Quote:
Imperious_Leader said:
Imperator if your quote about McDonalds lowering their coffee'stemperature is from the same article you linked tgo then I belive that it said that this was just this one McDonalds and was still not the corperate position.
|
True. Presumably the rest of them did something after the whole affair. Not to mention the copy-cat idiots intentionally spilling it on themselves to make a quick million...
Quote:
Forgive me but the temperature of their coffee and them giving rasor blades in their happy meals isn't even close to being the same thing there would be universal agreement that razor blades are dangerous there is not universal agreement that coffee should be 158 degrees or anyother number.
|
It was admittedly hyperbole. Let's replaces it with a toy car that has very sharp edges. When the kid picks it up to play with, it cuts his hands. Would McDonald's not be at fault for providing their customers with a needlessly dangerous toy? When I get a toy car, I don't expect it to cut me. When I buy coffee, I don't expect it to send me to the hospital as a result of a minor accident. Cause pain, yes. Maybe require some minor lotion or something, sure. Require hospitalization and extensive skin transplants, not to mention the horrible pain of *ahem* that area being horridly burnt and scarred, definitely not.
The exact temperature is not the issue. It can not possibly be known just how hot the coffee that the woman spilled was. If Slick's numbers are right, it could have been a bit hotter still... It is the fact that at 180 to 190 degrees (or hotter), the coffee was extremely dangerous. At around 160, it is still quite hot, but won't send you to the hospital over a spill.
Quote:
As for a reasonable expectation of first degree burns or scalding as aposed to third degree burns ....
|
Yes, spilling coffee on yourself is stupid. Spilling hot coffee on yourself is quite stupid. However, it is not unreasonable to expect to not need to be hospitalized as a result. With coffee as hot as it was, there was nothing at all she could do. The damage was done extremely rapidly. If McDonald's had acted sooner to remedy the dangerous product, which they knew full well to be dangerous, there would not have been a law suit (from this lady, at any rate). But they did not. They were negligent.
Quote:
If she could prove that she had never had their coffee before I might be slightly swayed but what kind of warning do you need before you open it right against your crotch it already says on it caution hot or something to that effect WARNING DO NOT OPEN AGAINST YOUR CROTCH
|
For the record, between the knees is a far cry from against your crotch... Again, it is probably not the smartest thing she could have done, but this is not what the lawsuit was about. It was about a needlessly dangerous product that the company knew to be dangerous but did nothing about.
Quote:
well if you and Fyron agree I must then truely be wrong what was I thinking.....perhapes some sleep will help.
|
That was just a silly joke. Pay it no heed.
Quote:
Sivran said:
The difference between 212 and 180 is also 32
|
I do believe that 180 - 158 = 22, not 32. So the differences are quite different.
Quote:
wow your all really good debaters I know when I'm licked...
|
Practice makes perfect.
