Thread: Switch hitters need not apply.

Originally Posted by sicboater

Ever read this one?

It wasn't just "hot" coffee. It resulted in third degree burns. The woman took a risk putting it between her legs sure. It was proven in court that McDonald's (who refused initial settlements that were ONLY for her medical costs) knowingly provided coffee that was hot enough to cause serious burns even in the face of evidence that their reason for selling coffee so hot was not valid.

I can't comment on the rest of these cases, but in this one there is certainly a lot more to the story than most people realize. She tried mediation and McD's denied. She went to court and McD's got what they deserved based on the facts of the case.

-Rob

Rob, you know I like you, but you cannot be serious. Yes, coffee is hot. The sky is blue, and water is wet, too. If it wasn't that hot, she'd have probably sued them for serving her a cup of lukewarm coffee. And if she's dumb enough to put hot coffee between her legs, why should McDonald's (and I'm not defending McDonald's, but the principle) be responsible for her medical costs? I mean, do you have to have a warning label to tell you not to put your hands on a hot stove? Is it the stove's fault or yours if you get burned? So I guess I don't see how McDonald's got what they "deserved". If anything, the woman got what "she" deserved for being somewhat retarded. And think about it...the coffee could only get somewhere ~ 212 degrees, which I think is the boiling point of water. And it doesn't retain a whole lot of residual heat, like say, cooking grease. 3rd degree, full-thickness burns? I've spilled boiling water fresh off the stove on myself before, and the worst I got was a couple blisters. She must've had the skin of an infant, and if she were that sensitive she shouldn't have been drinking coffee anyway. Point is, it was HER fault she got burned, and someone else had to pay for it. I could understand a bit of her point if the shape of a coffee cup was designed to be placed between one's legs, but common sense says it's HER fault.

Originally Posted by Joe Chandler

Rob, you know I like you, but you cannot be serious. Yes, coffee is hot. The sky is blue, and water is wet, too. If it wasn't that hot, she'd have probably sued them for serving her a cup of lukewarm coffee. And if she's dumb enough to put hot coffee between her legs, why should McDonald's (and I'm not defending McDonald's, but the principle) be responsible for her medical costs? I mean, do you have to have a warning label to tell you not to put your hands on a hot stove? Is it the stove's fault or yours if you get burned? So I guess I don't see how McDonald's got what they "deserved". If anything, the woman got what "she" deserved for being somewhat retarded. And think about it...the coffee could only get somewhere ~ 212 degrees, which I think is the boiling point of water. And it doesn't retain a whole lot of residual heat, like say, cooking grease. 3rd degree, full-thickness burns? I've spilled boiling water fresh off the stove on myself before, and the worst I got was a couple blisters. She must've had the skin of an infant, and if she were that sensitive she shouldn't have been drinking coffee anyway. Point is, it was HER fault she got burned, and someone else had to pay for it. I could understand a bit of her point if the shape of a coffee cup was designed to be placed between one's legs, but common sense says it's HER fault.

I'll PM on this one as it's off topic really...



-Rob