Sorry. If they start to get multiple fractions and won't update to proper laws, then shut them down or suspend thier business until its fixed.

And if it is an older building, and they don't update to the best they can, then close it down or suspend the business until its fixed.

You have to draw the line. "If you don't do this, then this will happen" and guys like this should not be part of the financial equation. Should be between the city and the business.

And like we've talked about- there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But the trade-off is having public dollars go toward this and expanding the governments role in enforcement. So, it's going to cost taxpayers money where, now, it doesn't. I prefer my taxes to not go to this if they don't have to do so.

Seriously, any other viewpoint is one of the following:
1. Ignorant of the law
2. Sticking head in the sand.


I respectfully disagree that all other viewpoints fall into those two categories.

Discovery may have revealed 700 burns from coffee, but in that same ten year period, how many cups of coffee did that same McD's serve that didn't burn anyone? And if McDonald's behavior were that egregious, why not move the case to a *criminal* court for reckless disregard?

If, conservatively, that McDonald's sold 100 cups of coffee every day in that ten-year period, that's 364,300 cups of coffee that were sold without an incident being reported. (And I'll wager McD's sold 100 cups of coffee in a typical hour during breakfast). That meant that McDonald's "egregious" behavior was without consequence 99.99% of the time.

The acid analogy, in my opinion, is an inflammatory one that really doesn't apply at all. They didn't order acid. They ordered coffee. And there's an expectation the coffee will be hot. I can accept the idea that the coffee was too hot, but I have a hard time assigning only 20% negligence to a person opening a cup of hot coffee between their legs.

On the other hand, if the drive-thru clerk had spilled the coffee, or had not secured the lid properly, or even served it in a leaky cup, then I'm all for letting McDonald's absorb the blame. At best, the coffee being too hot is a militating factor only slightly more swaying than opening the cup between your legs. But for the customer opening the coffee between her legs, the problem would never have happened.

"Ah," comes the reply, "but for the temperature of the coffee the *burns* would never have occurred." True. That's why, in my view, a just resolution would have been to assign 50% blame to each party, not 80-20...

And I realize my opnion is worth nothing, and I also realize we'll have to agree to disagree... :smile

-SoonerDave

OKCMallen... Sounds like you may have benefitted from a frivolous law suit, or are related to,or know someone who has. And get off that guy's sister's.

I can't really improve on OKCMallen's answer and I 100% agree, so I won't waste your time with a rebuttal which says basically the same thing.



Discovery may have revealed 700 burns from coffee, but in that same ten year period, how many cups of coffee did that same McD's serve that didn't burn anyone? And if McDonald's behavior were that egregious, why not move the case to a *criminal* court for reckless disregard?

That one happened and McD's failed to remedy the situation should be enough. 700 burns is 700 burns reported, so we can probably assume that there are more out there.

Why the case wasn't removed to criminal court -- in the U.S., a civil action doesn't ever morph into a criminal action (except in contempt proceedings). I know that's not the case in other legal systems (I know Sharia definitely doesn't make that distinction). In the U.S., some sort of state's attorney would have to indict McDonald's for something like reckless endangerment. Then the D.A.'s office would have to deal with McDonald's multi-million dollar legal team on some crap misdemeanor or minor felony count where there might not even be a person to lock up. Definitely not worth the headache.


I respectfully disagree that all other viewpoints
If, conservatively, that McDonald's sold 100 cups of coffee every day in that ten-year period, that's 364,300 cups of coffee that were sold without an incident being reported. (And I'll wager McD's sold 100 cups of coffee in a typical hour during breakfast). That meant that McDonald's "egregious" behavior was without consequence 99.99% of the time.

When sell millions of cups of coffee, .001% is a very significant number if you're talking about causing serious burns to people through your reckless actions.

What percentage of kids who had lead paint on their toys were tangibly injured by that paint? A small number, right? We still care though, don't we?


"Ah," comes the reply, "but for the temperature of the coffee the *burns* would never have occurred." True. That's why, in my view, a just resolution would have been to assign 50% blame to each party, not 80-20...

80/20 was the value judgment that jury made. That's why they're paid the big bucks.

I respectfully disagree that all other viewpoints fall into those two categories.

Discovery may have revealed 700 burns from coffee, but in that same ten year period, how many cups of coffee did that same McD's serve that didn't burn anyone? And if McDonald's behavior were that egregious, why not move the case to a *criminal* court for reckless disregard?

That was within the local DA's power to do so. Has nothing to do with what we're talking about.


If, conservatively, that McDonald's sold 100 cups of coffee every day in that ten-year period, that's 364,300 cups of coffee that were sold without an incident being reported. (And I'll wager McD's sold 100 cups of coffee in a typical hour during breakfast). That meant that McDonald's "egregious" behavior was without consequence 99.99% of the time.

Again, of no consequence in the law. If I DUI 10000 times in my life, and I only hurt someone ONE time, that doesn't mean I should get off scot free, does it? Of course not.


The acid analogy, in my opinion, is an inflammatory one that really doesn't apply at all. They didn't order acid. They ordered coffee. And there's an expectation the coffee will be hot.

Here's your disconnect. Yes, it's supposed to be hot. The court found that it was not supposed to be "3rd degree burn in 2 seconds" hot. This liquid was not drinkable. In fact, it was quite literally hazardous to humans. You don't assume that what you bought it completely undrinkable. You don't assume that a food product will literally melt flesh. Add to that the other facts about McD's knowingly assuming the risk (again, a statistical certainty) that it would happen to someone, and BOOM. Reckless, willful, etc. etc.


I can accept the idea that the coffee was too hot, but I have a hard time assigning only 20% negligence to a person opening a cup of hot coffee between their legs.

That's fine and debatable. But that doesn't mean she had no colorable cause of action.


On the other hand, if the drive-thru clerk had spilled the coffee, or had not secured the lid properly, or even served it in a leaky cup, then I'm all for letting McDonald's absorb the blame. At best, the coffee being too hot is a militating factor only slightly more swaying than opening the cup between your legs. But for the customer opening the coffee between her legs, the problem would never have happened.

"Ah," comes the reply, "but for the temperature of the coffee the *burns* would never have occurred." True. That's why, in my view, a just resolution would have been to assign 50% blame to each party, not 80-20...

Go back up to where I said "disconnect" for this. The key here is foreseeability. McD's knew they were gonna hurt someone BAD at some point and didn't do anything about it. The lady had no reason to think the coffee was a hazardous substance that was, quite literally, untouchable and undrinkable and should be handled with the same care as, say, acid. I think that's where you disconnect.

OKCMallen... Sounds like you may have benefitted from a frivolous law suit, or are related to,or know someone who has. And get off that guy's sister's.

Actually, I'm just trained in the law and enjoy trying to enlighten you guys with the perspective from the law's point of view. Not every board has a Midtowner and OKCMallen that will enjoyably discuss "how it works" all the time.

It's always the other guys fault, right midtowner!!!!!

daniel is the 2nd person to be added to my ignore list.

And daniel, as a parting gift, let me say I don't ignore folks just because I disagree with them. In fact, as you might have seen, I enjoy a healthy debate. When your idea of a dialog is just throwing various taunts around, you're no longer worth my time and energy. You should look at the sort of feedback SoonerDave has received here. Though he disagrees, he does so agreeable. Try that yourself sometime, or just lurk more.

I don't have the patience for trolls.

Now my feelings are hurt, I hope I can make it through the day!!!!!!!!

Now my feelings are hurt, I hope I can make it through the day!!!!!!!!

Need a tissue?

Actually, I'm just trained in the law and enjoy trying to enlighten you guys with the perspective from the law's point of view. Not every board has a Midtowner and OKCMallen that will enjoyably discuss "how it works" all the time.

Don't bother.

Don't bother.

Then stay ignorant.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/69S-cQi-vAY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/69S-cQi-vAY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Haha yes that's where I got the title of the thread from. Classic.

Next thing the panhandlers will sue the city for not providing shelter and toilets facilities while they hold up there God bless sign?