Aja on 22/11/2007 at 07:01

---

(http://www.reedmorganpc.com/wsj_coffee.htm) 20% of the fault belonged to Liebeck, let's not forget. Regardless of whether lots of people do it, squeezing a flimsy styrofoam coffee cup containing hot liquid with no lid between your legs is a dumb idea, and the jury's decision reflects that (though it doesn't prove anything, jesus). Similar cases in the UK were (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html) rejected.

All in all it seems like a fair ruling, though after reading these briefings it sounds as though a single, idiotic McDonalds exec + graphic burn photos really sealed the deal for Liebeck.

Dia on 22/11/2007 at 12:33

---

In reality it only takes a matter of seconds to produce serious burns if it's a scalding liquid (see (http://www.mgh.harvard.edu/burns/additionalinfo/burn.prevention.htm) or (http://www.burnsurvivor.com/injury_examples_hotliquid.html)).

Plus, we're talking about a 79 yr. old and the reflexes of a senior citizen aren't equal to those of a 20-something person.

Papy on 23/11/2007 at 00:14

---

There is a difference between being burned (which happened to me more than once) and being burned to the point of requiring skin graft for health reasons (and not for a mere cosmetic reason). My personal experience certainly showed me this "it's a matter of seconds" is very far from being a universal truth, and that's why I asked if she tried to remove her clothes or waited.

Having said that, I didn't know she was that old, and it does change my point of view. Not really when it comes to the culpability of McDonald (I still don't think they are really guilty of anything), but as to why this thing happened.

Personally, now that I know a little more about the situation, I think the real guilty one in this situation is her grandson who was idiot enough to not care for her. He's the one who should pay for this. He certainly should not have let her put the coffee between her legs. Also, after she spilled the coffee, he should have removed her clothes immediately and wipe her skin. According to Wikipedia, "she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds". Seriously, what the hell did he do for one minute and a half?

SubJeff on 23/11/2007 at 01:24

---

The detail about his faffing about might not be in there. If anyone knows what the grandson did, please tell us.

As a small aside - I've treated a lot of burn victims, the vast majority 1st and 2nd degree burns caused by, yes, hot water (though it ranges from "I fell asleep after taking my heroin with my arm on the radiator" to "The firework I lit went off in my hand" etc). But this one guy plunged his entire forearm into a vat of boiling oil at the fast food place (a chain whose name I won't mention :p) he works at. Result? 1st degree burns. Lucky mofo. When I was told "Burns victim in department, plunged arm into deep fat frier" I was expecting crispy crispy.

That's the way the dice rolls.

demagogue on 23/11/2007 at 09:14

---

I realize where your intuitions are coming from, but there's a little more to tort law.

The question isn't if "we as a society" are responsible for people who hurt themselves because of their own action, but did the defendant have a duty not to hurt the plaintiff? A: Yes, a food vendor has a duty not to injure their customers with the food they sell. That includes a duty to prepare the food in a way that prevents the customer from injuring themselves by handling the food in a way that's entirely predictable.

The key is if it's entirely predictable that's how the item will be handled. It doesn't even have to be the "proper" handling. A person that stands on a chair to change a lightbulb, doesn't matter that chairs weren't designed for standing on, you can absolutely predict people will do it, so the manufacturer has to take it into account and make them stand-on-able. It's entirely expectable that when a person buys a drive-in drink, if they don't have a cup holder in their car, as many cars don't, that the obvious place to put it is between their legs, because that's how people handle drive-in beverages. So they have a duty to take it into account.

You might not like that rule, you can say it's stupid, but ours is not to like or dislike, it's established law. But it actually is a good rule because most people can't spend lots of time every time before they do something like stand on chairs about whether the manufacturer thought about it and the design specifications will handle the stress ... everybody does it ... and there are literally a million every-day situations like it; life would come to a standstill if you had to second guess all of them! Can you swallow toothpaste? Jump on a bed? Have someone sit on your lap on a swing? If the manufacturer isn't thinking about these things, it means you'd better be or you'd be seriously injured by the end of the day. A world where you had to be watching your back all the time like that would suck.

........................

To answer your question, you could sue someone if you actually had a case. The first question you'd ask is who has the duty? I guess the county gov't. Then you'd ask whether the way you were driving your motorcycle was absolutely predictable (like the gravel-depth was deceptive and some riders would ride faster on it, expecting it to be safer), the sort of thing the street makers should have had in mind in making the road. That probably depends on how fast you were going. If you were under the regulated speed limit, then damn yes you have a case ... street makers can't go around making streets that cause tires to spin out going the speed limit. If it was over the speed limit, then they have to expect some vehicles will go over it to a point. It's all about what they should reasonably expect.