- Sep 17, 2012
The context or the point, if you will, that you are missing is that coffee by and large is not supposed to inflict third degree burns. Society *did not associate hot coffee with third degree burns. When somebody orders a cup of joe and it's hot. A normal person would assume that if they get scalded. It will be, worst case scenario a light second degree burn.Ihateregistering1 said:I can't see this context I'm missing:DrunkenMonkey said:It's the context that you are missing. A cup of hot coffee that inflicts third degree burns upon impact is not the same as licking a knife. Hell it's strange but you know what's weird boiling oil doesn't even burn that fast, and people at least try to watch out for that.Ihateregistering1 said:snip
A knife and a hot cup of coffee are actually quite similar. Both perform a function, but are dangerous if handled improperly. Some improper ways to handle a knife would be to lick it or run around with it. Some improper ways to handle a hot cup of coffee would be to throw it at someone or stick it between your legs. Both would cause injury. I don't consider either one to be grounds for suing the knife or coffee producer.
I equate it to this: have you ever been to a Mexican restaurant and ordered fajitas? You know how they bring them out on a metal plate that is sizzling, with steam coming off of it? If I decided to hold the plate between my legs because, I don't know, I had to make a phone call, should I be able to sue the restaurant if the waiter/waitress didn't explicitly warn me that the sizzling metal plate with hot food on it and steam coming off of it was hot?
To me, this goes back to the concept of what a 'reasonable person' would do, which is cited frequently in court cases. To me, a reasonable person would be intelligent enough not to stick a cup of hot coffee between their legs. Just like a reasonable person would be intelligent enough to not fold up their stroller with a baby in it (yes, there is actually a warning label on it to remind you to remove your baby) or not to drive by looking at your GPS and not look at the road.
Also, it doesn't inflict 3rd degree burns "on impact" (it's not napalm). The reason it burned the woman so bad was because 1: She was 79, so she didn't exactly move quickly, and 2: she was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the liquid and held it against her skin.
Which is painful, but ultimately completely manageable. I'll admit on impact is in correct, but between 3-7 seconds is pretty much there. It will take about a second to register that your legs are on fire and the rest of the time to react. By that time the burns are already inflicted, cotton pants or not.
Anyways moving on, the point I'm trying to make is that "hot" coffee does not bring to mind the same level of danger to the flesh as a knife, or even a car crash possibility. What happened proved that there actually exists that level of danger besides the quote that I posted earlier clearly stated that McDonalds themselves admitted that customers are unaware of how hot the coffee is.
edit: *did not associate
This was an accident, not solely out of stupidity as this thread is covering. The fault primarily lies with McDonalds for making their coffee too damn hot, and not providing a container solid enough to hold it. And to respond to an earlier statement, yes McDonalds did not lower the temperature, but at least they hand out sturdier containers.