Everyone knows the "muh coffee hot" case in the US.
So, let's do a quick re-count.
Is Mcdonalds:
@monkyyy
- 2nd degree burns
Yes, that happens, when you pour it to your lap. The problem isn't that the liquid was hot, but that she was drinking it in a car.
What temperature for a "hot coffee" do you think is ok for a rollercoaster?
Because for a sitting coffee? I would guess about 99°C is ok.
I don't expect food to be medically intervention nessery hot, no matter the warnings.
@monkyyy
Yes, if the coffee was called "barely heated coffee!, then I would expect it to be ready for immediate consumption in one take. But the word "hot" does bring the expectation of heating you during the long winter days, while you drink it slowly over at least 30 minutes.
@monkyyy
> I don't expect food to be medically intervention nessery hot
How many ways can people find of saying, that they didn't know, that boiling water is hot?
Its generally understood by lawyers that the damages were punitive because of, no paying out medical bill at cost in a timely matter and not reviewing complaints and internal research.
You can debate about how insurance should work, some places have both cars are responsible for their own medical bill, and the insurance companys want to push for safety features or you assign fault, in which case they want to force "safe driving" somehow and generally meaning you have to force everyone to buy insurance. Trade off which you like more.
Mcdonals had insurance but choose not to use it for an old women needing surgery. This may confuse the European mind, where the state didn't fund the old womens surgery, but this is like the car insurance debates. When faced with a bad roll of the dice the jury wanted money from what was on the table under the current scheme. Sadily home insurance is suppose to cover the neighbors kids jumping over a fence and drowning in your pool in the american system; that got complicated because it was a drive thru and the accident wasnt a car crash.
Your asking juries to say no to a planned for 700th case condemning someone to poverty; they choose not to. You could easily hate parts of the law that limited it down to those two choice, but those were they choices the jury had.
@monkyyy
I am sorry. I really am. I get, that you americans do see a law a lot differently, but all I did get from that wall of text was, that at least 700 Americans didn't know that hot coffee can burn you.
Because the state wasn't going to cover the medical bills, those 700 people were either get crippling medical debt, or McDonald insurance was going to pay for it. Are you still confused why people choose the 2nd?
Car crashes happen, a kid with 20 broken bones is going to need a giant check. Insurance company a or b can debate which, but I very much want the check to happen.
@monkyyy
OK, that is a strange system...
But this does make sense.
Its a trade off. Blame or socialized costs. I wish it was stricter about reasonable use, trespassers shouldn't get protection for example. There is a major upside tho, actually safe things dont need committees to approve them.
@LukeAlmighty didn't you already have this conversation? Coffee is not supposed to be served at a boiling point + McD is a corpo
@tomie
Yes, and I still cannot believe I have to defend the McD.
I believe she got 2nd degree burns, the jury agreed for a reason the courts and news are wildly in favor of corperates