> > > Now there are some of these things that I do have to agree with on some points. The person who sued McDonalds because their coffee was so hot it scalded her for life, for example, was understandable.
> >
> > Yeah. Who'd ever expect McDonald's to serve *hot* coffee? I mean, it *should* be tepid enough that you can pour it over yourself, right?
> >
> > winter"Dumbest ruling ever"mute
>
> The elderly woman in question received third degree burns on her groin and thighs, underwent several skin-graft operations, and has permanent scarring over 15 percent of her body. Her medical bills were over $20,000. According to ConsumerRights.net, McDonald's coffee at the time was 20 degrees hotter than the industry standard, despite several hundreds of previous reports about the overly hot coffee and a request from a burn institute to lower the temperature due to numerous burns they've treated.

Was this given in justification of the legitimacy of the lawsuit? I can think of a couple ways I can justify it, but neither the extent of the damage nor the industry standard of coffee temperature do it for me. If I buy a knife 20 times sharper than other brands of knives, then accidentally chop my leg off with it, is the knife manufacturer liabel? I don't think so.

McDonald's is clearly at fault for any lying they did during the hearings and appropriate actions against that should be taken, but none of that has anything to do with whether or not they were negligent in this particular case. Nor does the existence of prior complaints, however numerous, mean that McDonald's was negligent. They aren't obligated to *do* anything as a result of those prior complaints simply because the complaints were made. Could I complain to you that I don't like the clothes you wear and compel you to change them? Of course not. If the prior complaints McDonald's received were merely expressions of consumer preference, McDonald's need not address them; nor must they address them if they were from other people who, via their *own* negligence, spilled it on themselves.

As far as I'm concerned, there are only two possible ways in which McDonald's could truly be held negligent in this case. One, if appropriate warnings about the temperature of the coffee were not given. It is standard practice (carried to a ridiculous extreme, I might add, but that's another matter) that when a producer of goods or services sells something potentially dangerous, appropriate warnings are given, so that the consumer cannot hurt himself or others due to ignorance. On the other side of the coin, the consumer must take some responsibility to educate himself. If you don't know that coffee is hot, you're as dumb as a brick and, sorry, other people should not be accountable for the stupid things you do in ignorance. In this case, though, with McDonald's serving coffee 20 degrees hotter than what everybody else does, a warning of some sort should be issued. Whether such a warning was given in this case or not, I don't know, but this is one of the two scenarios in which I could justify the outcome of the lawsuit.

The second is if, as I understand was the case, the cup was either of insufficient design or improperly sealed. If McDonald's sells coffee via a process that is not safe for consumers, there's a problem. As I recall, the cup of coffee this woman had basically just came apart in her hands. She's still partially responsible for not handling it more carefully, and the fact that an accident occurred at all doesn't necessarily mean the coffee was delivered in an insufficiently safe manner. But if it were, I could see myself siding against McDonald's on these grounds.