Re: The McDonald's incident

[Doug Craigen <dcc@ESCAPE.CA>]

> Even if McD was deemed to be at fault, to what degree are they liable?  I would
> think that payment to cover medical expenses should be a maximum, but as I
> recall there was A HUGE amount more money awarded in this case due to
> (unjustified?) punitive  damages.

The size of the damages was quite likely unreasonable - but that does
not make this case stand out - the reason people ridicule the case is
they think of the last time they had coffee spilled on themself or saw
it spilled on someone else.  People are careless in their handling of
coffee precisely because years of experience has shown them it might
sting a bit, but nobody gets seriously hurt.  The fact that so few
people stop to even consider that she might have been seriously hurt
shows how deeply ingrained this expectation is.   The fact is that the
restaurant knew that their coffee was hotter than normal - enough to
cause serious injury - and "everybody knows" that coffee spills are
commonplace.  It seems pretty straightforward then that they should have
expected their temperature choice would eventually cause serious
injury.  This is far from the worst thing a restaurant has ever done,
but I think a lawsuit of some kind against them is not a cause for
ridicule.

> I'm sorry to run on off topic (Physics) but there has been light traffic
> on the list lately

Perhaps we could turn this into a discussion of how to avoid coffee
spills (aside from a lid) while walking with a full mug of coffee...


\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/~\_/

Doug Craigen
          http://www.dctech.com/physics/