Yes. In a cheaper option cup that the franchise owner was aware was max rated for lower temperature that he had adjusted the coffeemaker to produce. Those 2 facts alone provide culpability.
For as long as I have known that story, my focus has been on stupidity, not culpability. I don't have a problem with McDonald's paying for doing something dangerous. They are guilty of that. Doesn't make her any less stupid.
Are you asserting that only “stupid” people make the occasional foolish decision? Seems nearly everyone who’s ever lived is stupid then.
If you manufacture a car that has a top speed unsafe for public highways, are you culpable if someone drives, at that speed, through a bunch of retired nuns holding orphaned puppies?
Not all stupid decisions are equal. There are stupid decisions made by everyone. But when you get to a certain level of stupidity, only stupid people make those. I am not conflating stupidity and ignorance here. There are things we don't know because we never had the opportunity to learn them. All of us. Knowing what will burn you is probably one of the most elemental things that a toddler learns. It takes a certain level of stupid to override that training and stick a cup of hot fluid between your legs in a moving vehicle. It doesn't need to be McDonald's-hot to be stupid. It's stupid at any temperature that can cause you a serious amount of discomfort.
If you sell it on cheap tires that aren't rated for the speeds you advertise and it takes out said puppies you are.
do you actually think those two are comparable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants Mickey D's basically knowingly kept the coffee dangerously hot, for reasons that expressly contradicted the research they had themselves conducted, and had settled hundred of earlier claims. Additionally, the plaintiff in the coffee case wasn't actually looking for a ton of money; she initially asked for less than $20k - $13k for medical expenses and $5k for lost income of her daughter who had to take care of her. McD told her to suck eggs and forced her to lawyer up. That "shit happens, your life is your responsibility" attitude is where all this lawyerness bullshit comes from. McD did wrong. If they had accepted their responsibility, and had simply paid the poor woman's medical costs, they'd have saved millions of dollars of litigation and damages. There will always be both extremes - sometimes the plaintiff is out of their mind (Laguna lawsuit dude), and those people should be rightly vilified. But way more often than not, people just want to be made whole, and unfortunately in the age of "responsibility to stockholders" companies - especially insurance companies - are legally required to try to not pay out. Lawyers are the tool to force them.
I’m inclined to agree with most of this, but a couple questions come to mind: How many people across the world have ever dared to hold a cup of coffee between their knees while in a car? Are you certain the car was moving?
I actually think that coffee is hot and you shouldn't drive 200 mph on a public road. What do those two things have in common? I'll leave that open for debate.
I would guess millions. Stupidity is not in short supply. I hope the car was moving. Because if it wasn't, she's not just stupid, she's also too clumsy to be trusted with anything that could potentially hurt her. She could be forgiven for not seeing a bump in the road. If she was the bump, she's making it even harder to feel unequivocally sorry for her.
Almost like the ambulance pulled out in front of this thread cause its off track now Glad everyone is alive to talk about the mistakes made at Roebling, hopefully resolved in a civil manner that makes all parties whole again.
Being in an industry that sells consumer products I can tell you that 99% of the warning labels stemmed from the bottom of the barrel of the common sense pool. Don’t ever underestimate the sheer lack of common sense of the general public because if it can happen it will happen.
They put piston-engine aircraft manufacturers out of business in the 80s. Having to defend lawsuits against people who claim that their dead relative couldn't have known that flying under a bridge was frowned upon will quickly eat your profit margins and then some. Cessna waited for tort reform before coming back into the business.
Just my 2 cents , kudos to both riders and the ability to take evasive and come out kicking. 5 stars on skill set for both .
1. By definition, if a large enough percentage of the population exhibits a certain intrinsic trait (like intelligence), it can’t really be evaluated as aberrant, and “stupid” is used to describe an aberrantly low IQ. 2. So now you’re asserting that everyone who’s ever ham-fisted anything even once is determined to be generally “clumsy”? Interesting. Per your criteria then, it seems nearly everyone in the world is stupid and clumsy.
