demagogue on 23/11/2007 at 10:17
1. yes, unless it obviously signals otherwise. Have you never used a table or chair or bed, etc, to change a lightbulb?
2. no, just not so hot they get severe burns from the kind of spill you could expect in a car situation.
3. Maybe, but these aren't my rules. I actually like Nietzsche's wording, "Are we not, with this tremendous objective of obliterating all sharp edges of life, well on the way of turning mankind into sand? Sand! Small, soft, round, unending sand! Is that your ideal, you heralds of the sympathetic affections?" (Dawn)
Fingernail on 23/11/2007 at 10:35
Quote Posted by demagogue
1. yes, unless it obviously signals otherwise. Have you never used a table or chair or bed, etc, to change a lightbulb?
I would've thought most stuff comes with a generic "do not use for any other purpose than *intended purpose*". People still do it, and of cousre, most chairs can take the weight, but I expect manufacturers and people who write health and safety laws don't allow it in the workplace, so I don't think a court case would be successful in the case of a chair or any other furniture if it was being used in a way that was unusual.
Besides, some beds you literally can't jump on or they'll break, because they're cheap. This doesn't mean they're breaking the law.
SubJeff on 23/11/2007 at 11:03
Also what's the bets that most things come with instructions and small print saying "Use only as XYZ". They should do because even WITH these things some people use stuff in the stupidest ways so imagine life without warnings!
Papy on 23/11/2007 at 11:37
Quote Posted by demagogue
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.
I am appalled by the way you think. Are you saying a restaurant should not give a steak knife to its customers because it's entirely predictable some of them will cut themselves? I'm sorry but living in a mental institute for disable people where there is only plastic knife is not really my idea of a good society.
I don't drink coffee myself, but most people I know like to drink it hot. Not warm, but hot. Basically you are telling all those people that they won't be able to enjoy it the way they like because a few people might lack a minimum of common sense, spill their coffee on their laps because they are careless and then do nothing for 90 seconds, waiting for their skin to burn. I'm sorry, but your vision of society sucks.
Matthew on 23/11/2007 at 11:49
Hyperbole ftw right guys?
Pyrian on 23/11/2007 at 19:39
Quote Posted by demagogue
You might not like that rule, you can say it's stupid, but ours is not to like or dislike, it's established law.
In a democratic society, I posit that "established law" IS ours to like or dislike.
Your chair example is retarded. There are plenty of chairs that are TOTALLY unsuited to standing on - they have wheels and tilt backwards. And I say if someone gets themself killed trying to stand on your typical office chair, it's their own damn fault.
Starrfall on 23/11/2007 at 20:33
Quote Posted by Fingernail
Besides, some beds you literally can't jump on or they'll break, because they're cheap. This doesn't mean they're breaking the law.
No, but if the bed not only broke but paralyzed the person who was jumping on it, it's not unreasonable to say that there's something wrong with the bed.
Or, to fix Papy's broken analogy, a restaurant shouldn't give people steak knives if the knives they use have a tendency to break suddenly when in use, fly up, and stab the user in the eye.
Chimpy Chompy on 23/11/2007 at 20:42
If an item can't support the force of a human jumping up and down, I don't get how you can control whether or not they get paralysed when it breaks? It probably depends on how they hit the ground.
(your second example is a bit more clear tho).
Fingernail on 23/11/2007 at 20:49
Or would you sue the trampoline company if you accidentally landed on a large metal spike just meters from where you were trampoline-ing? That thing was just too damn bouncy.
I'd say there's too much grey area in all of this to be covered by a blanket law. In this specific case, for McDonald's, and in the USA, a jury found one way. That doesn't mean it applies to the rest of the world or that another hypothetical jury who disagree is retarded.
Either way, I had a McDonald's coffee earlier today and not only did I succeed in not spilling it on myself, but it did also warn me of it's potential heat and they're served in marginally thicker cups than some other vendors, whose cups you can't hold without a serviette or extra cardboard wrapper. So perhaps this did lead to a change for the better.
SubJeff on 23/11/2007 at 21:02
Quote Posted by Starrfall
No, but if the bed not only broke but paralyzed the person who was jumping on it, it's not unreasonable to say that there's something wrong with the bed.
I think you'd more likely win a case if the bed broke and was found to have sharp or otherwise damaging components on breakage. Wouldn't it be more of an issue of what you can reasonably expect? If you fall of a chair and hurt yourself tough luck, but if when the chair falls it explodes or something (ends of the spectrum people) then the company is to blame for injury (burns only all falling injury not related to or exacerbated by burn damage your own fault terms and conditions apply your statutory rights are not affected :p ).
