Forums | MacLife

McD's servers in styrofoam, which is a near perfect insulator.  Starbucks uses paper cups, which are not perfect insulators.  Until you show that you have a modicum of understanding about how heat works, your opinion on "well its hot" really doesn't amount to much.

So then, Starbucks coffee should have caused less damage than it in fact did, no? Its served at a lower temperature to begin with, and the cup is paper which means that the coffee temperature would go down even quicker.

And yet the person still suffered second degree burns. And I would argue, coudl have suffered third degree burns with that same cup of coffee, depnding on how it was spilled on her.

I'm sure you would argue that.  You've shown no comprehension whatsoever that you understand how heat works.  Second degree burns are not good, but not that bad.

If all the circumstances were the same in the mcdonalds case but instead of suffering third degree burns  she suffered 2nd degree burns would the case be frivolous? And do you think the lawyer still wouldn't argue negligence?

Is this a victory for me, then?  I'd hardly expect anyone to dare make a concession on this board...

I think you spoke too soon.
If it's any consolation I'll concede. Your logical and balanced rhetoric along with a reasoned explanation of your position convinced me. It was an interesting discussion without insult or rancour and at the end of the day the better argued, more solidly supported position, won out delivered as it was by someone with a better understanding of what the law is and how it in fact works.
Better?

bratboy wrote:

Onthebeach wrote:

Is this a victory for me, then?  I'd hardly expect anyone to dare make a concession on this board...

I think you spoke too soon.
If it's any consolation I'll concede. Your logical and balanced rhetoric along with a reasoned explanation of your position convinced me. It was an interesting discussion without insult or rancour and at the end of the day the better argued, more solidly supported position, won out delivered as it was by someone with a better understanding of what the law is and how it in fact works.
Better?

Why thanks!

However, I thought of something today in class and I thought I'd post it here.

I think I may be incorrect in claiming that a "standard" was in play here.  I think it would be more correct to call this a CUSTOM.  The plaintiff's lawyer was able to sufficiently show the use of a custom in the fast-food industry...that is, that coffee was usually served at a lower temperature than McDonald's coffee was.

My point remains the same.

Usually. Meaning sometimes it was served hotter and sometimes not as hot. This was by no means a scientific study of actual temperatures  at variuos restaurants. The lawyer merely stuck thermometers in coffee at 12 restaurants and said Mcdonalds was hotter than 9 of 12. The only mention that I hear of a standard appears to be the one that Mcdonalds was adhering to.

And custom is a lot different than standard.  But no reason to keep arguing this (even though I just did )


Again, though, I think the main reason people get offended at "frivolous" suits is the amount awarded. If she for example got a small amount (ie 300,000 for example) it wouldn't generate half the outrage that it did. I think a lot of people might say even if mcdonald's was 100% liable awarding millions of dollars for burns is just frivolous. Its a gut reaction, true, and is not often valid. But, there you are.

Last edited by everlong205 (2005-01-24 7:10 pm)