NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes or no?

Oh sweet Jesus, here we go.

Victim complex? About what?

Yes or no?

Depends on WTF you mean.

"Americans" -- individuals or as a country

"victim complex" -- as per the world in international politics, as between individual Americans? In what context?

The question isn't intelligible.

Agreed. I think some of our politicians might, but the country as a whole doesn't.

If by victim complex you mean we like the underdog, then yes.
If you mean we think we're victims, I'm not sure.

I would say "yes" because it allows Americans to justify their behavior based on the actions of other rather than taking on responsibility for their behavior. This would be most clearly reflected in foreign policy decisions and product liability lawsuits, especially the latter.

It's easier, and more profitable, to claim that a company's product injured you than to accept responsibility for one's own stupidity.

I would say "yes" because it allows Americans to justify their behavior based on the actions of other rather than taking on responsibility for their behavior. This would be most clearly reflected in foreign policy decisions and product liability lawsuits, especially the latter.

It's easier, and more profitable, to claim that a company's product injured you than to accept responsibility for one's own stupidity.

It is easier, and more profitable, to claim that those injured by defective products are victims of their own stupidity than to accept responsibility for the defect.

Here's how I see it.

Much of the world disagrees with what America represents in the world (and no, most of the world doesn't think it's freedom and democracy) - primarily that means disagreement with its foreign policy.

Americans as a whole have a very strong sense of patriotism, and many are just purely nationalists. When someone attacks any of them, they take it very personally.

Americans are also too trusting of their government I think. Much of their news essentially says what they want to hear (you wouldn't even get those left vs right media arguments if that wasn't the case), and many Americans seem to believe it.
Movies and other entertainment doesn't help, when "Alias" agents jet around a stereotypical world and "24" heroes have to storm the Chinese embassy to save the world from an Atomic Bomb.

So to sum up:
Most Americans believe that their government tries to do "good" in the world, ie foster freedom and democracy.
They agree with those goals wholeheartedly.
Most Americans are actually convinced that their country is the most free nation in the world - and many say that ultimately they are accurately represented by their government.
Thus an attack on their government's policies of "good" is an attack on their ideals, and ultimately on themselves.

The idea that someone could positively loathe US Politics, yet really not have a problem with the country seems incomprehensible to many.

Add to that a fair share of ignorance about the world (not by all, but by many) and an ingrained knowledge that the savage rest of the world (just today someone talked about it as "barbarians") hating them, and yes - there is something of a super-sensitivity that you might call a "victim complex".

And I'm not even going to start on that "town on the hill" allegory...

It is easier, and more profitable, to claim that those injured by defective products are victims of their own stupidity than to accept responsibility for the defect.
You’re a lawyer. You don’t get to talk.

Depends on WTF you mean.

"Americans" -- individuals or as a country

"victim complex" -- as per the world in international politics, as between individual Americans? In what context?

The question isn't intelligible.
Yeah those that try to oversimplify tend to make the questions harder

A bully complex, maybe. I victem complex? HELL NO!

I sort of find it a source of amusement.

Look at it this way. Suppose you are on a soccer(football) team, and your team is the best in the league. Are you really going to be upset and bothered because the other teams hate your guts?

some of the americans on here certainly seem to. even the mildest criticism of american culture or foreign policy baits a dozen "why do you hate america" style flames...

50/50 on the poll...

I wonder what it would look like if there were American/non-American voting options.

I don't know whether they have a victim complex or not, but it seems like quite a few of them have little knowledge of their country's role in the world & don't like to hear about it.

I sort of find it a source of amusement.

Look at it this way. Suppose you are on a soccer(football) team, and your team is the best in the league. Are you really going to be upset and bothered because the other teams hate your guts?

Well, the question that always puzzled me is : Why do Americans care that much, then?
What kind of mentality does it take to forcefully push through all your own objectives and then whine about not being loved by every living being on the planet?

Yes. America defiantely has a victim complex.

Blacks have been 'victims' even after the 1960s... I think I'll use Chris Rock's line, "There are two types of black people. There's blacks, and there's niggas. And niggas have got to go."

Women have been 'victims' even after the 1960s... This is BS

Hispanics have been 'victims' even after the 1970s... This is the biggest load of crock I've ever heard.

America is so filled to its brim with this victim complex. Which is why you have stupid ass fucking morons suing tobacco companies... EVEN WHEN THEY KNEW IT WAS BAD FOR THEM!!! WTF?!?!?! I hate some of the people in this country.

"I killed him because my dad told me I was failure"... No, you're just a lunatic.

Americans cannot take responsiblity for their actions. It irritates me. I know at least the next generation can't take responsiblity (which I'm sorry to say I'm part of). And I can attest to that. I see it every god-damned day.

More victimization? All of these damned Zoloft type drugs. Who needs Speed when I can get perscription Riddlin for the same price. And it's LEGAL! I can get morphine... heroin. That's off topic. But seriously. I saw a commercial for "Overactive Leg Syndrome". It went, "Do you feel the need to get up and walk around sometimes. Do you your legs feel cramped sometimes..." etc, ad infinitum. That's a symbol of our victimization. Why? Because people 'can't concentrate' because they're really just stupid but need something to blame it on.

Don't even get me started on people with "ADD"... I admit there are some serious cases, but this is getting ridiculous... Wait, I just though I need a drink of water, I have ADD...

RIDICULOUS!

Yes. America defiantely has a victim complex.

Blacks have been 'victims' even after the 1960s... I think I'll use Chris Rock's line, "There are two types of black people. There's blacks, and there's niggas. And niggas have got to go."

Women have been 'victims' even after the 1960s... This is BS

Hispanics have been 'victims' even after the 1970s... This is the biggest load of crock I've ever heard.

America is so filled to its brim with this victim complex. Which is why you have stupid ass fucking morons suing tobacco companies... EVEN WHEN THEY KNEW IT WAS BAD FOR THEM!!! WTF?!?!?! I hate some of the people in this country.

"I killed him because my dad told me I was failure"... No, you're just a lunatic.

Americans cannot take responsiblity for their actions. It irritates me. I know at least the next generation can't take responsiblity (which I'm sorry to say I'm part of). And I can attest to that. I see it every god-damned day.

More victimization? All of these damned Zoloft type drugs. Who needs Speed when I can get perscription Riddlin for the same price. And it's LEGAL! I can get morphine... heroin. That's off topic. But seriously. I saw a commercial for "Overactive Leg Syndrome". It went, "Do you feel the need to get up and walk around sometimes. Do you your legs feel cramped sometimes..." etc, ad infinitum. That's a symbol of our victimization. Why? Because people 'can't concentrate' because they're really just stupid but need something to blame it on.

Don't even get me started on people with "ADD"... I admit there are some serious cases, but this is getting ridiculous... Wait, I just though I need a drink of water, I have ADD...

RIDICULOUS!

I was going to just ignore the poll, until I read Empyria post, then I couldn't help but vote yes since, he(she?) makes a very good point

Don't even get me started on people with "ADD"... I admit there are some serious cases, but this is getting ridiculous... Wait, I just though I need a drink of water, I have ADD...

RIDICULOUS!
Totally feel you on the ADD thing! Ha! Lol. Everyone in my class has ADD now except me and the band kids. I love it, and yet loathe it at the same time.

Anyhow, about American's being the victim? No. Never really looked at that way, I always kinda saw my country as one of those guys that goes around doing the, "Hey! You wanna fight!?!?! You wanna go?!?! FLAG POLE, 3 O'CLOCK!"

About supporting victims? In what context?

Anyhow, all the thing is about American's beleiving that they don't have to take responsibility. Its so true. My parents even have trouble with it sometimes, and they come form the '40s and '50s crowd. Its something about the corrosion of the American culture, and eventually its either going to lead to us sucking, or a cultural revolution. And about American's being extremely patriotic and nationalist? Oh yeah, its true, even though American's question their government. We just passively accept it, and go on to the next election with hope of change.

But thats also why this country is great. We'll have government trasitions in the most shakey times, without a terribly loud roar. Even if the results are questionable, we still beleive that the system works in accordinace to our ideological expectations.

"What!?! The (insert political party here) won?!!? WTF?!!?? Bah, next time we'll get 'em."

A specific example of a US victim complex I have observed on these boards is the feeling that the rest of the world is somehow sponging off the generosity of the United States alone and the other developed countries in the world (ie. France) are not pulling their weight on that front, despite the facts which show otherwise.

A specific example of a US victim complex I have observed on these boards is the feeling that the rest of the world is somehow sponging off the generosity of the United States alone and the other developed countries in the world (ie. France) are not pulling their weight on that front, despite the facts which show otherwise.

Yep. It's that overwhelming sense of hurt and outrage that anyone could ever criticise anything that is done in the name of the US. I think that is where the "adolescent state" criticisms come from too.

When similar criticisms are levelled at the UK, Germany, France etc. I think the vast majority are happy to agree or refute, but certainly don't take it as personal criticism.

Yep. It's that overwhelming sense of hurt and outrage that anyone could ever criticise anything that is done in the name of the US. I think that is where the "adolescent state" criticisms come from too.

When similar criticisms are levelled at the UK, Germany, France etc. I think the vast majority are happy to agree or refute, but certainly don't take it as personal criticism.
Oh.. And here I thought that had to do with the pretty much unrivalled US ultranationalism?

Anyway, the 'forign aid' is a great example. I really don't think most Americans know what it's spend on. Sure doesn't sound like it at leats.

Oh.. And here I thought that had to do with the pretty much unrivalled US ultranationalism?

Anyway, the 'forign aid' is a great example. I really don't think most Americans know what it's spend on. Sure doesn't sound like it at leats.

Don't know about unrivalled, but certainly that would account for the personal outrage at criticism of their government's actions.

Do you think the peoples of most nations know where their aid budget's go?

Don't know about unrivalled, but certainly that would account for the personal outrage at criticism of their government's actions.

Do you think the peoples of most nations know where their aid budget's go?
Hmm.. Good question actually. If the US is anything to go by, then no. And yes, I have a pretty good idea of what my country's forign aid is used on. Really though, what strikes me as so odd about Americans talking about forign aid, is that they make it sound like it's some altruistic thing they are doing out of the goodness of their hearts. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what they're doing, and while it is perhaps just me, I do expect that people have at least some rudimentary idea of what they're on about when they start talking.

Now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever heard anyone other than Americans praise their own forign aid programs. Maybe that too has something to do with the nationalism. Or perhaps it's just my personal prejudice seeping thru. Sorry, but many Americans make it extremely hard not to think they're all wankers.

And about that unrivalled nationalism, I don't actually know if it's unusually extreme, but I can't think of another country with such a super-nationalistic population. The UK doesn't even come close, and that's the only other really extreme case I can think of.

Yes. America on an individual basis has a victim complex. As a country ... You probably actually do really believe your doing the right thing, so fair enough.

However I'd like to point at the millions upon millions of frivilous law suits filed every day because Americans don't take responsibility for that they do. They are always looking for someone else to blame for something. This is not encouraged by you legal system, which quite frankly is the most stupid thing I've ever had to study in my entire life. Its not that the rules are stupid its that your judges are stupid.

Seriously, How can they justify paying out millions of dollars for such trivial claims usually caused buy the person sueing in the first place.

Let me point you in the direction of the cases Against McDonalds. Someone drinks hot coffee and burns themselves. They sue and Win. Hence all McD's coffee cups read "Caution hot" on the side now. WTF ??? Did you expect cold coffee or something you fucking moron!!

Or the woman who neglected her own child and tripped over it in the Store, sued the store and won. Hello .... Look after your damm kids!

There are examples of this crap all over the place from America, you guys clearly have a vast majority of total fucking morons in your country. Not to say the other countries in the world don't however we don't let these people run free.

It was recently noted by an English Lord Judge - that equivilant cases in England received on average 100X less compensation than American cases. Why ?? Because this is all the compenation deserved in these cases.

So Yes. Most Definately Americans on an Individual basis have a victim complex.

PS:
Please note that on the whole I like America and Agree with a lot of the things you guys do as a country. The fact that many of your population should be in mental assylums is beside the point.

Let me point you in the direction of the cases Against McDonalds. Someone drinks hot coffee and burns themselves. They sue and Win. Hence all McD's coffee cups read "Caution hot" on the side now. WTF ??? Did you expect cold coffee or something you fucking moron!!


You are wrong. The law-suit was won because the coffee was DANGEROUSLY hot. McDonalds knew this was a problem and took no action to rectify it. Then they slandered a innocent woman. Links in a second.

EDIT: Here's the toddler myth debunked: http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

You are wrong. The law-suit was won because the coffee was DANGEROUSLY hot. McDonalds knew this was a problem and took no action to rectify it. Then they slandered a innocent woman. Links in a second.

EDIT: Here's the toddler myth debunked: http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Dangerously?
Let's see... if you make coffee at home, you would use boiling water, right, which is exactly 100 degree (Celsius). Anything above that, and the water is no longer in liquid form.
Say you are using a coffee machine, then the water is something between 70-80 degrees.

So, all regular coffe you will ever get anywhere is between 70-100 degrees, it can't be any hotter physically. Assuming that you had coffee before in your life, you would know about the temperature you are to expect from it. In what way could that be dangerous???

This topic has offended and traumatized me. Expect to recieve a letter from my lawyer shortly.

Dangerously?
Let's see... if you make coffee at home, you would use boiling water, right, which is exactly 100 degree (Celsius). Anything above that, and the water is no longer in liquid form.
Say you are using a coffee machine, then the water is something between 70-80 degrees.

So, all regular coffe you will ever get anywhere is between 70-100 degrees, it can't be any hotter physically. Assuming that you had coffee before in your life, you would know about the temperature you are to expect from it. In what way could that be dangerous???

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

From the link above:

'McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.'

'McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.'
Oh dear, and we can't expect our customers to be careful with hot beverages...afterall, in other restaurants they're only 70 degrees, not 90!

I don't like McDo either, but come on!

Oh dear, and we can't expect our customers to be careful with hot beverages...afterall, in other restaurants they're only 70 degrees, not 90!

I don't like McDo either, but come on!

Not going to read the link eh? Well here's it in it's entirety:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
None of this would change my point of view on the issue, but I think this just underlines my point.
People don't think it is possible to burn yourself when you pour hot coffee on your lap?

None of this would change my point of view on the issue, but I think this just underlines my point.
People don't think it is possible to burn yourself when you pour hot coffee on your lap?

No. I spill hot tea and coffee on myself all the time. I've never recieved third-degree burns.

It's impossible to make any product "fool-proof" because fools are so ingenious. :D

EDIT: Here's the toddler myth debunked: http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Hmm.... I don't see it refuted anywhere on that page...

No. I spill hot tea and coffee on myself all the time. I've never recieved third-degree burns.
But that's because normally you can stand up and any excess liquid will drip off. In the case in question, it was the fact that she took the unwise step of spilling coffee on herself in a car, which allowed the coffee to sit in her lap, which caused the injuries rather than any unusual properties of the cofee.

Just want to point out that McDonalds already paid of several other suits with regards to the coffee and that this coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns.
Here is a link (http://caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts) to the factual representation of what happened.

Hmm.... I don't see it refuted anywhere on that page...

'1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded $780,000.00 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amuck inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving tyke was Ms. Robertson's son.......

....All of the entries in the list are fabrications'

Hmmm?

<snip>


Third degree burns? From a single cup of coffee? She must have found a very ingeniuos way of doing that... when I was a kid, I once pulled a pot of boiling water from the cooker and scalded myself badly, but those were first degree burns that heeled of within two-three weeks, no hospital needed and certainly no skin grafts.

McDonalds must have found a way of making coffee that is actually beyone boiling :rolleyes:

Not going to read the link eh? Well here's it in it's entirety:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.
This reminds me of the Dihydrogen Monoxide conspiracy, which showed that the public are consistently kept in the dark by government and big business about the dangers of common or garden substances that nevertheless cause huge problems, including injuries and even fatalities.
Don't believe me?
http://www.gopetition.com/online/2479.html

'1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded $780,000.00 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amuck inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving tyke was Ms. Robertson's son.......

....All of the entries in the list are fabrications'

Hmmm?

So, this one sentence is all the evidence that you require? No statements from the newspapers refuting it, no spokespeople giving statement? No accounts on what really happened? One single anonymus site?



Sure, I'm convinced now :rolleyes:

Third degree burns? From a single cup of coffee? She must have found a very ingeniuos way of doing that... when I was a kid, I once pulled a pot of boiling water from the cooker and scalded myself badly, but those were first degree burns that heeled of within two-three weeks, no hospital needed and certainly no skin grafts.

McDonalds must have found a way of making coffee that is actually beyone boiling :rolleyes:

No. She got third degree burns because the coffee was twenty degrees higher than the standard rate which was absorbed by her trousers and held against her skin.

Americans as a whole dont have a "victim complex". Most Americans work hard and honest and do what they think is right. They put in an honest day's work, and then some, pay their taxes, their bills and do their best to raise healthy, well -adjusted children.
Its the relatively small exception that blame all of their problems on others and dont excercise and personal responsibility.
Of course, these douchebags get way more attention. So much, the average person might come to believe its the norm.

think for a minute- this mostly silent majority supports the rest- the leaches, people that sue over everything, fake disabilty collectors, frivolous lawsuits, etc... Do you really think for a minute that this system Americans take part in would still function if the "victim complex" was the norm?
No one could possibly be that dense. Legitimate welfare alone would sink the country in a month.

No-most Americans work hard and contribute their fair share-And then some.

And this same group of people dont really care if the rest of the world doesnt like us or the way we do things. Personally, if everyone else was all huggy kissy with the US, I'd be suspicious that they were taking advantage of us. I dont need someone in France approving of our way of life, or someone in Germany supporting our foreign policy.

And I'm not surprized or outraged that we could make a massive contibution in food equipment and dollars to a country today and they could be breeding terrorist bombers that attack us in 10 years. I'm only dissapointed that we didnt put more concerted effort into making our own citizens healthier and better educated/employed property/business owners.

So-if we're victims in any category-its only a result of our own doing. And we are fully capable of correcting any of our problems without assistance.
All we need is resolve.

This reminds me of the Dihydrogen Monoxide conspiracy, which showed that the public are consistently kept in the dark by government and big business about the dangers of common or garden substances that nevertheless cause huge problems, including injuries and even fatalities.
Don't believe me?
http://www.gopetition.com/online/2479.html

NO!! I had a glass of it this morning, not knowing.
DHMO is usually used to make fun of people who because something is 'chemical' it is bad. Not lawsuits.

No. She got third degree burns because the coffee was twenty degrees higher than the standard rate which was absorbed by her trousers and held against her skin.

As I said, must have been a very interesting way of doing that. Or did you think I was naked when I poured 100 degree hot water over myself?
And even assuming that the coffee was 20 degrees hotter than average (whoever determines this average in the first place), it was still 10 degrees cooler than that water...

So, this one sentence is all the evidence that you require? No statements from the newspapers refuting it, no spokespeople giving statement? No accounts on what really happened? One single anonymus site?



Sure, I'm convinced now :rolleyes:

Snopes is a highly reputable site. On top of that there are 13 sources listed at the bottom of the page

As I said, must have been a very interesting way of doing that. Or did you think I was naked when I poured 100 degree hot water over myself?
And even assuming that the coffee was 20 degrees hotter than average (whoever determines this average in the first place), it was still 10 degrees cooler than that water...

I must admit that you have me here. I am not burn expert. However, she recieved third degree burns. This is fact.

NO!! I had a glass of it this morning, not knowing.
DHMO is usually used to make fun of people who because something is 'chemical' it is bad. Not lawsuits.
Read the descriptions of DHMO. Compare them to the sensationalist descriptions you posted about hot coffee. Normal, hot coffee. Not some special coffee that has been treated by McDonalds to be extra damaging to tissue, just the sort of coffee you would make at home by putting the kettle on and pouring it into a cup. i think DHMO is a direct parallel of the sort of attitiude espoused in the article you quoted.

So, this one sentence is all the evidence that you require? No statements from the newspapers refuting it, no spokespeople giving statement? No accounts on what really happened? One single anonymus site?



Sure, I'm convinced now :rolleyes:

Anonymous site?? :eek: That was snopes.com Dove directed you to, for cryin' out loud. Did you not bother to scroll down to the bottom to see the list of sources quoted? Snopes is a highly reputable site that prides itself on its thorough research. They classify each article as "True", "False", or "Undetermined", so they aren't just simply saying everything is rubbish. They will tell you if something's for real, and they'll tell you if the evidence isn't there one way or the other.

But that whole lawsuit article was clearly marked as "False", meaning that the internet claims were all invented. If you want to claim that snopes has it wrong, then you'd better supply your own evidence of the research materials you used, just as snopes did at the bottom of its article.


(Edit: fixed typo)

Read the descriptions of DHMO. Compare them to the sensationalist descriptions you posted about hot coffee. Normal, hot coffee. Not some special coffee that has been treated by McDonalds to be extra damaging to tissue, just the sort of coffee you would make at home by putting the kettle on and pouring it into a cup. i think DHMO is a direct parallel of the sort of attitiude espoused in the article you quoted.

If you want a more boring read you can use the link quoted earlier. For ease of clicking here's it again: http://caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts

Or you can do a google search. The facts of this case are well established.

Not just yes, but SHIT YES.

We have so many people refusing to take responsibility for their own actions in this country, it's disgusting.

Someone does something stupid, like tear around in a truck (which has a much higher center of gravity than the average car), and then bitches when the thing rolls when a corner is taken much too quickly for that type of vehicle.

There are several examples of such behavior being rewarded (in law suits). "The tires were faulty." "The vehicle was designed with too high a center of gravity." It's a truck--it's designed to go OVER things, or tow things with power, not race around like a car.

It's right up there with passing kids on, even when they fail in school. "It's okay, you tried your best". No, it's not okay--failure doesn't work in the real world, so why should they learn differently growing up?

Personal responsibility needs to be revived in a major fashion in the US.

That's one of the major reasons I admire my own children so much ... they have never tried to shirk personal responsibility for their own acts. God, I'm so frakkin' proud of them! :D

That's one of the major reasons I admire my own children so much ... they have never tried to shirk personal responsibility for their own acts. God, I'm so frakkin' proud of them! :D

Well- Good job to you. Personal responsibilty is something that is instilled during childhood by direction as well as example. I'm hoping my kids are absorbing it now too.

There are several examples of such behavior being rewarded (in law suits). "The tires were faulty." "The vehicle was designed with too high a center of gravity." It's a truck--it's designed to go OVER things, or tow things with power, not race around like a car.

So you are saying it is impossible for tires to fail? For products to be made or designed improperly?

Well of course you can't be saying that. How about then you cite some cases which demonstrate that the plaintiff was mostly at fault but still got a reward specifically because an innocuous outside factor was blamed?

Note: A 180 degree liquid is not innocuous no matter where you spill it.

Compare them to the sensationalist descriptions you posted about hot coffee. Normal, hot coffee. Not some special coffee that has been treated by McDonalds to be extra damaging to tissue, just the sort of coffee you would make at home by putting the kettle on and pouring it into a cup.

It is a demonstrable and verifiable fact that an 180 degree liquid will cause third degree burns within seconds of contact with the skin.

It is a demonstrable and verifiable fact that McDonald's served coffee at that temperature.

Not only were these facts supported by experts, they were conceded by McDonalds.

The only question in this case is whether or not placing the hot cup in between your legs is such a deviation from a normal standard of care that no reasonable person would do it. If you believe that the plaintiff shouldn't have done that and that in doing so she was mostly at fault for her injury, then I consider that to be reasonable position which I will not argue against.

However, if you want to argue that an 180 degree liquid isn't inherently dangerous... well then you're a bit of a nut.

Note: A 180 degree liquid is not innocuous no matter where you spill it.

When the industry specialists say that coffee is to be served at 190-205 degrees, THEY'RE right because they're the professionals--not the one that decided to take a chance of putting it between their legs and got nailed--or doctors (they're medical professionals, not coffee pros--they're perfectly fine to say what happened due to the temperature of the liquid on flesh, but not if it's right or not to serve it at said temperature).

I tend to not put grenades between my legs either (they're safe--they have a pin in, right?).

This is a PERFECT example of the "victim" role that the US is willing to play.

It is a demonstrable and verifiable fact that an 180 degree liquid will cause third degree burns within seconds of contact with the skin.

It is a demonstrable and verifiable fact that McDonald's served coffee at that temperature.

Not only were these facts supported by experts, they were conceded by McDonalds.

However, if you want to argue that an 180 degree liquid isn't inherently dangerous... well then you're a bit of a nut.

I didn't try to dispute that for a second; I don't know where you got the impression I did.
I disputed the fact that the articles treated McDonalds coffee as being unusually and recklessly damaging compared to other coffee. Normal coffee that normal people make at home every day is still hotter and presumably even more dangerous than the coffee McDonalds sells.

The only question in this case is whether or not placing the hot cup in between your legs is such a deviation from a normal standard of care that no reasonable person would do it.

This is exactly the attitude which creates a litigious culture. What on earth ever happened to accidents?

In this case I do believe that the drinker was victim of her own incompetence/ lack of judgement. But to suggest that, had the same result eventuated from a bizarre series of circumstances outside of either the drinker's or McDonalds' control, that McDonalds would have been automatically culpable for her injuries merely through dint of having supplied the coffee is utterly ludicrous.

Had the coffee been an unusual substance whose properties the drinker had no reason to be familiar with then there might have been a case against McDonalds. This is what the articles I criticised seem to be trying to suggest, by focussing on the horrible injuries McDonalds coffee could cause, comparing it to other brands' coffees but cynically ignoring the fact that coffee by its nature is a hot and dangerous substance.

Victim complex? About what?
International politics.

Depends on WTF you mean.
Do Americans feel like we are generally the victims when it comes to international politics. (I.E. Everyone hates us, woe is me, etc.)

"Americans" -- individuals or as a country
Both I suppose. But more as a nation.

"victim complex" -- as per the world in international politics, as between individual Americans? In what context?
Again, this could apply to both. Although my question was mainly about international politics.

The question isn't intelligible.
Well thats partly my fault as I typed this up rather quickly right before I was about to leave for work.

I also hoped most people would interpret it as any number of things.(International politics, personal issues like frivolous lawsuits, etc.)

Hoped that cleared things up a bit.

I didn't try to dispute that for a second; I don't know where you got the impression I did.

Mostly it was the talk of the coffee not being abnormally dangerous. My point was that the beverage was clearly dangerous.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

This is exactly the attitude which creates a litigious culture. What on earth ever happened to accidents?

The part of my post that you quoted is not an "attitude," it is a test for an element of negligence or recklessness. Accident has a specific legal meaning, fairly unlike the common understanding of the term, which is not applicable here.

It is clear in this case that there could be no accident, someone was at fault for the injury be it plaintiff, defendant, or third party.

In this case I do believe that the drinker was victim of her own incompetence/ lack of judgement.

As I said before, reasonable minds may disagree, but that which you described is clearly not an accident. The heavens did not part and spill hot coffee onto the plaintiff; it was, in your estimation, her fault.

But to suggest that, had the same result eventuated from a bizarre series of circumstances outside of either the drinker's or McDonalds' control, that McDonalds would have been automatically culpable for her injuries merely through dint of having supplied the coffee is utterly ludicrous.

Well, McDonald's supplying the coffee is not a "bizarre set of circumstances." They knew what they were selling was dangerous and they sold it anyway. That is reckless. This does not make McDonald's "automatically culpable" for selling a hot beverage. In this case, McDonald's actions were found to be reckless because the jury believed they served coffee that was much hotter than normal and so much more dangerous than usual. If you want to dispute the fact that normally coffee is 140 degrees then I guess you are going to have to take a survey of home coffee makers or something.

Had the coffee been an unusual substance whose properties the drinker had no reason to be familiar with then there might have been a case against McDonalds. This is what the articles I criticised seem to be trying to suggest, by focussing on the horrible injuries McDonalds coffee could cause, comparing it to other brands' coffees but cynically ignoring the fact that coffee by its nature is a hot and dangerous substance.

It was an "unusual substance" in that it was unusually hot. I have spilled coffee on myself before, I have never been burned. Not even a first degree burn. In my experience, McDonald's coffee is much, much hotter than any other coffee I have had. Do you know of anyone who has suffered a third degree burn from hot coffee? I doubt it. Is it common knowledge that hot coffee will seriously burn you if it was spilled? No, and I don’t mean first degree burn, I mean seriously, you need a skin-graft, third degree burn.

If a third degree burn is not a usual result of spilling coffee on yourself, then is it reasonable to expect the plaintiff to be aware of that possibility?

When the industry specialists say that coffee is to be served at 190-205 degrees, THEY'RE right because they're the professionals

Doctors tell us that coffee at this temperature is dangerous. "Coffee professionals" (I'm sorry this deserves a :rolleyes: ) are advocating the imbibing of a dangerous liquid. Even if you can prove that coffee tastes best when it is unreasonably dangerous then all you have reached is an irrelevant conclusion. It is irrelevant because the suit isn't over poor tasting coffee, but of serving dangerous coffee. And so we ask ourselves (assuming the other elements fall into place), would a reasonable person serve a beverage which would almost certainly cause serious injury?

No, a reasonable person would not. Note that doctor's also testified that the coffee could not be immediately consumed or else the beverage would scald a person's throat. When asked what a person could do with the coffee five minutes after it was served, a McDonald's official testified that it could be opened, cream and sugar could be mixed in, and then left to cool down further. This means that even if the plaintiff responsibly drank the coffee, there would still be some injury.

Doctors tell us that coffee at this temperature is dangerous. "Coffee professionals" (I'm sorry this deserves a :rolleyes: ) are advocating the imbibing of a dangerous liquid. Even if you can prove that coffee tastes best when it is unreasonably dangerous then all you have reached is an irrelevant conclusion. It is irrelevant because the suit isn't over poor tasting coffee, but of serving dangerous coffee. And so we ask ourselves (assuming the other elements fall into place), would a reasonable person serve a beverage which would almost certainly cause serious injury?


This was me, actually. And yes, you take the pro's word over a doctor's--BECAUSE THEY AREN'T THE PROFESSIONAL IN THIS INSTANCE. THEY ARE THE AMATUER. THEY ARE ONLY OFFERING AN OPINION ON HOW IT SHOULD BE SERVED. Many doctors also think guns should be banned--to everyone, even police. Also the ameteurs for that particular topic as well. You serve the coffee the way it was meant to be served. In this case it is between 190 and 205 degrees farenheit.


No, a reasonable person would not.


No, you would not, otherwise you wouldn't have anyone arguing the point.


Note that doctor's also testified that the coffee could not be immediately consumed or else the beverage would scald a person's throat. When asked what a person could do with the coffee five minutes after it was served, a McDonald's official testified that it could be opened, cream and sugar could be mixed in, and then left to cool down further. This means that even if the plaintiff responsibly drank the coffee, there would still be some injury.

So? You have a hot drink. If you didn't know coffee could burn you...hoo boy. It is made with boiling water, after all. I wouldn't call that reasonable, I'd call those who don't think coffee can't burn ignorant of reality, actually.

Mostly it was the talk of the coffee not being abnormally dangerous. My point was that the beverage was clearly dangerous.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
The part of my post that you quoted is not an "attitude," it is a test for an element of negligence or recklessness. Accident has a specific legal meaning, fairly unlike the common understanding of the term, which is not applicable here.

It is clear in this case that there could be no accident, someone was at fault for the injury be it plaintiff, defendant, or third party.

I'm sorry, but legal definitions aside, this IS an attitude which Americans seem to almost exclusively possess that every mishap has to be someone's fault and therefore actionable. It is the very definition of the 'victim complex' which the thread is about.
As I said before, reasonable minds may disagree, but that which you described is clearly not an accident. The heavens did not part and spill hot coffee onto the plaintiff; it was, in your estimation, her fault.

Well, McDonald's supplying the coffee is not a "bizarre set of circumstances." They knew what they were selling was dangerous and they sold it anyway. That is reckless.

This does not make McDonald's "automatically culpable" for selling a hot beverage. In this case, McDonald's actions were found to be reckless because the jury believed they served coffee that was much hotter than normal and so much more dangerous than usual.
If you want to dispute the fact that normally coffee is 140 degrees then I guess you are going to have to take a survey of home coffee makers or something.
It was an "unusual substance" in that it was unusually hot. I have spilled coffee on myself before, I have never been burned. Not even a first degree burn. In my experience, McDonald's coffee is much, much hotter than any other coffee I have had. Do you know of anyone who has suffered a third degree burn from hot coffee? I doubt it. Is it common knowledge that hot coffee will seriously burn you if it was spilled? No, and I don’t mean first degree burn, I mean seriously, you need a skin-graft, third degree burn.

That is just ignorance trying to defend ignorance. Coffee is made at homes millions of times a day (something in the region of 60 million cups of instant coffee a day in britain alone) by BOILING water then putting it into a cup. BOILING water means raising it to 212 degrees, which is considerably hotter than even McDonalds coffee. It will lose heat more quickly, but if you, for instance, spilled the water on you directly after it had been poured from the kettle and let it sit on your lap for a couple of seconds for some reason than there is absolutely no reason to suppose that you would not suffer the same third degree burns as the plaintiff. I can't honestly believe that you are trying to suggest that people shouldn't be expected to suppose this.

I don't know the statistics for the US but 60 million cups a day means one cup for every Briton. If you think that that is an unusual or abnormal substance then I think you have an odd perspective.

How can McDonalds be considered 'reckless' for selling people the exact same hot coffee they endeavour to make in their homes every day, merely because they happened to spill McDonalds coffee on themselves not their own?


If a third degree burn is not a usual result of spilling coffee on yourself, then is it reasonable to expect the plaintiff to be aware of that possibility?

It is entirely likely that people will not be aware that boiling water will cause SPECIFICALLY 'seriously, you need a skin-graft, third degree burns' because I doubt even that half of people could even tell you what third degree burns means.
I would expect that people should be aware that such a ridiculously common substance COULD cause extremely serious burns even if it doesn't happen in every case. And even more so I would expect that even in ignorance of the exact severity of the burns caused that people would be aware that hot water is dangerous and to treat it sensibly.
To suggest otherwise is to display the very essence of the 'Victim complex' that you seem to be denying.

I sort of find it a source of amusement.

Look at it this way. Suppose you are on a soccer(football) team, and your team is the best in the league. Are you really going to be upset and bothered because the other teams hate your guts?

If the other teams has knives and doesn't mind using them, hell yeah!

I was playing with a loaded gun, twirling it around in my hand, and shot myself in the leg. I'm going to sue the gun manufacturer and studios that produce cowboy movies where I picked up the trick.

I was playing with a loaded gun, twirling it around in my hand, and shot myself in the leg. I'm going to sue the gun manufacturer and studios that produce cowboy movies where I picked up the trick.
Hopefully you're kidding, both about your shooting yourself and the lawsuit part

I'm sorry, but legal definitions aside, this IS an attitude which Americans seem to almost exclusively possess that every mishap has to be someone's fault and therefore actionable. It is the very definition of the 'victim complex' which the thread is about.

Do you suppose it is wise to put legal definitions aside when you are talking about a lawsuit? And I don't care about this puported 'victim complex', I'll leave you to your soapbox.

That is just ignorance trying to defend ignorance.

Coffee is prepared by boiling water. But the water cools as it is passing through the filter. By the time your pot is ready it has cooled down significantly. Unless you have a restaurant coffee maker then it is unlikely that the pot is resting on a hot plate, thereby preventing the cooling. No one drinks boiling water and I seriously doubt that anyone drinks 180 coffee. If you tried you would realize it's way too hot and it needs to cool. The problem is this isn't an issue of the plaintiff foolishly gulping the coffee, it is about a spill. Spilling coffee is foreseable, it isn't burdensome to lower your coffee's temperature, and serious injuries can result if you do not. Thus there is liability.

How can McDonalds be considered 'reckless' for selling people the exact same hot coffee they endeavour to make in their homes every day, merely because they happened to spill McDonalds coffee on themselves not their own?

The plaintiff's attorneys have offered evidence that they aren't served at the same temperature. Offer evidence that they are. You have not done so, speculation isn't evidence and I have just demonstrated how that speculation can be wrong.

It is entirely likely that people will not be aware that boiling water will cause SPECIFICALLY 'seriously, you need a skin-graft, third degree burns' because I doubt even that half of people could even tell you what third degree burns means.

That's not what I meant at all, but if I was unclear I apologize. People do not have to know the exact dangers invovled or the specific medical injuries that would result, but people do understand degrees of danger and injury. I would expect that spilling hot coffee on myself is unpleasant and only a slight injury. I don't expect to have to see a doctor at all. I don't expect major medical operations to correct the injury. You don't need an MD to know the difference between a burn and a serious burn.

And yes, you take the pro's word over a doctor's--BECAUSE THEY AREN'T THE PROFESSIONAL IN THIS INSTANCE. THEY ARE THE AMATUER. THEY ARE ONLY OFFERING AN OPINION ON HOW IT SHOULD BE SERVED.

"Coffee professionals" (I just can't shake it... :rolleyes: ) are offering an "expert" opinion on how coffee should be served to taste best. Doctors are offering an expert opinion on if coffee at a particular temperature is dangerous. Given that the issue is over bodily injury and not offensively tasting coffee, the doctors' opinions are on issue. If McDonald's wants to serve the best tasting coffee they should be responcible for the consequences no?

The gun analogy is false. That is an issue over policy. Doctors would rather that we have no guns but so what? That isn't a factual issue in a lawsuit. Wouldn't you call in a doctor to state that the cause of death was a bullet fired from a gun? That would be more analogous to this issue.

No, you would not, otherwise you wouldn't have anyone arguing the point.

So you are saying I'm unreasonable? Do you honestly think it is reasonable to hand someone an 180 degree liquid? You may not be responcible if they spill it on themselves, like I said that is where reasonable people may disagree. But do you think there is nothing wrong with giving someone an 180 degree liquid and not informing them that it is dangerously hot?

So? You have a hot drink. If you didn't know coffee could burn you...hoo boy. It is made with boiling water, after all. I wouldn't call that reasonable, I'd call those who don't think coffee can't burn ignorant of reality, actually.

Read my above responces to Yossarian Lives, I address this exact issue.


Yossarian Lives and Zaxon,

I don't understand why you are objecting to the obvious proposition that an 180 degree liquid is dangerous and that people do not expect their coffee to be that dangerous. If you are all about responcibility why not consider how McDonald's was irresponcible in serving coffee they knew to be dangerous.

Like I said before, admitting that McDonald's should not serve coffee that hot isn't tantamount to agreeing with the jury award. There is, in my opinion, a real question over whether or not the plaintiff was primarily responcible for her injuries as no reasonable person would put coffee between their legs.

"Coffee professionals" (I just can't shake it... :rolleyes: ) are offering an "expert" opinion on how coffee should be served to taste best.


Yup, and that's the business McDonald's is in. Food. Not burn victims. McDonlad's can ID properly made food. Doctors can ID burn victims. The twain do not meet, until a lawyer slaps them together in a courtroom. With your obvious disdain for the term coffee professional, you should also hold chefs in the same regard, or brew masters, or anyone else who deals with food of any kind. Whether you like it or not, they are the professionals in their respective fields, and know more about presentation, preparation, and serving food than any doctor.


Doctors are offering an expert opinion on if coffee at a particular temperature is dangerous. Given that the issue is over bodily injury and not offensively tasting coffee, the doctors' opinions are on issue. If McDonald's wants to serve the best tasting coffee they should be responcible for the consequences no?


No. Once the coffee is in the hands of the customer, it's the customer's responsibility from that point on. It's hot--it involves boiling.


The gun analogy is false. That is an issue over policy. Doctors would rather that we have no guns but so what? That isn't a factual issue in a lawsuit. Wouldn't you call in a doctor to state that the cause of death was a bullet fired from a gun? That would be more analogous to this issue.


It's not false. Shooting someone with a gun is dangerous. Spilling very hot water on someone is dangerous. That doesn't mean a doctor can tell a gun or ammo manufacturer to change their product so they can't hurt people.

It's the exact same thing. Yes, a doctor can point out what's dangerous to flesh. It doesn't mean they should have any sway on how a product is manufactured because they are not the expert opinion on how specific products are created or marketed. The doctor has no say in how McDonald's "should" do business. They can only identify trauma to flesh when an irresponsible human does something foolish.


So you are saying I'm unreasonable?


Nope, I was saying that your standpoint doesn't stand up to the reasonable person argument like you said it did. If it did, there would be no argument.


Do you honestly think it is reasonable to hand someone an 180 degree liquid?


I give my wife (standard) hot coffee every day (I pour boiling water through a filter with grounds in it--It's not very far under 200 degrees when I hand it over to her). It's at the temperature it's supposed to be. Now, is she careful with it? You bet she is. Then again, she's a very responsible person.


You may not be responcible if they spill it on themselves, like I said that is where reasonable people may disagree. But do you think there is nothing wrong with giving someone an 180 degree liquid and not informing them that it is dangerously hot?


Again, if someone doesn't realize how coffee is made, they're pretty darn ignorant as an adult. It's all about the boiling water.


I don't understand why you are objecting to the obvious proposition that an 180 degree liquid is dangerous and that people do not expect their coffee to be that dangerous. If you are all about responcibility why not consider how McDonald's was irresponcible in serving coffee they knew to be dangerous.


Then you should not be allowed to drive, shave, or use scissors, for that matter. They all involve dangerous things. When someone buys a car, is the dealer responsible for ensuring that everyone who drives that car is licensed, or even trained? How about those that sell razors--or razor blades? You're taking it too far--it's hot water. Everyone knows that coffee is made with hot water. Hot water burns. Maybe she should have blamed her parents (same goes for you, since you seem to think it's cooler) for not teaching her.


Like I said before, admitting that McDonald's should not serve coffee that hot isn't tantamount to agreeing with the jury award. There is, in my opinion, a real question over whether or not the plaintiff was primarily responcible for her injuries as no reasonable person would put coffee between their legs.

And that really is the only question that should have been examined. The lone responsible party took a risk, and paid a very high price for that risk.

Victim mentality? No. Entitlement mentality is more like it. It explains America's problems domestic and foreign. Many think that someone else should be responsible for their actions--I guess more the consequences of their actions and not the actions themselves: we want to do what we want and not have to pay for it--and well-being. In other words, they think they are entitled to have someone take care of them. And others think that after "all we've done for the world" we're entitled to "a little respect."

Yes, Americans have a victim complex. North Americans (excluding Mexico, just because) feel that everyone is too envious of their wealth and want to hurt them. Mexicans feel like no one envys them enough. Central Americans feel victimized by nature as they get pummelled over and over with hurricanes. South Americans feel victimized because they don't have the wealth that North Americans (exluding Mexicans) have and yet they clearly have the nicer climate.

I just feel so damn victimized as an American, because people assume that I'm talking about a nationality rather than a continental loyalty, and I have to launch into long explanations about how I mean American from the continents of North and South America, not the nation state of the United States of America. Damn people making me victims...when I'm so clear...

Yes or no?
As in an American person or as a country?

As a person they tend to now-a-days which is why they are constantly sueing anyone who looks at them funny or has slighted them in some miniscule way!

As in an American person or as a country?

As a person they tend to now-a-days which is why they are constantly sueing anyone who looks at them funny or has slighted them in some miniscule way!

How true!

"Oh noes! I fell through a Skylight while trying to rob someones house! I SueZ y0uZ!"

Yup, and that's the business McDonald's is in. Food. Not burn victims. McDonlad's can ID properly made food. Doctors can ID burn victims. The twain do not meet, until a lawyer slaps them together in a courtroom. With your obvious disdain for the term coffee professional, you should also hold chefs in the same regard, or brew masters, or anyone else who deals with food of any kind. Whether you like it or not, they are the professionals in their respective fields, and know more about presentation, preparation, and serving food than any doctor.

This issue could not be any simpler. I go to a chef for fine dinning, I go to a doctor for medical advice. The issue isn't about coffee generally, it could have been about any liquid. We don't care about what coffee tastes the best, we only care about how coffee is normally made. "Coffee professionals" (Nope, it's still just as fun :rolleyes: ) can tell us that coffee tastes best when it is made with boiling water. But that doesn't tell us if coffee is usually served at that temperature unless those "professionals" have also performed some kind of survey.

If it is unreasonable to drink coffee that is 180 degrees, then it is unreasonable to serve it ready to drink.

No. Once the coffee is in the hands of the customer, it's the customer's responsibility from that point on. It's hot--it involves boiling.


Alright, as I said before this is where reasonable minds can disagree and if you believe the customer was mostly at fault for spilling the coffee then I won't argue with you. I have said it before and I will say it again with emphasis:

I Am Only Arguing That It Is Unreasonable To Sell Coffee At 180 Degrees.

It's not false. Shooting someone with a gun is dangerous. Spilling very hot water on someone is dangerous. That doesn't mean a doctor can tell a gun or ammo manufacturer to change their product so they can't hurt people.

You totally missed the point of your own analogy.

Nope, I was saying that your standpoint doesn't stand up to the reasonable person argument like you said it did. If it did, there would be no argument.

Firstly, demonstrate why it is perfectly resasonable to hand someone an 180 degree cup of coffee. Second, there can be multiple reasonable arguments on a given subject. That there are counter arguments doesn't mean that my argument or the others are necessarily unreasonable. I'd be willing to accept that it could be reasonable to hand a seriously dangerous object over to someone if you would explain to me why that is.

I give my wife (standard) hot coffee every day (I pour boiling water through a filter with grounds in it--It's not very far under 200 degrees when I hand it over to her). It's at the temperature it's supposed to be. Now, is she careful with it? You bet she is. Then again, she's a very responsible person.

So... you've measured it with a thermometer?

Then you should not be allowed to drive, shave, or use scissors, for that matter. They all involve dangerous things. When someone buys a car, is the dealer responsible for ensuring that everyone who drives that car is licensed, or even trained? How about those that sell razors--or razor blades? You're taking it too far--it's hot water. Everyone knows that coffee is made with hot water. Hot water burns. Maybe she should have blamed her parents (same goes for you, since you seem to think it's cooler) for not teaching her.

This isn't about banning all things that are dangerous. It never fails, whenever I see one of these debates it always comes around to slippery-slope pad the whole world nonsense.

No one is interested in stopping McDonalds from selling dangerous coffee. McDonalds takes a risk in making dangerous coffee, they should accept the consequences.

Do you people realize that the defendant in the trial is the person who is accused of wrongful conduct? Is that sinking in at all? The law considers the fault of the plaintiff, but the defendant is on trial.

Let me simplify this for you. A car manufacturer who sells a perfectly good car is not liable if the buyer crashes that car. A car manufacturer who sells a car with bad breaks is liable.

Now imagine this situation. An irresponcible driver unknowingly purchases a car with bad breaks. That driver negligently follows too closely and rear ends another car because the breaks failed and because he followed too closely. Who does the plaintiff, the person rear-ended, get to sue? Both the company and the driver. Why? Because even if the offending driver was driving perfectly there could still have been an accident.

This is nearly the same case here (slightly different because the bad driver above is the sole plaintiff). If the old lady was merely walking down the street enjoying her coffee and then suddenly knocked over and had the coffee spilled on her would it be solely her liability? That seems wrong. The liability of the guy that knocked her over? Well it's partially his fault, but McDonalds should also be held liable.

I don't see understand this peculiar obscession with how the coffee got out of the cup. It's dangerous in, out, and around the cup. It's dangerous when you drink it. It's dangerous when you hand it over. It's dangerous coffee.

But coffee isn't nuclear waste. If the lady was handling nuclear waste then we can say that she is much more liable than if she was handling coffee. Coffee is dangerous, but not seriously so. It all comes down to one aspect of fault - foreseability. It is foreseable that spilled coffee will harm you. It is not foreseable that spilled coffee will require treatment for serious burns and an extended stay in the hospital.

If it was foreseable, then what kind of monster would hand over coffee to anyone?

Do you suppose it is wise to put legal definitions aside when you are talking about a lawsuit? And I don't care about this puported 'victim complex', I'll leave you to your soapbox.

My point in trying to separate american legal definitions from the case was that the discussion is about whether the US has a 'victim complex'. This isn't a term i've pulled out of thin air; if you look at the top of the page you will see that the title of the thread is 'Do Americans have a victim complex?'. Therefore i wouldn't say that trying to argue one side of that issue in its relevant thread is getting up on a 'soapbox'. One of the major arguments for America's victim complex is that they are overly fond of litigation when a mishap befalls them. That is why we are discussing such a lawsuit, remember? Accordingly it is completely counter productive to discuss this case solely in terms of American legal definitions because it is the very way American law functions in everyday life in the States that is being held up as creating the very victim complex the thread was established to discuss.
I really shouldn't have to explain all this.

Firstly, demonstrate why it is perfectly resasonable to hand someone an 180 degree cup of coffee. Second, there can be multiple reasonable arguments on a given subject. That there are counter arguments doesn't mean that my argument or the others are necessarily unreasonable. I'd be willing to accept that it could be reasonable to hand a seriously dangerous object over to someone if you would explain to me why that is.

There are many reasons to 'hand a a seriously dangerous object over to someone'; you dismissed most of them as constituting a slippery slope argument, but the fact remains that many of the things we buy are by their nature dangerous. It's like buying a knife (to use an unconnected example as you did). A knife is defined by its sharpness, much as coffee is defined by its hotness. A knife is sharp; this is what it is. A manufacturer however can make his knives as sharp or as dull as he wants. Therefore a manufacture who made a sharper knife than his competitors could be accused of recklessly selling a dangerous product because his knife could potentially, if misused or through other mishap, cause more serious wounds. However professionals with experience in using knives (not i might add in treating the injuries caused by knives) say that sharp knives are the best. Is it therefore reasonable that the manufacturer sell only dull knives as they they are demonstrably safer, as the finest doctors attest?
I would think not.
Now then would you expect that the manufacturer put a warning on his knives that they are sharp? Knives are sharp; some are sharper than others, but the defining characteristic of knives is that they are sharp. You might never have cut your femoral artery with a knife or even know someone who had but if you were whittling an object between your legs you would have to accept that it might be a possibility that could potentially happen. It might be unlikely but then noone is saying in the McDonalds case that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were a ususal occurance, this case would not have come to prominence alone if it were. If after having cut your femoral artery you tried to press a case against the knife manufacturers you would not be expected to get far merely by stating that you didn't think that the knife would be that sharp, or that the knife was too sharp and a duller one would have been less likely to cause the injuries you sustained.

I think my example perhaps fits the case better than your car examples. However that was just a little example, which I don't expect you to take fully seriously, merely to help you understand how manufacturers can and do reasonably sell dangerous items everyday without fear of litigation.

However to confine ourselves to the 180 degree coffee in dispute I can think of many reasons McDonalds might have to sell coffee at that temperature.
Firstly because the experts say that coffee should be at that temperature. (I know you will try to argue with this, and I don't care)
Secondly, McDonalds cater heavily to the takeaway/drivethru market, as this example shows. While McDonalds might 'have to accept the consequences' of selling hot coffee, I'm sure they'd lose out more if their coffee got cold by the time you got it to your car/ park bench etc.
Thirdly, coffee IS frequently the temperature that McDonalds serves coffee. As I said earlier in the thread, I can't speak for American coffee drinking practices, and so I accept the possibility that Americans are used to their coffee being comparatively lukewarm to the coffee people mostly drink in Britain. I'm mostly familiar with instant coffee, which involves boiling water then putting it into a cup.
So... you've measured it with a thermometer?
I did actually do just that and got 185 ish degrees. That's actually lower than I was expecting I grant but it's still hotter than McDonalds coffee.
Even assuming that some people at home make coffee hotter than others it seems more reasonable that McDonalds cater for the people who make coffee hotter and allow everyone to let it cool to the temperature they desire, than sell a dissatisfactory product.

Third degree burns? From a single cup of coffee? She must have found a very ingeniuos way of doing that... when I was a kid, I once pulled a pot of boiling water from the cooker and scalded myself badly, but those were first degree burns that heeled of within two-three weeks, no hospital needed and certainly no skin grafts.

McDonalds must have found a way of making coffee that is actually beyone boiling :rolleyes:

For the record, children can get 2nd degree burns just from the hot water that comes out of your tap, which is no where near boiling. It happened to my little sister in the bathtub, and she needed skin grafts on her face.

The real problem here is that an American who gets in this sort of accident is usually forced to either go bankrupt or sue an unlucky company.

IF I bought coffee at CorporateMcBurger, I'd be pissed if it wasn't hot enough to give me 3rd degree burns. I'd also be pissed if I had to sell my house, my car & my kids to affort the medical expenses if I had an accident with the damn coffee.

It's got fuck-all to do with being a victim. It's got everything to do with you not giving enough of a shit about eachother, for you all to have a life worth living.

If victim figures into this at all, then it's because your society at large is the victim of your blind stupidity.

If it is unreasonable to drink coffee that is 180 degrees, then it is unreasonable to serve it ready to drink.


That is your own opinion--not fact. And you are most entitled to have your own opinion. Just don't try to force it on others.


I Am Only Arguing That It Is Unreasonable To Sell Coffee At 180 Degrees.


And that's fine. But it's still only opinion, and not fact.


You totally missed the point of your own analogy.


Considering I was the one that made it, that's highly suspect. I may have not presented it well enough to get my point across, however.


Firstly, demonstrate why it is perfectly resasonable to hand someone an 180 degree cup of coffee.


Considering you've already made your decision on the subject, I'm not going to waste my time.


Second, there can be multiple reasonable arguments on a given subject. That there are counter arguments doesn't mean that my argument or the others are necessarily unreasonable. I'd be willing to accept that it could be reasonable to hand a seriously dangerous object over to someone if you would explain to me why that is.


People handle dangerous objects daily (cars, computers, coffee, sharp objects). It's the ability for some to actually be responsible and respect what they are handling/carrying. Some humans aren't. This is the behavior I do not want rewarded by law suits. I want those that are responsible to receive the positive reinforcement.


So... you've measured it with a thermometer?


Nope, but I know enough about physics to be able to estimate that it hasn't cooled below 190, since it's only been TWO MINUTES IN A THERMO-MUG.


This isn't about banning all things that are dangerous. It never fails, whenever I see one of these debates it always comes around to slippery-slope pad the whole world nonsense.

No one is interested in stopping McDonalds from selling dangerous coffee. McDonalds takes a risk in making dangerous coffee, they should accept the consequences.


How about holding the customer responsible for how they handle said substance? It's hot coffee. It doesn't need to be advertised. It is completely REASONABLE to assume that it is very hot (I have no idea how you can't see that one). So, it's up to the individual responsible for it--in this case the human, not the MANUFACTURER of the coffee (that's like blaming chevy for creating a car that someone crashes, when it's the human driving it) to handle it appropriately. Or inappropriately, if they so choose, as long as they're not interfering with someone else.


Do you people realize that the defendant in the trial is the person who is accused of wrongful conduct? Is that sinking in at all? The law considers the fault of the plaintiff, but the defendant is on trial.


I completely understand that. And it should have never gone to court. McDonald's never should have been sued for that person's ineptitude.


Let me simplify this for you. A car manufacturer who sells a perfectly good car is not liable if the buyer crashes that car. A car manufacturer who sells a car with bad breaks is liable.


And McDonald's sold a perfectly decent serving of coffee. You're the one saying that the coffee was "defective" by being served at the proper temperature.


Now imagine this situation. An irresponcible driver unknowingly purchases a car with bad breaks. That driver negligently follows too closely and rear ends another car because the breaks failed and because he followed too closely. Who does the plaintiff, the person rear-ended, get to sue? Both the company and the driver. Why? Because even if the offending driver was driving perfectly there could still have been an accident.

This is nearly the same case here (slightly different because the bad driver above is the sole plaintiff). If the old lady was merely walking down the street enjoying her coffee and then suddenly knocked over and had the coffee spilled on her would it be solely her liability? That seems wrong. The liability of the guy that knocked her over? Well it's partially his fault, but McDonalds should also be held liable.


In your last example, you are holding chevy responsible for someone running into a person with a chevy automobile, causing them to hit a lamp post. That's just so wrong.


I don't see understand this peculiar obscession with how the coffee got out of the cup. It's dangerous in, out, and around the cup. It's dangerous when you drink it. It's dangerous when you hand it over. It's dangerous coffee.


Ah, so nothing over 105 degrees should be available to the general public, eh? There's your slippery slope that you are moving toward.


But coffee isn't nuclear waste. If the lady was handling nuclear waste then we can say that she is much more liable than if she was handling coffee.


Because just being around nuclear waste is dangerous. Coffee, not so much.


Coffee is dangerous, but not seriously so.


It's seemingly more and more that it's only dangerous to you....


It all comes down to one aspect of fault - foreseability. It is foreseable that spilled coffee will harm you. It is not foreseable that spilled coffee will require treatment for serious burns and an extended stay in the hospital.

If it was foreseable, then what kind of monster would hand over coffee to anyone?

It's foreseable that you could cut yourself with a cooking knife. We should remove all knives from your possession and make sure you can't get any. Coffee isn't dangerous if you respect it. If you THINK while you are holding it. People have stopped thinking, and are paying the price--and trying to force others to pay it for them.

That is your own opinion--not fact. And you are most entitled to have your own opinion. Just don't try to force it on others.

And in responce to the other statements to the same effect:

The determination of whether or not something is reasonable must be opinion and can't be fact. It is the jury's opinion on whether or not the defendant acted as a reasonable person. I'm going to assume though that your going to change your statement so that my opinion is no longer "fine."

Considering you've already made your decision on the subject, I'm not going to waste my time.

No, I said I was willing to change my mind if you demonstrate why it is reasonable to hand over a dangerous substance to someone who doesn't understand, and wouldn't be expected to understand, the full extent of the danger involved.

For example, giving someone a barely sharp knife that was also laced with a poison not visible to the naked eye.

People handle dangerous objects daily (cars, computers, coffee, sharp objects). It's the ability for some to actually be responsible and respect what they are handling/carrying. Some humans aren't. This is the behavior I do not want rewarded by law suits. I want those that are responsible to receive the positive reinforcement.

Yes and they are expected to know the extent of the dangers. In this case the jury was shocked that coffee could cause such great injury. I am too. Have you seen the pictures? Have you ever seen a third degree burn? I'm surprised you are not also shocked.

Nope, but I know enough about physics to be able to estimate that it hasn't cooled below 190, since it's only been TWO MINUTES IN A THERMO-MUG.

Well that's just speculation then isn't it. I'm not asking you is it reasonable to believe that coffee hasn't cooled down much, I'm asking you the exact temperature.

How about holding the customer responsible for how they handle said substance? It's hot coffee.

And I have said many times already that it is perfectly fine to do so. The only thing I am arguing over here is whether or not McDonald's is also partially responcible.

And McDonald's sold a perfectly decent serving of coffee. You're the one saying that the coffee was "defective" by being served at the proper temperature.

Proper because... it tastes better? That's the only thing you have offered to support that statement. I have just asked a friend who worked and supervised a Starbucks and smaller coffee shop for over 4 years. He told me that the usual temperature for serving coffee was about 160 degrees. Not quite the 140 offered by the plaintiff, but not the 180-190 you suggest.

In your last example, you are holding chevy responsible for someone running into a person with a chevy automobile, causing them to hit a lamp post. That's just so wrong.

It's not wrong. If the driver was negligent and the car was defective they were both the total cause of the collision. If only the driver was negligent and only the car defective then the collision would have occured anyway. Therefore, they are both an independent and total cause of the accident.

It's foreseable that you could cut yourself with a cooking knife. We should remove all knives from your possession and make sure you can't get any. Coffee isn't dangerous if you respect it. If you THINK while you are holding it. People have stopped thinking, and are paying the price--and trying to force others to pay it for them.

It seems to me that I am going to have to introduce fault as a legal concept to answer this. I don't have time for that right now, I will respond to this later on in the day.

considering what I hear from americans news and how I interpret the question. Yes, they do.

Victim complex being: if something happens, I am probably going to be the victim.

So the example of different news agencies constantly giving out warnings, gave me the impression that they all have this idea that: people want to hurt me.

This is what I would call a victim complex.

It may be completely untrue, as I base this on a perspective granted to me by the american media.

america is too busy VICTIMIZING the rest of the world to have a victim complex.

That is your own opinion--not fact. And you are most entitled to have your own opinion. Just don't try to force it on others.


. . .I've heard of post-modernism taken to obsene extremes, but this is just ridiculous.

Look, coffee heated to 180 degrees isn't fit for consumption. I don't say this because I have some kind of "narrative" that tells me this. I say this because coffee heated to 180 degrees will as a matter of scientific fact cause a first degree burn to the flesh even with momentary contact. With two to seven seconds of exposure, it chars flesh. Yes, you read that right. So if instantaneous and momentary exposure causes damage to human tissue, and even mildly prolonged damage completely destroys human tissue, it's not a matter of narrative or opinion that it isn't fit for human consumption. It's a matter of frappin' fact.

As for the main question, I'd have to know what exactly a "victim complex" is before I could say whether Americans have it. I can say that there are large swathes of the population that demonstrate persecution and inferiority complexes, but I don't know if this measures in any important way whether Americans as a whole have those complexes.

Yes and they are expected to know the extent of the dangers. In this case the jury was shocked that coffee could cause such great injury. I am too. Have you seen the pictures? Have you ever seen a third degree burn? I'm surprised you are not also shocked.


Yes, I do know what third degree burns look like and what cause them. I'm surprised and shocked that more people don't expend one iota of energy to determine what may or may not be dangerous in their worlds--and learn to respect those things.


Well that's just speculation then isn't it. I'm not asking you is it reasonable to believe that coffee hasn't cooled down much, I'm asking you the exact temperature.


Yes, you are. And I'm telling you that I am certain enough that I'm not going to do your work for you.


And I have said many times already that it is perfectly fine to do so. The only thing I am arguing over here is whether or not McDonald's is also partially responcible.


Since the coffee wasn't defective, the responsiblity lies fully in the hands of the owner of the coffee. In this case, the person who has purchased and accepted the good.


Proper because... it tastes better? That's the only thing you have offered to support that statement. I have just asked a friend who worked and supervised a Starbucks and smaller coffee shop for over 4 years. He told me that the usual temperature for serving coffee was about 160 degrees. Not quite the 140 offered by the plaintiff, but not the 180-190 you suggest.


And? A coffee expert was called upon, and gave their opinion in the case itself.


It's not wrong. If the driver was negligent and the car was defective they were both the total cause of the collision. If only the driver was negligent and only the car defective then the collision would have occured anyway. Therefore, they are both an independent and total cause of the accident.


Except there's nothing defective with the coffee--or the chevy that a negligent person spilled or rammed. Neither McDonald's nor Chevy were at fault, just because they produced a properly designed product.


It seems to me that I am going to have to introduce fault as a legal concept to answer this. I don't have time for that right now, I will respond to this later on in the day.

Yes, continue to be condescending, please.... :rolleyes:

. . .I've heard of post-modernism taken to obsene extremes, but this is just ridiculous.

Look, coffee heated to 180 degrees isn't fit for consumption. I don't say this because I have some kind of "narrative" that tells me this. I say this because coffee heated to 180 degrees will as a matter of scientific fact cause a first degree burn to the flesh even with momentary contact. With two to seven seconds of exposure, it chars flesh. Yes, you read that right. So if instantaneous and momentary exposure causes damage to human tissue, and even mildly prolonged damage completely destroys human tissue, it's not a matter of narrative or opinion that it isn't fit for human consumption. It's a matter of frappin' fact.


Actually, the opinion was that something shouldn't be served at that temperature, not if it should be consumed at that temperature. I agree, someone who consumes something that is 180 degrees is asking for a lot of pain. Then again, it's not my job to babysit the entire populace of the planet to ensure adults are being not stupid. If someone's stupid, they pay the price, plain and simple. You don't baby them and say, "It's okay, that big, bad corporation didn't have any business serving you something that, (if you had done a whit's worth of research--or maybe possessed a bit of common sense--you would have known) it could harm you."

Personal responsibility. The world needs a lot more of it.

Actually, the opinion was that something shouldn't be served at that temperature, not if it should be consumed at that temperature. I agree, someone who consumes something that is 180 degrees is asking for a lot of pain. Then again, it's not my job to babysit the entire populace of the planet to ensure adults are being not stupid. If someone's stupid, they pay the price, plain and simple. You don't baby them and say, "It's okay, that big, bad corporation didn't have any business serving you something that, (if you had done a whit's worth of research--or maybe possessed a bit of common sense--you would have known) it could harm you."

Personal responsibility. The world needs a lot more of it.

I find it odd that you champion such things as personal responsibility, yet you deny the most fundamental responsibility of people: to not through action or neglecting to act bring another person to harm. The fact that McDonalds is a company and not a flesh and blood human doesn't excuse them from this moral imperative. They could, through the simple act of telling their employees to turn down the coffeepot, saved lots of people from harm. They did not. Therefore, they were morally blameworthy, and to be quite frank, they deserved worse than they got.

And in responce to the other statements to the same effect:

The determination of whether or not something is reasonable must be opinion and can't be fact. It is the jury's opinion on whether or not the defendant acted as a reasonable person. I'm going to assume though that your going to change your statement so that my opinion is no longer "fine."

....

It seems to me that I am going to have to introduce fault as a legal concept to answer this. I don't have time for that right now, I will respond to this later on in the day.
I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to your post because you blatantly ignored my last one, despite the fact that it answered many of the issues which you still seem to be having trouble with. Namely how and why companies market goods they know to be dangerous; the temperature people make coffee at home (185 degrees as I said before, but i got 195 with an insulated cup (the water was losing heat when it hit the cold ceramic); why American legal definitions are completely irrelevant to the discussion - read my earlier post for these.
However there were a few howlers in your post which I just couldn't pass up on.
For example, giving someone a barely sharp knife that was also laced with a poison not visible to the naked eye.
WHAAAAAAAAAAAA? :confused:
I tseems to me that you have some really strange ideas as to what McDonalds actually does to this coffee; you have in the course of this thread compared McDonalds coffee to nuclear waste albeit somewhat indirectly, a car with dodgy brakes and now a poisoned dagger- invisible poison, mind! It's like you think McDonalds has been deliberately trying to convince people its coffee isn't hot.

Do you know what your example would make a perfect analogue for? If McDonalds gave people coffee filled with invisible poison. That's what. To suggest anything else is .. well.. absurd.

I find it odd that you champion such things as personal responsibility, yet you deny the most fundamental responsibility of people: to not through action or neglecting to act bring another person to harm. The fact that McDonalds is a company and not a flesh and blood human doesn't excuse them from this moral imperative. They could, through the simple act of telling their employees to turn down the coffeepot, saved lots of people from harm. They did not. Therefore, they were morally blameworthy, and to be quite frank, they deserved worse than they got.

So, we should blunt all scissors, pad all walls, have all ramps instead of stairs--where does it end? When can the human take over for watching out for themselves, instead of having a society try to nanny the hell out of them?

Yes, many americans do.


it's called "Professional victimism" or something. it can be seen in women who would rather be raped than learn to defend themselves. it can be seen in the few people in New Orleans who would rather sit on top of roofs and overpasses waiting for rescue instead of simply rescuing their own damn selves. it can be seen in anyone who thinks keeping a year's worth of preserved food and a rifle is a "right-wing nutjob."

they don't wan't liberty, they want to be sheltered and coddled by big brother. if you don't see it, then you either don't live here, or are a fool.

Yossarian Lives and Zaxon,

This is a little late in coming; I got caught up in a few projects. I don’t want to keep on replying post by post, quote by quote. Instead I am going to go through a brief but fairly comprehensive legal analysis on McDonald’s recklessness. The discussion here seems to be resting on that particular issue. You should note that I am assuming that the plaintiff was at least negligent. You guys seem to be convinced on that point and I agree with it so there is no need to cover it here. Also note that this a legal analysis, words like “duty” and “cause” cannot be used loosely, they have specific meanings which I will attempt to make clear as I go along. I’m not saying this to be condescending, I’m sure you are capable of understanding the analysis I am going to provide, I just don’t know how much legal training you have.

Finally before I go on I should also state that McDonald’s was found to be reckless in its deviation from the standard of care while so far I have been using negligent. Basically the elements are the same but recklessness also requires that the defendant knew the injury was probably going to occur and consciously disregarded that knowledge. It’s very easy to establish knowledge because McDonald’s testified that it had such knowledge. Having said that let’s more on to the elements of the tort claim.

The following are the elements:
1) A duty to follow an ordinary standard of care,
2) that the defendant breached and in that breach
3) proximately caused
4) an injury.

There is also an issue of liability, which I will address. Liability is separate from negligence and you can think of it as a measure of the magnitude of negligence, or the wrongfulness of that negligence.

I am going to handle the elements in my own special way, getting rid of the easiest ones first to make way for the harder questions later.

Injury and Cause:

Was there an injury at all? Yes. End of discussion there.

Were the actions of McDonald’s a cause of that injury: Yes.

This requires some explanation. There are two levels of cause. One is cause in fact, in which the strictest test is ‘but for…’. Can we say that but for McDonald’s selling hot coffee the injury would not have occurred? Yes that is true. Now this doesn’t relieve the plaintiff of responsibility in any way. It also doesn’t make McDonald’s liable. It is just simply asking if the temperature of the coffee was a (not the) cause of the accident.

The second level is legal cause. Cause in fact, as you can see, is quite broad and so courts have to narrow it down. There are generally two tests for legal cause (a.k.a. proximate cause). One is foreseeability; is it foreseeable that the hot coffee would cause an injury? Yes it is. It is foreseeable that somehow the hot coffee will be spilled on a person where it will cause a serious burn. The other test is direct consequences. This special little bastard child of a legal test is brought to you by a mistake made by an English court of law in the late 1800s (or maybe early 1900s, I forget). Anyway, the test is (obviously) whether the act was directly linked to the injury. For many of the same arguments as under cause in fact the answer is yes. Remember, this does not absolve the plaintiff as a cause of her injury, this only states that McDonald’s was also a cause. We are not determining here that McDonald’s was the cause, only a cause. To deny that the coffee wasn’t a cause you would have to deny that hot coffee doesn’t burn.

Now the last question on causation is whether there are any intervening causes. It may seem that the plaintiff could have been one, but that isn’t right. An intervening cause must be superseding, it must take over the injury. Injury could have happened without the plaintiff acting negligently, thus the plaintiff’s negligence is not a superseding cause.

Breach and Duty:

Now these two are also simple. Breach really depends on what we find with regards to duty and the standard of care. For now let’s assume if we find that a duty and the standard of care is to keep coffee at a lower temperature, that in failing to do so McDonald’s was in breach.

Duty is actually pretty simple here. No, it isn’t McDonald’s duty to hold the plaintiff’s hand. The question here isn’t what the duty is (that’s the standard of care), but if there is a duty at all. One definition of duty is to all possible plaintiffs. Basically you are responsible for anyone you have injured; you have a duty to always comply with your particular standard of care. The other, more restrictive, definition is that you have a duty to any foreseeable plaintiff. Is it foreseeable that a customer can be injured by the hot coffee with or without their own negligence? Yes. Therefore McDonald’s has a duty to their customers. Shock! Awe!

Standard of care:

Now you are probably asking “duty to do what?” Well that is the standard of care. What is McDonald’s standard of care here? The plaintiff is a customer; customers are invitees who have an attached standard of care for a host to comply with. As a host, McDonald’s had the responsibility to reasonably correct any unreasonable dangers to the plaintiff.

So what makes a threat unreasonable? What is a reasonable action? Well this is where the coffee professionals come in. By law, a defendant can’t use customs of a profession as a sole defense against a tort action (with the exception of doctors and lawyers). “It’s just done this way” is not a defense for injuring someone. If something can’t be done without injuring someone then the defendants are responsible under strict liability, they are liable per se no matter what their actions are and must pay for the injuries caused as a cost of doing business (e.g. a demolitions company). Now a defendant may use industry customs to show that their actions were reasonable, but the point is that such customs are not automatically reasonable. In such an event, the industry customs come into examination. A jury may very well find that 180 degrees is unreasonable no matter who does it.

Liability (a.k.a. Comparative Responsibility/ Negligence)

This is where I say that reasonable minds can disagree. We see how McDonald’s was negligent and we assumed that the plaintiff was negligent. Juries are then required to enter into a discussion on each party’s liability. Liability is sort of like the severity of the negligence. Severity is with regards to damages to be paid and, to a certain extent, the culpability of that negligence.

Liability is measured by the degree of injury and the foreseeability of that injury weighed against the burden of preventing injury. McDonald’s was clearly liable as it had a high foreseeability of injury (in fact they had paid out settlements for the same kind of injury before) and the injury was fairly great. These two factors are weighed against a fairly low burden (it isn’t that costly or difficult to serve coffee at a lower temperature and provide some kind of warning of possible serious injury).

Now did the plaintiff have a lower foreseeability and a higher burden to prevent injury? That’s hard to say, and that is why I believe the plaintiff probably could have been held more liable for the injury. Most likely, the jury considered the plaintiff to be less at fault because her actions put herself at risk while McDonald’s knowingly put others at risk.

Conclusion:

That is that then. I can see you arguing that the plaintiff was still stupid for putting hot coffee between her legs. That’s fine. I can see you arguing that the plaintiff was far more liable for the injury than McDonald’s. I’m OK with that. But I just can’t see, given the structure of the law of torts, how anyone can’t find McDonald’s actions reckless.

If we're done squabbling over hot coffee, there are plenty of other things that Americans--and really, a lot of the Western world--victimize themselves about. Here's a lovely little article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_14_05_JL.html) featuring some victimization examples.

A few of my favorites:

STUDENTS ARE VICTIMIZED BY THE DISAPPEARANCE OF LOW WEEKEND PRICES IN BARS. Pressured by the University of Wisconsin and a federal campaign against binge drinking, 24 bars near the Madison campus agreed to end cut-rate weekend prices. Three students and a Minneapolis law firm failed to convince a Wisconsin circuit judge that this represented conspiracy and price-fixing. But they are suing again in federal court. Legal costs to the bar owners so far: $250,000.

ANTI-HOOKER PREJUDICE FOUGHT IN EUROPE. "Sex workers," the current euphemism for prostitutes, strippers and lap-dancers, are organizing to end discrimination against their profession. Camille Cabral spoke in Brussels on behalf of the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe. Wearing pink stickers reading "Sluts Unite" and "Whore Power," she called for an end to the stigma associated with paid sexual service.

PUBLIC VICTIMIZED BY KITCHEN-UTENSIL VIOLENCE. Doctors writing in the British Medical Journal called for a ban on the sale of long, pointed kitchen knives. Some say the knives are not necessary in food preparation and cited 10 chefs who agreed. Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is unimpressed. "Can sharp-stick control be far behind?" he asked.

Everyone's a victim of something nowadays, and they'd better get recompense for it or it ends, by krikey. The world needs to grow up, stop pointing fingers, and learn to not be offended.

As I said, must have been a very interesting way of doing that. Or did you think I was naked when I poured 100 degree hot water over myself?
And even assuming that the coffee was 20 degrees hotter than average (whoever determines this average in the first place), it was still 10 degrees cooler than that water...

I love how you and others just ignore the facts of the case and continue to condemn it based on pure speculation.

Yossarian Lives and Zaxon,

This is a little late in coming; I got caught up in a few projects. I don’t want to keep on replying post by post, quote by quote. Instead I am going to go through a brief but fairly comprehensive legal analysis on McDonald’s recklessness. The discussion here seems to be resting on that particular issue. You should note that I am assuming that the plaintiff was at least negligent. You guys seem to be convinced on that point and I agree with it so there is no need to cover it here. Also note that this a legal analysis, words like “duty” and “cause” cannot be used loosely, they have specific meanings which I will attempt to make clear as I go along. I’m not saying this to be condescending, I’m sure you are capable of understanding the analysis I am going to provide, I just don’t know how much legal training you have.

Finally before I go on I should also state that McDonald’s was found to be reckless in its deviation from the standard of care while so far I have been using negligent. Basically the elements are the same but recklessness also requires that the defendant knew the injury was probably going to occur and consciously disregarded that knowledge. It’s very easy to establish knowledge because McDonald’s testified that it had such knowledge. Having said that let’s more on to the elements of the tort claim.

The following are the elements:
1) A duty to follow an ordinary standard of care,
2) that the defendant breached and in that breach
3) proximately caused
4) an injury.

There is also an issue of liability, which I will address. Liability is separate from negligence and you can think of it as a measure of the magnitude of negligence, or the wrongfulness of that negligence.

I am going to handle the elements in my own special way, getting rid of the easiest ones first to make way for the harder questions later.

Injury and Cause:

Was there an injury at all? Yes. End of discussion there.

Were the actions of McDonald’s a cause of that injury: Yes.

This requires some explanation. There are two levels of cause. One is cause in fact, in which the strictest test is ‘but for…’. Can we say that but for McDonald’s selling hot coffee the injury would not have occurred? Yes that is true. Now this doesn’t relieve the plaintiff of responsibility in any way. It also doesn’t make McDonald’s liable. It is just simply asking if the temperature of the coffee was a (not the) cause of the accident.

The second level is legal cause. Cause in fact, as you can see, is quite broad and so courts have to narrow it down. There are generally two tests for legal cause (a.k.a. proximate cause). One is foreseeability; is it foreseeable that the hot coffee would cause an injury? Yes it is. It is foreseeable that somehow the hot coffee will be spilled on a person where it will cause a serious burn. The other test is direct consequences. This special little bastard child of a legal test is brought to you by a mistake made by an English court of law in the late 1800s (or maybe early 1900s, I forget). Anyway, the test is (obviously) whether the act was directly linked to the injury. For many of the same arguments as under cause in fact the answer is yes. Remember, this does not absolve the plaintiff as a cause of her injury, this only states that McDonald’s was also a cause. We are not determining here that McDonald’s was the cause, only a cause. To deny that the coffee wasn’t a cause you would have to deny that hot coffee doesn’t burn.

Now the last question on causation is whether there are any intervening causes. It may seem that the plaintiff could have been one, but that isn’t right. An intervening cause must be superseding, it must take over the injury. Injury could have happened without the plaintiff acting negligently, thus the plaintiff’s negligence is not a superseding cause.

Breach and Duty:

Now these two are also simple. Breach really depends on what we find with regards to duty and the standard of care. For now let’s assume if we find that a duty and the standard of care is to keep coffee at a lower temperature, that in failing to do so McDonald’s was in breach.

Duty is actually pretty simple here. No, it isn’t McDonald’s duty to hold the plaintiff’s hand. The question here isn’t what the duty is (that’s the standard of care), but if there is a duty at all. One definition of duty is to all possible plaintiffs. Basically you are responsible for anyone you have injured; you have a duty to always comply with your particular standard of care. The other, more restrictive, definition is that you have a duty to any foreseeable plaintiff. Is it foreseeable that a customer can be injured by the hot coffee with or without their own negligence? Yes. Therefore McDonald’s has a duty to their customers. Shock! Awe!

Standard of care:

Now you are probably asking “duty to do what?” Well that is the standard of care. What is McDonald’s standard of care here? The plaintiff is a customer; customers are invitees who have an attached standard of care for a host to comply with. As a host, McDonald’s had the responsibility to reasonably correct any unreasonable dangers to the plaintiff.

So what makes a threat unreasonable? What is a reasonable action? Well this is where the coffee professionals come in. By law, a defendant can’t use customs of a profession as a sole defense against a tort action (with the exception of doctors and lawyers). “It’s just done this way” is not a defense for injuring someone. If something can’t be done without injuring someone then the defendants are responsible under strict liability, they are liable per se no matter what their actions are and must pay for the injuries caused as a cost of doing business (e.g. a demolitions company). Now a defendant may use industry customs to show that their actions were reasonable, but the point is that such customs are not automatically reasonable. In such an event, the industry customs come into examination. A jury may very well find that 180 degrees is unreasonable no matter who does it.

Liability (a.k.a. Comparative Responsibility/ Negligence)

This is where I say that reasonable minds can disagree. We see how McDonald’s was negligent and we assumed that the plaintiff was negligent. Juries are then required to enter into a discussion on each party’s liability. Liability is sort of like the severity of the negligence. Severity is with regards to damages to be paid and, to a certain extent, the culpability of that negligence.

Liability is measured by the degree of injury and the foreseeability of that injury weighed against the burden of preventing injury. McDonald’s was clearly liable as it had a high foreseeability of injury (in fact they had paid out settlements for the same kind of injury before) and the injury was fairly great. These two factors are weighed against a fairly low burden (it isn’t that costly or difficult to serve coffee at a lower temperature and provide some kind of warning of possible serious injury).

Now did the plaintiff have a lower foreseeability and a higher burden to prevent injury? That’s hard to say, and that is why I believe the plaintiff probably could have been held more liable for the injury. Most likely, the jury considered the plaintiff to be less at fault because her actions put herself at risk while McDonald’s knowingly put others at risk.

Conclusion:

That is that then. I can see you arguing that the plaintiff was still stupid for putting hot coffee between her legs. That’s fine. I can see you arguing that the plaintiff was far more liable for the injury than McDonald’s. I’m OK with that. But I just can’t see, given the structure of the law of torts, how anyone can’t find McDonald’s actions reckless.

I know you can't understand personal responsiblity above a bunch of overbearing laws that control the actions of the populace, and provide loopholes for those that don't actually deserve to get something for nothing.

This is exactly why I am not fond of lawyers.

She did something stupid--she put the coffee between her legs. A lawyer fought to reward her for that stupidity, using every little nitpicky, convoluted language mangling possible. The lawyer also got the jury to believe a novice's opinion over a professional's.

This is like punishing a knife manufacturer for a customer that purchased a chef's knife, and then proceeded to put the sharp edge just a millimeter away from their leg, hold it there, and then go running--then blame the knife manufacturer when the customer cut themselves.

There was nothing defective about the coffee itself. It was served the way it was meant to be brewed and served.

Oh, I did measure the temp of the coffee that I give my wife every morning--two times, actually: 187 degress F and 179 degrees F. Now, does she let this cool down before she drinks it, you bet she does. If she didn't, or if she stuck it between her legs and spilled it, it STILL wouldn't be my fault. She knows coffee comes from boiling water and wouldn't do something that foolish.

You've got a decent grasp of the law, but when the law is abused in this fashion to reward those that do something stupid, when they most certainly should have known better, it doesn't work, and needs to either be fixed, or done away with.

I love how you and others just ignore the facts of the case and continue to condemn it based on pure speculation.

Facts are : You buy coffee. You know that the coffee is hot.

Whatever you do with the coffee really comes down to your own preferences and judgement. If you play with fire, don't be surprised if you get burned. If you put fresh hot coffee between your legs in a bumpy environment such as a car, don't be surprised if you get burned.

My mother didn't go and sue the company who manufactured the pot that contained the water that I spilt over myself, she simply yelled at me and took me to hospital.

Facts are : You buy coffee. You know that the coffee is hot.

You do not, however, expect that coffee to be scalding.


Whatever you do with the coffee really comes down to your own preferences and judgement. If you play with fire, don't be surprised if you get burned. If you put fresh hot coffee between your legs in a bumpy environment such as a car, don't be surprised if you get burned.

Indeed. This woman was somewhat responsible for her own misfortune. However, this misfortune would have been considerably less had McDonalds served the coffee at the industry standard, or had reacted when it was previously reported that their coffee was dangerous.


My mother didn't go and sue the company who manufactured the pot that contained the water that I spilt over myself, she simply yelled at me and took me to hospital.

You did not recieve third degree burns from that pot though.

OK I just came into the conversation here. Are we talking about actual coffee or coffee as a metaphor for something?

You do not, however, expect that coffee to be scalding.



And why not? Knowing how coffee is made, I would expect it to be in the vicinity of between 80-100 degree Celsius.

OK I just came into the conversation here. Are we talking about actual coffee or coffee as a metaphor for something?

Actual coffee... we got carried away by an example ;)

And why not? Knowing how coffee is made, I would expect it to be in the vicinity of between 80-100 degree Celsius.

Because a beverage that was scalding (as opposed to hot) would be useless.

Because a beverage that was scalding (as opposed to hot) would be useless.

100 degree Celsius is the boiling point of water. No liquid coffee can possibly be any hotter. The trick handed down through generations of tea- and coffeedrinkers is to let it cool a little before drinking it.... :rolleyes:

100 degree Celsius is the boiling point of water. No liquid coffee can possibly be any hotter.

Wrong. You are confusing temperature with heat. There is also latent heat when discussing boiling water. A scald from steam at a hundred Celsius will be much worse than a burn from water at a hundred degrees.

The trick handed down through generations of tea- and coffeedrinkers is to let it cool a little before drinking it.... :rolleyes:

Wrong again. Best industry practice is to serve ready to drink.

Wrong. You are confusing temperature with heat.

I'm not sure I understand. I'm talking about the temperature of the coffee, and the temperature of boiling water.


Wrong again. Best industry practice is to serve ready to drink.

Well, tea here is made with boiling water, and served straight away. Coffee is made with Esspresso machines, which acutally use steam instead of boiling water, so the temperature will be even above 100 degree Celsius.

I'm not sure I understand. I'm talking about the temperature of the coffee, and the temperature of boiling water.

I clarified in an edit above. Basically a body of matter won't change temperature until every single molecule in that body has changed state. But the body will continue to absorb heat all the while.


Well, tea here is made with boiling water, and served straight away. Coffee is made with Esspresso machines, which acutally use steam instead of boiling water, so the temperature will be even above 100 degree Celsius.

*shrugs* It's already been stated that a hundred and sixty degrees is industry standard. I advise you to burn yourself and sue.

*shrugs* It's already been stated that a hundred and sixty degrees is industry standard. I advise you to burn yourself and sue.

I honestly doubt that any court in this country would accept that case in the first place.
And secondly, why should I sue about that? Coffee and tea are meant to be hot, otherwise they are no good.

*shrugs* It's already been stated that a hundred and sixty degrees is industry standard. I advise you to burn yourself and sue.

No. It's been stated that coffee professionals serve it at between 190-205 F.

Starbucks is not an industry standard. They are ONE company.

I honestly doubt that any court in this country would accept that case in the first place.
And secondly, why should I sue about that? Coffee and tea are meant to be hot, otherwise they are no good.

And that's the whole reason why I brought it up in the first place. Americans are playing the "victim" card whenever possible to get something for nothing. So now we get even crappier coffee from McDonald's because an idiot put hot coffee between her legs and it spilled and she sued.

So now we get even crappier coffee from McDonald's because an idiot put scalding coffee that McDonalds knew was dangerous and did nothing about between her legs and it spilled and gave her third degree burns over a significant portion of her body and she sued.

Fixed for you. This woman didn't want "something for nothing". She wanted to be able to pay for her medical bills.

And secondly, why should I sue about that? Coffee and tea are meant to be hot, otherwise they are no good.

Because it's dangerous. And a hundred and sixty degrees is hot.

Because it's dangerous. And a hundred and sixty degrees is hot.

It is not dangerous if handled correctly.

Handled correctly? Like allowing it to cool down to a hundred and sixty degrees?

Handled correctly? Like allowing it to cool down to a hundred and sixty degrees?

Ok, obviously it IS to much to expect the average McDonald's customer to know how to handle a hot beverage... :rolleyes:

I'm waiting for the day somebody sue's them because the coke was to cold and got frostbite from sitting on the icecubes...

Ok, obviously it IS to much to expect the average McDonald's customer to know how to handle a hot beverage... :rolleyes:

I'm waiting for the day somebody sue's them because the coke was to cold and got frostbite from sitting on the icecubes...

I expect after seven hundred cases before this the average McDonalds's manager would conclude that there's a problem with the way their coffee is served. Apparently not.

Fixed for you. This woman didn't want "something for nothing". She wanted to be able to pay for her medical bills.

Don't ever make it look like I said anything I didn't.

I said what I meant to say. Coffee is hot. People know this. If she decided to ignore it, it's her fault. Always. McDonald's did absolutely nothing wrong by serving it at that PROPER temperature.

So, if I ice up the floor of my house, to slide across it, if I slam my head against the wall, I can sue my builder to pay for my medical bills? Brilliant. She put the coffee between her legs. She didn't have to do that. She chose to. And when you put something that can hurt you in a place where it's even more likely to cause problems, you don't get to have your medical bills paid for. You did it to yourself. You pay the price.

If you didn't buy insurance, and you can't afford medical bills for something you caused to yourself--too bad, you lose out because you didn't THINK before you put something that could hurt you between your legs. McDonald's never should have had to pay anything. She did get something for being stupid. And that's definitely not right.

I expect after seven hundred cases before this the average McDonalds's manager would conclude that there's a problem with the way their coffee is served. Apparently not.

It kind of makes me wonder, though... are there any laws in the US as to what temperature coffee HAS to be served at? I don't mean standards, I mean laws.
And respectively, are there laws about all other food and drink regarding the temperature?

I expect after seven hundred cases before this the average McDonalds's manager would conclude that there's a problem with the way their coffee is served. Apparently not.

It just tells me that like any country out there, there are at least some idiots in the populace.

It kind of makes me wonder, though... are there any laws in the US as to what temperature coffee HAS to be served at? I don't mean standards, I mean laws.
And respectively, are there laws about all other food and drink regarding the temperature?

I really hope not. That would be nannying at its finest.

I know you can't understand personal responsiblity above a bunch of overbearing laws that control the actions of the populace, and provide loopholes for those that don't actually deserve to get something for nothing.

Oh for the love of... How many times do I have to repeat it? SHE WAS FOUND RESPONCIBLE! It's just that McDonald's was also found to be responcible. Can you wrap your head around the incredible concept (not really so, but whatever) that a particular event can have two or more causes?

This is like punishing a knife manufacturer for a customer that purchased a chef's knife, and then proceeded to put the sharp edge just a millimeter away from their leg, hold it there, and then go running--then blame the knife manufacturer when the customer cut themselves.

No it isn't because knives are more obviously dangerous than coffee. Find me a lawsuit where a knife manufacturer was sued because their knife cut someone.

Oh, I did measure the temp of the coffee that I give my wife every morning--two times, actually: 187 degress F and 179 degrees F. Now, does she let this cool down before she drinks it, you bet she does. If she didn't, or if she stuck it between her legs and spilled it, it STILL wouldn't be my fault. She knows coffee comes from boiling water and wouldn't do something that foolish.

Excellent, it seems that the plaintiff's attornery's evidence might have been wrong. But if you notice under the standard of care discussion, it doesn't really matter. Now I know I asked you to take the temp., that's my mistake it really is a non-issue.

You've got a decent grasp of the law, but when the law is abused in this fashion to reward those that do something stupid, when they most certainly should have known better, it doesn't work, and needs to either be fixed, or done away with.

You don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There are frivolous and fraudulent suits that pass into the legal system, it can't be perfect. I am making a very limited argument here and that is simply that McDonald's was also responcible because handing a hot coffee to a customer is not like handing a hot coffee to a regular houseguest or a spouse.

It kind of makes me wonder, though... are there any laws in the US as to what temperature coffee HAS to be served at? I don't mean standards, I mean laws.
And respectively, are there laws about all other food and drink regarding the temperature?

I don't know about coffee but I do know there are health regulations in certain areas about the proper temp. for storing and preparing food, mostly for sanitation concerns.

Don't ever make it look like I said anything I didn't.

Americans are playing the "victim" card whenever possible to get something for nothing.


I said what I meant to say. Coffee is hot. People know this. If she decided to ignore it, it's her fault. Always. McDonald's did absolutely nothing wrong by serving it at that PROPER temperature.

Scalding is the proper temperature? What kind of coffee do you drink?


So, if I ice up the floor of my house, to slide across it, if I slam my head against the wall, I can sue my builder to pay for my medical bills? Brilliant.

Let's get a better analogy shall we? You crack your head off a brick thats jutting out dangerously. Then yes, you can sue.


She put the coffee between her legs. She didn't have to do that. She chose to. And when you put something that can hurt you in a place where it's even more likely to cause problems, you don't get to have your medical bills paid for. You did it to yourself. You pay the price.

If you didn't buy insurance, and you can't afford medical bills for something you caused to yourself--too bad, you lose out because you didn't THINK before you put something that could hurt you between your legs. McDonald's never should have had to pay anything.

Yes, she's an idiot. Yes, this was partly her fault. No, McDonalds are not blameless in this. Their failure to not learn from the seven hundred previous incidents makes them liable. They don't have to pay as much as they should because she's an idiot, but they still have to pay.

She did get something for being stupid. And that's definitely not right.

Yes, she got third degree burns.

It just tells me that like any country out there, there are at least some idiots in the populace.

Heh. It tells me that thier coffee was far from harmless.

Let's get a better analogy shall we? You crack your head off a brick thats jutting out dangerously. Then yes, you can sue.
I hate to butt in, but if were looking for a better analogy, how about when I fell over my own big feet the other day & knocked my head against the wall?

It seems to me you're saying I should be blaming everyone from the manufacturer of my boots & the company that made my shoelaces, to the people who originally erected the wall & layed the floor. And possibly God as well, assuming that's real & really did invent gravity.

Now that we're talking about who's responsible for what, why didn't this clever scammer sue the makers of McDeath's coffee machine, the inventor of coffee, the coffe farmer responsible for that particular batch of coffee & everyone else who had part in bringing it to the coffee cup, the water supplier, the state for not educating the mcDeath staff about coffee's scalding temperature, God, just in case he's real & created the conditions, and.....

I think this is so completely insane not even Monty Python could've thought it up. But perhaps if Americans had free healthcare, people wouldn't need to sue eachother silly over random accidents like this.

I'm sorry, but legal definitions aside, this IS an attitude which Americans seem to almost exclusively possess that every mishap has to be someone's fault and therefore actionable. It is the very definition of the 'victim complex' which the thread is about.

That is just ignorance trying to defend ignorance. Coffee is made at homes millions of times a day (something in the region of 60 million cups of instant coffee a day in britain alone) by BOILING water then putting it into a cup. BOILING water means raising it to 212 degrees, which is considerably hotter than even McDonalds coffee. It will lose heat more quickly, but if you, for instance, spilled the water on you directly after it had been poured from the kettle and let it sit on your lap for a couple of seconds for some reason than there is absolutely no reason to suppose that you would not suffer the same third degree burns as the plaintiff. I can't honestly believe that you are trying to suggest that people shouldn't be expected to suppose this.

I don't know the statistics for the US but 60 million cups a day means one cup for every Briton. If you think that that is an unusual or abnormal substance then I think you have an odd perspective.

How can McDonalds be considered 'reckless' for selling people the exact same hot coffee they endeavour to make in their homes every day, merely because they happened to spill McDonalds coffee on themselves not their own?


It is entirely likely that people will not be aware that boiling water will cause SPECIFICALLY 'seriously, you need a skin-graft, third degree burns' because I doubt even that half of people could even tell you what third degree burns means.
I would expect that people should be aware that such a ridiculously common substance COULD cause extremely serious burns even if it doesn't happen in every case. And even more so I would expect that even in ignorance of the exact severity of the burns caused that people would be aware that hot water is dangerous and to treat it sensibly.
To suggest otherwise is to display the very essence of the 'Victim complex' that you seem to be denying.
I'm a little disturbed at a nationed named after Yossarian that's a corperate apologist. I'm not sure you understood that book...

Oh for the love of... How many times do I have to repeat it? SHE WAS FOUND RESPONCIBLE! It's just that McDonald's was also found to be responcible. Can you wrap your head around the incredible concept (not really so, but whatever) that a particular event can have two or more causes?


You can repeat it as many times as you care to--I will not agree with you. I cannot see how McDonald's can possibly be responsible, when they served the coffee at the proper temperature. Got it?


No it isn't because knives are more obviously dangerous than coffee. Find me a lawsuit where a knife manufacturer was sued because their knife cut someone.


More dangerous by just being? Not according to you. You had described the coffee as being dangerous by just existing.


You don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There are frivolous and fraudulent suits that pass into the legal system, it can't be perfect. I am making a very limited argument here and that is simply that McDonald's was also responcible because handing a hot coffee to a customer is not like handing a hot coffee to a regular houseguest or a spouse.

Why isn't it? Is the customer's intelligence that much lower as soon as they leave the house? There is no difference. Just the sheer audacity of claiming there is constitutes double-standard.

Heh. It tells me that thier coffee was far from harmless.

Nothing is harmless in specific circumstances. It's up to the human to avoid those particular circumstances.

Let's get a better analogy shall we? You crack your head off a brick thats jutting out dangerously. Then yes, you can sue.


What if the builder made it that way for asthetics? Do we have to pad everything too? Who decides what's dangerous and what isn't?


Yes, she's an idiot. Yes, this was partly her fault.


Entirely her fault.


No, McDonalds are not blameless in this.


Yes, they are blameless.


Their failure to not learn from the seven hundred previous incidents makes them liable.


So, if 700 people start getting motion sickness from a McDonald's commercial, McDonald's should pull the add? Bullshit. If there were 700 idiots before the one that finally sued, that doesn't make McDonald's any more wrong.


They don't have to pay as much as they should because she's an idiot, but they still have to pay.


The only reason they have to pay is because we've got a society that is full of victims (the point of this thread).


Yes, she got third degree burns.

That she justly deserved for putting something hot between her legs. I call that an object lesson.

A specific example of a US victim complex I have observed on these boards is the feeling that the rest of the world is somehow sponging off the generosity of the United States alone and the other developed countries in the world (ie. France) are not pulling their weight on that front, despite the facts which show otherwise.
And you have access to these "facts?" Where and what are they, pray tell?

When similar criticisms are levelled at the UK, Germany, France etc. I think the vast majority are happy to agree or refute, but certainly don't take it as personal criticism.
Oh, you mean kinda like the current riots in France, and how many flames those pointing out the facts about them received?

And you have access to these "facts?" Where and what are they, pray tell?
Take a crash-course in world-economics, look at what your forign 'aid' goes to...

Everyone has access to the info you request, however, it's both common knowledge outside your own little country, and quite complicated to fit in a single post on a message board, so go look for yourself. Or start reading a national newspaper.

There are examples of this crap all over the place from America, you guys clearly have a vast majority of total fucking morons in your country. Not to say the other countries in the world don't however we don't let these people run free.
And you know that America has "a vast majority of total fucking morons" how, exactly?

More dangerous by just being? Not according to you. You had described the coffee as being dangerous by just existing.

No, both are dangerous by just existing. But one [the knife] is more foreseeably dangerous.

Why isn't it? Is the customer's intelligence that much lower as soon as they leave the house? There is no difference. Just the sheer audacity of claiming there is constitutes double-standard.

There are indeed many standards of care. It isn't contradictory or unfair. You owe a different duty to a trespasser than you do to a social guest than you do to someone you have invited who will benefit you (such as a customer). This has nothing to do with the guest's intelligence, but the reasonable requirements you have as a host. Traditionally, spouses were immune from tort action, would that suggest to you that at that time businesses owed nothing to their customers?

You can repeat it as many times as you care to--I will not agree with you. I cannot see how McDonald's can possibly be responsible, when they served the coffee at the proper temperature. Got it?

...

Entirely [the plaintiff's] fault.

...

Yes, [McDonald's is] blameless.

I have explained time and time again how they were found to be responcible. This time you didn't even offer a pretense of apologetics. You are simply outright denying the reason in my argument like an indolent child.

You seem to be the type that would gaze into the night sky and deny the stars. I'm not sure what possible basis there is for the pretended knowledge you believe you have.

Well I don't care anymore, I'm done with you. Enjoy your self-fashioned veil of ignorance.

Well- Good job to you. Personal responsibilty is something that is instilled during childhood by direction as well as example. I'm hoping my kids are absorbing it now too.
Based on what little I know about you, I'm sure they are. :)

For the record, children can get 2nd degree burns just from the hot water that comes out of your tap, which is no where near boiling. It happened to my little sister in the bathtub, and she needed skin grafts on her face.
Which is why, when I had children living at home, I turned the heat on the hot water-heater down to a non-scalding level. Helped with the electric bill too! :D

The real problem here is that an American who gets in this sort of accident is usually forced to either go bankrupt or sue an unlucky company.
And you get this wonderful information where???

It may be completely untrue, as I base this on a perspective granted to me by the american media.
Bingo! :)

america is too busy VICTIMIZING the rest of the world to have a victim complex.
Gods, I'm sick of this shit! Yeah ... that's why we destroyed your place of work, took all your worldly possessions and raped all the women in your family, while torturing you into the bargain.

You either have a totally incorrect view of America and Americans, or have some sort of hidden agenda where you hope to make money off of running down American.

Goodbye.

No, both are dangerous by just existing. But one [the knife] is more foreseeably dangerous.



There are indeed many standards of care. It isn't contradictory or unfair. You owe a different duty to a trespasser than you do to a social guest than you do to someone you have invited who will benefit you (such as a customer). This has nothing to do with the guest's intelligence, but the reasonable requirements you have as a host. Traditionally, spouses were immune from tort action, would that suggest to you that at that time businesses owed nothing to their customers?



I have explained time and time again how they were found to be responcible. This time you didn't even offer a pretense of apologetics. You are simply outright denying the reason in my argument like an indolent child.

You seem to be the type that would gaze into the night sky and deny the stars. I'm not sure what possible basis there is for the pretended knowledge you believe you have.

Well I don't care anymore, I'm done with you. Enjoy your self-fashioned veil of ignorance.


Enjoy your twisted world of technical law, where people are entitled to anything, responsible for everyone else's actions, and the government tells everyone what to do, while lawyers on both sides get rich off their self-sustaining machine of litigation.

The spirit of the law is dead, it seems.

Just because you cite law school text, doesn't make it right. It makes it law. There is a difference. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm wrong. We are differing on an opinion, which is what several results of court actions are--opinions. Doesn't make it fact.

I know how you explained how parties were "found" to be responsible. I don't agree with how they were found that way.

You're the one that's resorting to slinging insults.

There is no need for an apology to you, since I've stated the obvious time and again: doctors can identify trauma--it doesn't make them an expert on what a human should or shouldn't do. They can only explain consequences of the effects of stimuli on the human body. They can't say if something should be done or not. That is up to the individual. If they wanted cooler coffee, they need to ask for ice cubes. Or not buy McDonald's product--that's it. Those are the only options. Forcing another party to bend to your definition of what "is right" is just that--force. And force is not allowed.

I'm a little disturbed at a nationed named after Yossarian that's a corperate apologist. I'm not sure you understood that book...
Hey, what's good for [insert unprincipled multinational company here] is good for the country!;)
Anyway the corporate setting isn't necessarily all that important to the case. The fact that such litigation can be directed against well-meaning individuals as well is what makes it so pernicious.
The fact is that if I had made that cup of coffee and given it to the woman, according to that jury I would have been 80% responsible and liable to pay her damages. Merely because it was my coffee she drank. That's what I'm arguing against. Not because I'm some corporate stooge, but because it creates the sort of attitude that might encourage the trained first aider to walk past me lying in a pile of blood on the street for fear I might sue him if something goes wrong.