Warning Signs

When selling a product that can be dangerous, there's a responsibility to take measures to communicate those dangers, and employ methods to limit the danger. McDonald's did a poor job in both regards.

Sure, there is blame to be shared by Liebeck, and in fact the court said as much (20%). But that doesn't mean McDonald's is without blame.

Well, I think it is common knowledge the coffee is hot. If you go to Starbucks or Peet's, their coffee is just as hot. And McDonald's does put lids on their coffee with a little tab you can open to drink it. It was Liebeck who removed the lid thus tampering with the methods to limit danger.

I think the court was wrong. But that is what is wrong with our country. You have an idiot like Liebeck who spills coffee on herself and won't except the fact that she did it to herself. Blame others, don't take personal responsibility that you screwed up. If McDonald's is to blame, their only fault is producing the product in the first place. They can't really judge if their customer is an idiot or not. That is exactly why CP puts those signs up in front of the rides.

I think I heard, and I may be totally wrong, that one of the more recent lawsuits about the coffee involved the coffee being handed through the drive through to the customer without the lid being fully on. If that was the case then McDonald's may have some liability in that particular instance since we expect that we will be handed coffee in a proper container. Just "I bought coffee it was hot and I spilled it." isn't really the restaurant's fault.

Pete said:
Well, I think it is common knowledge the coffee is hot.

Is it common knowledge that coffee is hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns in a matter of seconds?

...the court was wrong. But that is what is wrong with our country.

Oh, so that's what is wrong with the US. And here I thought any problems we may have were far more nuanced and complex. ;)

Of course she's at fault for spilling the coffee, but it's an ignorant oversimplification to say the issue begins and ends there. Had she known the coffee was hot enough that relatively brief skin contact would cause injury requiring skin grafts, she likely would have handled the coffee with greater care.

Coffee at McDonald's is unique when compared to your home coffee maker or even coffee at a restaurant, in that the size of the serving and insulation of the vessel both contribute to a much slower rate of cooling.

I'll agree with Pete, the woman had to share a lot of the responsibility on this. Was McDonald's without fault? Certainly not. But the litigious nature of society and the massive punitive awards handed down by juries are in fact one thing that is really wrong with this country. They are not the only thing wrong though DJ, and I think we both know that's not what Pete was suggesting.

There needs to be some type of balance between making sure companies, doctors, etc all have some compulsion to do things correctly and safely, versus the state of the legal system as it stands presently. The current system results in nonsensical, over-the-top "safety theater", not to mention higher costs for just about every product or activity we use or participate in. I'm talking about tort reform, but of course this will never happen on the scale it needs to because it's not sexy enough for politicians to address in order to win votes.

MaverickLaunch said:
...I think we both know that's not what Pete was suggesting.

Hence the winky.

I'm talking about tort reform, but of course this will never happen on the scale it needs to because it's not sexy enough for politicians to address in order to win votes.

Also because the problem is often overstated. Tort reform is pretty low on the list of pressing issues.

I disagree that it's overstated. Anyone that has watched daytime television commercials recently would know better. That there are other pressing issues does not mean this one should be ignored. Our idiot leaders in government should be able to multitask, no?

It's about prioritizing. How much will we save via tort reform? And do you really think corporations are going to pass along those savings to their customers? Because I think that's a naive belief, given the historical behavior of corporations.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume those corporations are feeling charitable, and pass 100% of their reduced court costs, etc. to end customers. How quickly will those savings be realized? What will the cost be to achieve those savings? Knowing the cost and savings, is it even worth dealing with right now when there might be lower-hanging fruit we could go after?

To my knowledge, there's no concrete evidence suggesting that tort reform should be at the top of the nation's "to do" list.

Oh please. 98% of people claiming "personal responsibility" would throw that right out the window the second something they do as part of every day life left them disfigured.

I can guarantee it. If something happens to you that completely changes your life forever, it can't be so easy as "suck it up, champ!"

^ +1

I used to be very militantly in favor of tort reform until I watched an HBO documentary 'Hot Coffee'. I guarantee you it will make you look at that incident in a different light & reconsider what tort reform really is.