Originally posted by esoxx
You say or imply that people should be protected from their own dumb mistakes. But if a person knocks a pot of boiling water off the stove, is there a case against General Electric because the stove allowed the temperature to get that high? The "protection from one's own mistakes" rationale is about as weak as can be. When a person has reason to know something is a burn hazard, and yet acts in a way that causes a spill, the person should take responsibility for screwing up. The temperature is immaterial unless it is way outside the bounds of reasonableness, because the victim surely knew there was a burn hazard.
Who gets to decide what temperature is reasonable? Lawyers with a financial stake in the case?
According to the National Coffee Association of the U.S.A., coffee should be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees F, and should be maintained and consumed at 180 to 185 degrees F. McDonald's was following the industry standard that was set for optimally-brewed coffee, a standard that the majority of its customers seemed to be okay with, and many other restaurants meet. I wonder if anyone asked how many customers would prefer that coffee be served at a "safe" 110 or 120 degrees.
(Source: http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71)
To put the 700 burn incidents over ten years (most of which were admitted to be very minor incidents) in context, consider how many cups of coffee were sold. It was 49 cents per cup, with an estimated $1.35 million in coffee revenue per day. That's approximately 2.75 million cups per day, multiplied by 365 days and then by ten years equals more than ten billion cups sold in ten years.
Over ten billion cups sold, over ten billion satisfied customers, and 700 burn complaints, most of them minor. Doesn't sound to me like an issue where Mcdonald's was even negligent, much less reckless. Everyone knows shit happens, and it really didn't happen all that much in the scheme of things here.
Sure, there are even more blatant examples of bad lawsuits, like for example where the "victim" was never even truly injured, but that doesn't redeem this suit where there may have been actual injury, but the cause was the victim's own conduct. Just because McDonald's can afford to pay doesn't mean it should have to.


Comment