Thread: Switch hitters need not apply.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

They were not held accoutable for HOT coffee. They were held accoutnable for serving a product in a condition that they KNEW to be unsafe. The coffee was served at a temperature well above the norm for economic reasons, if memory serves (to eek more coffee out of the beans, saving $$). They had been warned in the past.

I've spilled freshly made coffee out of the coffee pot directly onto myself. It's damned hot. My skin got a little red. Maybe one little blister. This woman suffered second (and do I remember even some third? Is that possible?) degree burns, requiring a hefty amount of medical treatment.

The corporation was warned that they were doing something dangerous (mroe dangerous than just "hot coffee') and they disregarded customer safety for profits. Why should they NOT be held accountable for the damage they cause by this decision. A corporation has the DUTY to not hand out a product more dangerous than a customer ought reasonably believe it to be.

Sorry, that's about all i remember...I took torts more years ago than my memory really likes to acknowledge. As such, my brain may have made up any or all of the "facts" as I remember them. pelase refute me if this is the case.

Got the rest for you.

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case