Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 2375418" data-attributes="member: 19675">I don't want to hijack this thread, but I have to respond (getting on high horse):First, let me state:  I'm an attorney who grew up in a medical houshold- I know a little about the law and serious injury. And, like I said, I met the attorney who tried this particular case.  #1)  She was not completely at fault.  Most jurisdictions allow recovery for injuries in product liability cases as long as the victim was less than 50% at fault.  Some allow recovery for whatever % cannot be attributed to the victim.  Here, the jury found she was only 20% at fault.The fact: She was a passenger in a motionless car attempting to modify her drink.  It spilled, resulting in 3rd degree burns.  Burns TYPICAL of coffee, soup, and other hot liquids are only 1st or 2nd degree burns (partial thickness burns).  3rd degree burns (full thickness burns) completely destroy layers of skin to the point that normal healing is improbable and skin grafts are required.  Any hotter, and muscle or bone could have been damaged.#2)  Even if there is only 1 injury in 1M uses, if the severity of the injury is such that it is inordinate for the activity or normal use of the product, then your product is BY LAW defective- that is "breach of the implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and of merchantability imposed by the Uniform Commercial Code."  There were not many injuries in the Ford Pinto case either- 3 deaths and 4 other serious injuries out of the first 1.5M vehicles sold, another 6 deaths by the time the production run hit 2.2M.  It was ruled that the risk of death/mortal injury in a collision due to the car's faulty design was so high as to be negligent.  Burns of this severity carry with them the risk of serious infection during recovery.  Opportunistic infection actually the leading cause of death among burn patients because the necessity of skin grafts also requires immunosupressant medications to minimize the risk of tissue rejection of the grafts.#3)  There is an industry standard of not serving foods hotter than 130deg F to minimize risk of serious injury due to burns.  By insisting on using a standard in their coffee at variance with the industry standard (their coffee was 45% hotter than industry standards), McDonalds opened themselves up for liability- at that temp, 3rd degree burns occur in 2-7 seconds- too quickly to treat or mitigate the damage.  At industry standard temps, 3rd degree burns are still possible, but it takes nearly a minute.  McDonalds even admitted that their coffee was “not fit for consumption” at point-of-sale due to extreme heat.With more than 700 previous cases over 10 years, McDonalds had more evidence of danger than Ford did on the Pinto.  Even if this had been a bench trial (before a judge and not a jury) McDonalds would have lost, as is evidenced by the Appeals Court reducing the punative damages (and ONLY the punative damages) award instead of overturning it or remanding it for retrial.  In other words, the Appeals Court (a panel of 3 or more judges) found there were no errors of fact or law mandating either action, merely an error in the calculation of the amount of punative damages.#4) A third of the final, post-appeal total award (@200k) was merely to cover her medical expenses.The fact is: McDonalds, like Ford, had a faulty product, knew it, kept it on the market unchanged, and got smacked for it.(dismount)</blockquote>

Verification