average person knows that coffee will be hot. This is something that a reasonable person just knows intuitively. The average person cannot tell that tires are manufactured poorly by looking at them. This is not something that a reasonable person just knows intuitively. I would guess that many auto mechanics would not be able to tell just by looking at the tires.