It is the women's own fault she got the burns. She is the one who spilled the coffee not McDonald's. The temperature of the coffee has nothing to do with her spilling it. Now if she got the burns from just holding the cup with the coffee in it that would be a different story.
shareWhy is the coffee that hot though? I've spilled Dunkin Donuts coffee on myself before and i didn't have to go to the freakin hospital for it. It's irresponsible and dangerous for McDonalds to be selling their coffee at such dangerous temperatures .
But again, this specific case is discussed in this documentary for more reasons then just to debate the validity of it
The temperature of coffee is going to vary from store to store and machine to machine. It is only prudent to assume that coffee can burn you because pretty much anyone with a brain knows it can. Water boils at 212 degrees.
The water used for coffee isn't generally brought to the boiling point but it gets pretty close. That is why it comes in insulated cups. Did you ever pour coffee into an ordinary plastic or paper cup and try to pick it up? It burns. Common sense.
The guy that was with the old woman should have warned her when he saw her fiddling around with the coffee between her legs. It isn't McDonalds fault he had a crap car with no cup holder and neither of the occupants had the presence of mind to exercise ordinary common sense.
But we're not talking about simply boiling coffee, the face that the coffee was so hot that it melted off a part of her skin indicates that that specific coffee machine was irresponsibly too hot. It was negligent to have the coffee that at temperature.....
also like I mentioned, this specific lawsuit isn't the entire documentary of course, as this case is simply being used to paint a larger problem
Well, something stupid is happening on this page, and it ain't Mrs. Liebeck. Hint: An earlier comment began to ask if you even watched the film. There! I've spelled out the question for you. And I promise that if you do watch it, and if you're a decent person, you'll change your opinion.
shareThe "penalty" for spilling coffee on yourself should *not* be what this woman suffered. But her story really isn't the point.
The point is taking away our 7th amendment rights for our day in court to be judged by a jury.
The twin who was born with brain damage makes this point perfectly. The family was not allowed to receive damages that would cover his medical care for his lifetime. Instead, Medicare (the taxpayers) will foot that bill, not the person responsible for the damages.
Do you not see a problem with that?