Coffee lady all over again. Deliberately misusing a product should completely idemnify the manufacturer as far as I'm concerned. We live in the age where the warning labels are ten pages of an eleven page instruction book for goddamn batteries, and we need to just let the terminally stupid die already.
McDonald's hot coffee? That suit was very low on the frivolity scale. The coffee burned through a thin layer of clothing and left third-degree burns around the lady's groin. She requested only that medical expenses be covered and the corporation was sniffing too far up it's own ass to settle.
Also, she was riding as a passenger in her son's Ford Probe.
Which had no cupholders. And the consequences of the spill were worse; she actually went into shock and stayed at the hospital for a little over a week to get skin grafts.
I don't like the wave of frivolous lawsuits that have come in the wake of that incident; don't get me wrong, but I actually think that the coffee case was handled the right way by the lady and the courts.
She only wanted enough money to cover her medical expenses. The judicial parties got her more money, and the temperature warnings are apparently more prominent on the coffee cups now.
And yet here we are with the implications of that today.
Because if you can take a product explicitly labeled "hot coffee", put it between your legs and of course you get burned but still sue... Then of course you can drink caffeine until you die and still sue the restaurant.
If liability can't be waived with clear textual or verbal warnings in English affirmed by customer, sure I'd agree. But "hot" isn't a reasonably unambiguous qualifier for scalding coffee served at a nationwide chain drive through.
Coffee lady all over again. Deliberately misusing a product should completely idemnify the manufacturer as far as I'm concerned. We live in the age where the warning labels are ten pages of an eleven page instruction book for goddamn batteries, and we need to just let the terminally stupid die already.
McDonald's hot coffee? That suit was very low on the frivolity scale. The coffee burned through a thin layer of clothing and left third-degree burns around the lady's groin. She requested only that medical expenses be covered and the corporation was sniffing too far up it's own ass to settle.
Also, she was riding as a passenger in her son's Ford Probe.
Which had no cupholders. And the consequences of the spill were worse; she actually went into shock and stayed at the hospital for a little over a week to get skin grafts.
I don't like the wave of frivolous lawsuits that have come in the wake of that incident; don't get me wrong, but I actually think that the coffee case was handled the right way by the lady and the courts.
She only wanted enough money to cover her medical expenses. The judicial parties got her more money, and the temperature warnings are apparently more prominent on the coffee cups now.
And yet here we are with the implications of that today.
Because if you can take a product explicitly labeled "hot coffee", put it between your legs and of course you get burned but still sue... Then of course you can drink caffeine until you die and still sue the restaurant.
To a reasonable person, "hot coffee" means "ready to drink." It does not mean "if you drink this, you'll die."
Reasonable people don't think that the word "hot" might be dangerous?
I highly doubt that's the case. My one year old knows what hot means.
If liability can't be waived with clear textual or verbal warnings in English affirmed by customer, sure I'd agree. But "hot" isn't a reasonably unambiguous qualifier for scalding coffee served at a nationwide chain drive through.