[tbontob]

In tort law, there is a major distinction between negligence and recklessness.

Negligence gives rise to a cause of action when the person does not exercise the standard of prudent care that a normal reasonable man on the street would.

Recklessness implies something more than negligences in that there is a deliberate disregard for the saftey of others.

I don't know much about MacDonald's practices, but it is questionable whether they are reckless. Some people like and want their coffee scalding hot.

They could be negligent, but it is a toss up. The courts could say that the consumer knows coffee is hot and should have taken proper care. The rebuttal of course is that the coffee is hotter than normal. Now if the prudent, reasonable man on the street would not make coffee so hot, then there is negligence for that is the standard.

The prudent reasonable man on the street will not go through a red light. If he does, then he is responsible for the consequences.

But some reasonsable men will make their coffee hot and there is the rub.

Mexican food can be "hot" and a susceptable person can suffer health problems with the ingestion of hot chilli peppers etc. Yet, to expect them to prepare food which is bland and tasteless in order to avoid a lawsuit would not normally be reasonable in the sense that the reasonable man on the street would not prepare such hot food.

On balance, my opinion is that MacDonald's will probably not be liable. But just as two lawyers can disagree, the judge can hold there is negligence.

If McDonald's was wise, they would have put a sign up saying that their coffee is hotter than normal and the customer should take due care. Offering to dilute the beverage would help too.

But then lawyers being lawyers, the arguement will devolve around whether the sign was prominently displayed, whether the customer saw it, whether the customer ought to have seen it, etc.