(10-02-2016 01:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote: If you spent half as much time refining your points and being more thoughtful, rather than just trying to insult people, you might actually win an argument or two.
Props to Kap, solo, and swagger, in that department. By far, the least insulting that I've encountered on this forum, so far.
are you ever going to respond to the actual substance of the thread? or are you going to keep backing yourself in the corner because you didnt know there were thermometers different from the one your mother poked in your butt?
in case you havent had a chance to google it yet, a thermal thermometer is one that reads the thermal radiation level of an object to detect its temperature. It is a highly accurate way to measure the temperature of an object, and does not require you to touch the instrument to the object to get the highly accurate reading. Its how we can tell the temperature of a star millions of light years away.
Now that you should be clear on that, back to the subject at hand. All of the current coffee houses such as McDonalds and Starbucks, Bunn machines, and my Keurig serve coffee at a temperature similar to that in the original lawsuit. Therefore, the facts of the case that said that McDonalds served their coffee at higher temperatures than what was safe was wrong and flawed. If the temperature of the coffee was not served at a temperature deemed unsafe, then the ONLY reason that the woman scalded her pelvis was due to her negligence.
Now lets take into account what would have happened if the coffee was actually too hot. What the woman did was reckless, and she contributed to the damages. In order to come up with an award, you would have to take the amount of damages caused by the coffee being too hot, and whether or not that contributed to the damages. For instance, if coffee should be served no hotter than 180F, but McDonalds served it at 190F, but the woman would have suffered the same damages had the coffee been at 180F, then McDonalds isnt liable for the damages, because even though they served the coffee too hot, that didnt contribute to the damages. Even if it were determined that the woman would have suffered less damages if the coffee were the correct temp, McDaonlads would not be on the hook for the full $20,000 in medical expenses. They would only be responsible for part, because the womans recklessness contributed to the damages. (And in this case, contributed highly to the damages.)
Thats why this was a frivolous lawsuit. The woman was reckless, and sued an entity to get money for her own recklessness. Stupidity is not covered under product liability.
/
Ruh Roh! Democrats watching debate last night did a heavy internet search on this
