I am SOOOO Mad!

I'll leave it at this, coffee is hot, get over it. If you can't handle coffee, which is hot by the way, maybe you should drink cold caffeinated bevereages unless you are looking for a free ride, courtesy of McDs. Oh yeah, for the record, coffee is hot, hence the steam, that indicates heat.

Geek, the remedy suggested (lowering the temperature by 10-20 degrees), still leaves you with hot coffee that can burn you. But it greatly reduces the chances of serious burns, without compromising quality. Why wouldn't you do that, or at least educate people that your coffee is hotter/more dangerous than any other coffee out there? I am amazed at how many people are taking the stance that "reducing unreasonable and unnecessary risk" is equivalent to "eliminating any and all risk". Everyone is agreed that hot coffee can cause scalded tongues and minor burns if spilled. Should I expect (with normal use) the risk of $10K - 100K hospitalization due to an 89 cent product, when there is no reason for it? Originally posted by Bob McAdams I don't see how McDonald's coffee is part of this argument, which is about competitive swimmers being allowed to use the starting blocks to practice their starts. This came up, because someone used it as an example of frivilous lawsuits. Some of us have stated, once all the facts are in, this case in not frivilous. (You can still think the outcome was wrong, without thinking the case had no merit.) I've made an effort to stop posting, but others have persisted (which required a response :) .) 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? What do you mean by certification? Like those Red Cross swimming courses? That would provide a means to let the lifeguard know that the swimmer has passed a certain level of competance, without requiring a guess. On the face of it, that would seem to be reasonable (to me). Anyone to play Devil's Advocate? :)

Imagine the list of modern conveniences we would have to do without if Big Bad Corporations had to stop providing them (or dumb them down) because a very tiny minority of people using poor judgement, a diminished skill set or less than prudent caution, manage to hurt themselves. Absent a modicum of personal responsibility darn near ANYTHING can be hazardous to your health (the Darwin Awards come to mind here.) Toasters Water heaters Fans Extension cords Electrical outlets Electric mixer Hammers Screwdrivers Drills Vaccuum cleaner Forks (Sporks too! But that would be no great loss in my book.) Paper Glassware Window glass Dry ice Kitchen Stove Bicycles Marbles Microwave ovens Sizzling steaks Thousands more including (dare I say it?)....Swimming pools. Here's another way to think about it...if that lady had chosen to simply POUR that hot coffee in her lap, instead of accidently spilling it, would she have had a winning lawsuit? If not, then the temperature of the coffee isn't the issue. If so, then our system is designed to reward stupidity, not punish corporate irresponsibility.

Path to riches and fame: Use knife to slather peanut butter on a slice of bread, put said bread in toaster, apply heat, when it starts to smoke, use knife to try to extract slathered smoking (or possibly burning, by now) bread, electrocute self (may require other hand be placed in sink full of water). Sue toaster manufacturer, bread baker, knife purveyor, peanut butter conglomerate, electric utility, water company, plumbing installer. Get unbelievably large settlements from each. Use those profits to develope and market new, litigationally correct, toaster that has no openings through which imbecils might place bread (slathered or otherwise) or knives. Or maybe just no heating elements (that would save on electricity costs, thus paying for itself over time!). Star in your own infomercial (maybe even hire Martha Stewart as a sidekick).

Dear water-based biter of heads off chickens: How long can you keep this thread going by misinterpreting or ignoring what people are saying? deliberately pouring coffee in a lap is not normal use, so no suit. Putting cream and sugar in coffee is normal use and spilling is a common occurance, thus a possibility of a suit if an injury occurs if the product is defective. The product is defective because it was *too hot.* Not hot, but *too* hot. Hotter than a reasonable (american) person would expect. So hot that it could not be treated in a normal manner like other cups of coffee. But if a reasonable person does not *know* the coffee is hotter than all other coffee, how can it be treated differently? All the products that Emmett mentioned have *known* hazards, and reasonable persons know how to deal with them. The coffee had an *unknown* hazard, so a reasonable person could not deal with it. McDonalds knew their coffee was defective, but made a conscious decision to do nothing about it. This is irresponsible, and McDonalds should have some sort of sanction because of their irresponsibiltiy. I expect corporations to act responsibly. Would *you* hand someone a cup of boiling water without warning them that it was really boiling?

I'm coffeed out... I think I am going to ignore any more posts on this subject... George Park www,swimdownhill.com

Originally posted by mattson I don't see how knives are part of this argument. I don't see how McDonald's coffee is part of this argument, which is about competitive swimmers being allowed to use the starting blocks to practice their starts. A more relevant question is whether cars should be allowed to turn at intersections. Left turns should clearly never be allowed, because a car that is turning left could be hit by a car that is travelling the other way going straight. Of course, the car that is turning left could watch for cars going the other way and wait until there's nothing coming. But what if a car comes zooming through at the last minute and the driver doesn't see it? And right turns are not really safe either, since a car that is turning right has to slow down to turn. What if a car that is going straight doesn't see that he's slowing down and rams him? Or what if he hits a pedestrian who is crossing at the intersection? The fact is that everything I've just said is perfectly true and valid. The only thing it ignores is the fact that people need to turn. But if you even consider that fact, you are admitting that rules and regulations should take into account what people need and not just safety. All of which brings us back to the topic: 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?

Originally posted by KenChertoff The point I was trying to make is that the general rule in the United States is that the verdict should reflect that by reducing the plaintiff's recovery (if any) in proportion to his own responsiblity -- it's not an all or nothing result. yea, I agree with you on that one. I was jsut curious, did something i say make it sound different, or are you just making a general statement to point out that fact... Because It was not my intention to claim that it is all or nothing, although I do think that MCDonalds share should be very small... definately not 80% I'm thinking at most 5-10%.

Originally posted by Scansy This one irked me too. I realize that there are legitimate cases where people have gland or hormone or other problems that make them gain weight. .... Disease doesn't have to imply it's an involuntary condition. It jsut means - unhealthy, and I think we all agree on obesity being unhealthy. Lot of diseases can be voluntarily self-inflicted. Sometimes intentionally, other times just out of lack of care or giving in to impulses. The resulting condition can still end up being a disease. What irks me is that people use disease as yet another cop-out to absolve themselves of personal responsibility for their health.

Originally posted by Phil Arcuni I did not think that I needed to look up to be sure someone was not jumping into the lane before I moved into it. My colleague did not expect someone to suddenly move into a lane that he just observed was clear. heh, I learned that one about the first week of swimming in a crowded pool. Since then I've grown eyes on the back of my head and bottom of my feet - so to speak.