QUOTE (Enhasa @ Jan 1 2004, 12:51 AM)
QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Dec 31 2003, 10:16 PM)
But let's say, for fun, that the coffee was in fact molten steel and its temperature was 2500 degrees.
Argument by false analogy.
Boo hoo. Hyperbole is a part of any argument. Do you think I was trying to fool someone?
The coffee *was* unexpectedly hot, moreso than Stella or any customer should have expected, since coffee is not that hot when you make it at home (typically it's about 30 degrees cooler).
McDonald's had had numerous complaints about the temperature of its coffee, and it tried to conceal this from the court because it wanted to show that it could not have known that its coffee could cause third degree burns in two seconds, and that it had done so in the past, resulting in legal action (see below). Ultimately the corporation admitted that it was aware of the previous complaints and lawduits, but that it did not consider them statistically significant. Failing to mitigate a known risk is considered negligent; lying about it in court is essentially perjury.
This from the El Paso County Bar Association:
"McDonald's knew the risks of serious burn injuries from its scalding hot coffee for more than ten years. More than 700 other burn injuries from McDonald's coffee had occurred between 1982 and 1992, including burn injuries to the genital areas, perineum, and inner thighs of the victims. McDonald's admitted that its coffee was 'not fit for consumption' when it was sold because it causes severe scalding if it's spilled or drunk. McDonald's admitted that its customers were unaware of the risk of drinking its coffee and that it did not warn its customers of the risk; and reported that it had no intention of changing its policy. Stella Liebeck, the burn victim, had never sued anyone in her life before and had offered to settle her case for her medical expenses and a little money for her pain and suffering. The verdict included $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent comparatively negligent; and 2.7 million dollars in punitive damages, which the court reduced to $480,000."
Here are a couple of websites that lists the facts of the case. Some are different from what I reported in my previous post. I imagine the details in the linked article are correct and my numbers were the usual internet extrapolations.
http://www.personal-....com/cases.htmlhttp://www.citizen.o...cles.cfm?ID=785http://www.sctla.org...inthenews40.aspFrom what I hear, the El Paso McDonald's named in the lawsuit reduced the temperature of its coffee to 158 degrees, at which temprature it woud apparently take 60 seconds to cause a third-degree burn. So in at least that one case (if what I read is true), a lawsuit against a corporation resulted in an action that reduced the risk to the consumer.
Without these lawsuits the only safety measures corporations would adopt would be the ones where the damages were considered "statistically significant," whatever that's supposed to mean.
PS: All that said, I figure the Starbuck's customer only has a case if the cup was defective. The Starbuck's cups clearly announce that their contents are "extremely hot" and that care should be taken. And since Starbucks does not actually serve molten steel, but only ridiculously hot (abd over-roasted) coffee and tea, the warning is probably good enough.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).