Now, I'm not a huge proponent for tort reform. I looked into the McDonalds coffee case beyond the 2 sentance summary most people give you, and I thought the verdict was actually fairly reasonable. However, I'm seriously annoyed by the recent descision against Giant's stadium.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/nfl/03/04/bc.fbn.beervendorsued.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

The upshot of the article: Vendor sells beer to a drunk fan. Fan crashes car and paralyzes 2-year-old daughter. Sues the stadium for selling him the beer. Wins $105 million. I'll spare you all the rant about personal responsibility, but really, why does this work? How were the stadium's lawyers NOT able to convince a jury that the vendor had no way to know that the fan hadn't taken steps to ensure his own safety, like letting someone else drive home, or couldn't control his own drinking?

Well, it is the law that someone who sells alcohol is partly responsible for the drunken behavior of their customers. It was mostly aimed at roadside bars; where it's pretty much a given that these customers are probably going to be driving home when they leave; so anyone serving a visible drunk is doing so in the full knowledge of what comes next. The Giants corporation was selling alcohol, to a drunken fan, with no way of knowing that he *wouldn't* be driving; so they clearly fell afoul of this law.

I suspect in this case that the jury went overboard; though they seemingly wanted the punishment to fit the purse (ten thousand dollar fines don't mean much to a multi-billion dollar corporation). Still, wait for this to get through the inevitable appeals court to see if it's worth worrying about; nobody is getting or paying a dime before then.

i think i heard that youre not allowed to sell alcohol to someone who is visibly drunk... no one follows this rule, of course.

as for the macdonalds coffee case... i read the details too... they were sued not cuz the coffee is hot, but because it was Hotter then expected. The theory being that the victom would have been more careful had she known her cup of coffee was hotter then the average joe. Er... cup of joe.

i doubt that, myself. I also doubt that an average-temperatured coffee would NOT have burned her anyway

because of this, i think the case was rediculous. but i guess they dont go into 'what-if's in court.


in conclusion... yeah, thats rather messed up, if anyone suffers any grievences they can sue anyone involved unless prior legal precautions were taken ahead of time. Thats why there are so many damned signs down there :P
we avoid sueing people here... (mostly because being Canadian, in most peoples minds, it seem, means Not Being American) I rather like it. If a burgler falls through my disrepaired roof, he'll say "boy that was stupid of me" and wander away.

Well, more that the coffee was significantly hotter than it would be reasonable to expect, that there had been a lots of similar accidents before (of which McDonalds were well aware), that McDonalds had been warned by safety advisors that their coffee was unnecessarily and dangerously hot and had ignored them.


You think that a normal-temperature cup of coffee would have caused extensive third-degree burns to her legs and genitals? (Trust me, it wouldn't.) We aren't just talking about it hurting. If I spill coffee on my lap I expect it to hurt. I don't expect to need skin grafts.

On McDonalds:
The case was in Albuquerque, so I actually know a bit about it. The woman admitted, under oath, that she was f-ing stupid to stick the coffee between her legs. Nevertheless, McDonalds had a Corporate Policy to keep the coffee at 160 degrees Farenheit. 140 is a reasonable temperature for coffee from a coffee maker; McDonalds had a policy having it unreasonably hot.

It's still unreasonably hot, but they now have to expressly warn you (thus the 'Warning: Hot Coffee!' on the lids.) The monetary award was not an award for pain and suffering or an award for medical expensives - it was a punative award. It was a slap on the wrist of McDonalds in the only way the legal system has to punish corporations: financially.

The woman, BTW, took enough money to pay her medical expensives and get her life back together and gave the rest away, mostly to consumer advocacy groups, I believe.

that was good of the woman, i say. But... your telling me that the difference between 3rd degree burns and a bit of pain is 20 degrees ferenheit?
i find that hard to believe.

but i had not heard that they were previously told to lower the temperature. Still seems silly to me, but i understand it from a legal perspective

But then, that begs the question? Who decided that coffee is supposed to be at 140 degrees F?

Ever been to a Chinese restaurant? Like a real one? Don't drink the tea until 20 minutes after you've sat down. They give it to you straight out of the kettle. You can't even touch the (quite thick ceramic cup) when it's got that tea in.

I realise you are talking bout Chinese Restaraunts in China, but if the restaraunt is in the US, and someone scalds themselves, the restaraunt would get sued, right?

Unless you poured it straight out of the pot onto yourself, the worst you would get is a scald. Those heavy ceramic cups bleed off too much of the heat for it to stay 100 degrees. So all things being considered, no suit would really be contemplated (no real damages, no suit); not unless the `victim' was a rich ass who could afford to waste time and money on this kind of thing.

Actually I scalded my tongue pretty bad at a restaurant in Australia. :P

Admittedly, the chances of you pouring it into your lap in a restaurant are pretty slim, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone managed it.

But isn't having a law that makes it illegal for a bar to sell alcohol to anyone who looks drunk a bit excessive? Gas stations, maybe, but all bars? Doesn't that defeat the whole point of bars?

Well, no. I do not recall the only reason to go to a bar is to get so blind-face drunk you can't stand, let alone drive home. One can consume alcohol, but drink little enough that one still maintains their faculties, one can cease drinking before the point where you make a complete and total arse of yourself in front of everyone present, you can only drink a couple of standard drinks and stop at that...

You can be sensible when you're drinking alcohol. The point of alcohol is not to get as drunk as you can before you pass out, thus I think it's quite reasonable to there to be laws to prevent barmen from serving drinks to people who quite obviously don't need it. 90% of road accidents in Australia are caused by people who are over the legal limit while driving. If that's not a good reason to legislate, I don't know what is.

As a note, I know someone who's fiancé was killed by a drunk-driver while he was driving the car, and it quite literally screwed him over big time. He's only now barely recovering, and he never drives anymore, because he can't bear it. Even if you survive, it can wreck your life.

I'm not trying to say that it's a good thing, but it seems to be what the majority of people who like to go to bars do. My brother typically puts away 12 or 15 drinks in the course of one night, and it's a really good thing he can't drive. If you told him that a bar would only sell him 3 drinks, he'd probably raid the liquor store and invite all his friends to his house instead. 0_o

No, but it is the difference between second degree (which can heal and is reatively easy to treat) and third degree (which kills the skin and requires extensive medical treatment).


You misunderstand. Coffee coming out of a coffee maker usually comes out in a 120-140 degree range, simply because that's how the coffee makers are designed. McDonalds (and many other fast food places) use much stronger coffee makers, which puts the coffee out at 160.

This didn't change - it's still that hot. The change is that they now warn you.

Oh, all right then. Industrial-sized coffee makers.

They should just make it company policy to put a couple of ice cubes in the coffee before handing it to the customer. Problem solved. 0_o

While it's been a while, I think the numbers are actually 180 and 210, respectively. 140 degree coffee would seem downright tepid; being about the temperature of a really hot bath...

In the case of this particular McDs, they deliberately set the thermostat in the coffee urn higher; so it came out just under the boiling point. They then deliberately ignored warnings to turn it back down (this is illegally high). No great surprise, someone eventually got badly burned.