Death of common sense

[PSULion22]

Originally Posted by greasyjoe20

RichMan,

The only problem with the logic of the cup feeling too hot, is that this case was from 1992, when I believe they were still using styrofoam cups, at least for coffee. With todays paper cups you would feel that extra heat, which is why they give you that cardboard sleeve to put around it. I almost always wait a few minutes before drinking anything that I know was over 100 degrees, but obviously that lady wanted her coffee right then. Was the coffee too hot, probably, but trying to open the lid of a hot cup of cofee while it is between your legs is never a good idea.

Originally Posted by RichMan

Exactly! Regardless if they were the old styrofoam cups, somewhere between getting her coffee and trying to drink it, she had a clear lapse of good intellectual judgment, hence the outcome of her injuries.

I remember hearing of this case on the news, but i don't remember it being from so long ago. Damn time flies when you're having fun

She didn't try to drink it, she tried to put cream in it. The point is, at that time, it wasn't uncommon for people to put the cups between their legs. Cars didn't have the cupholders they do now. I would venture as far as to say this case was part of the reason you see 25 cupholders in a car now. Because it was a common thing to do, her actions were not seen as unreasonable.

The temperature of the coffee also plays in because coffee in the 140 degree range is not nearly as much of a danger as 180. So even if someone were to spill it in their crotch, it would produce no more injury than a slight burn with redness and scarring. It would be much more cursing than injury. The temperature of the coffee caused the injury, not her actions, as the coffee was dangerously, uncommonly, unreasonably hot. Had she known the injuries the coffee could cause, she likely would not have put it there or at least used extra caution. Had it been the temperature most people were accustomed to, a much safer temperature, she likely would not have been burned. So any way you look at it, McDonald's decision to keep the coffee hotter than everyone else was at fault here.

[leaferguy]

Originally Posted by RichMan

It seems to me that this is just a clear case of "you" wanting to be right and proving others who think she was a tool to be wrong. That's fine, you have your opinion and interpretation and i have mine.

Lets just leave it at that. I don't argue to change peoples opinions. I'll only debate to make my views understood without necessarily being accepted. To each his own

Not to persist in an argument you want to stop, but the issue was that PSU clearly stated his opinion based on presented facts, some firsthand experience, and his own deduction. What you posted came off as reactionary based on what the morning radio says.

What if I were to say that the people whose SUVs rolled over due to faulty Firestones were just bad drivers? They were involved in accidents, but it wasn't necessarily their fault. It's a weak analogy, but what I'm trying to drive at is that your opinion seems to be of the "hot = hot" type, which is neglectful of how hot things are, as Thumper has posted.

It's not a binary issue of yes/no. As with most issues that people want to reduce into a ZOMG reaction, it deals in shades of gray, but they're ignored to get a reaction. IOW, it's not as simple as you're painting it.

[Just.Ice]

Originally Posted by PSULion22

Last I have been able to find, the final payment amount was under $600K, hardly a sum that people work their whole lives for. The point is, at least read information that is posted BEFORE you post. Everything I have said is just in that ONE article, which you obviously didn't read.

not taking sides here, but for some people that is a lifetime's earnings (though, of course, it would depend on what the person's marginal tax rate is in her state and how settlements are taxed in the state/U.S.).

[PSULion22]

Originally Posted by RichMan

It seems to me that this is just a clear case of "you" wanting to be right and proving others who think she was a tool to be wrong. That's fine, you have your opinion and interpretation and i have mine.

Lets just leave it at that. I don't argue to change peoples opinions. I'll only debate to make my views understood without necessarily being accepted. To each his own

No, it's a clear case of you not wanting to accept any evidence or information that might contradict your precious opinion.

The facts are pretty clear cut in this case (and the multitudes of cases that followed). The fact that the courts, lawyers (even McDonalds lawyers), and Thumper found the same thing pretty much means my opinion and interpretation is the correct one and yours is just shortsighted.

Originally Posted by Just.Ice

not taking sides here, but for some people that is a lifetime's earnings (though, of course, it would depend on what the person's marginal tax rate is in her state and how settlements are taxed in the state/U.S.).

Keep in mind, that payment inlcuded her medical costs (I believe. I haven't been able to find anywhere that states the actual settlement or its breakdown). So, that $600K is a heck of a lot less.

Not to argue your point though, it's still a lot of money that many people would very hard for.

[RichMan]

PSU, you sound like my ex wife "i'm right and i'm right...you're wrong...that's 2 to 1"

Just cause some people mutually agree on something, that doesn't mean i have to agree. Just cause more than half the planet is religious in one form or another, that doesn't mean i have to believe or convert or anything. I stand by my opinion.

We agree to disagree

[Bones343]

It seems as if Richman is trying to place blame on somebody directly involved when that doesn't have to be the case. Would it be the employees fault if he/she didnt put the lid all the way on and it spilled on her? How about her grandsons fault if he spilled on on her because he had a stroke as he was handing it to her? How about the lid manufacturer for making a less than perfect lid?

The point as I see it isn't that she spilled some coffee. It is that McDonalds policy on how hot the coffee should be is, admittedly dangerous. They themselves researched this and concluded that it was bad, but less cost effected, so do maximize their profit kept it that hot.

[PSULion22]

Originally Posted by Bones343

It seems as if Richman is trying to place blame on somebody directly involved when that doesn't have to be the case. Would it be the employees fault if he/she didnt put the lid all the way on and it spilled on her? How about her grandsons fault if he spilled on on her because he had a stroke as he was handing it to her? How about the lid manufacturer for making a less than perfect lid?

The point as I see it isn't that she spilled some coffee. It is that McDonalds policy on how hot the coffee should be is, admittedly dangerous. They themselves researched this and concluded that it was bad, but less cost effected, so do maximize their profit kept it that hot.

Which is exactly the point, but who cares, right?! David Letterman can't make his witty jokes about her if he had all the facts!

Why bother arguing? No matter what information or relevant points we put forth, there is no debating here. Besides, everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how uninformed or ignorant that opinion might be. After all, as the saying goes, ignorance is bliss!

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by PSULion22

Why bother arguing? No matter what information or relevant points we put forth, there is no debating here.

This thread should be merged with the 'Common Sense' thread.

Oh............wait.............

Nevermind...................

[shutout35]

I don't remember when this happened, and I really don't care, but I'm going to throw this out there anyways.

Common sense means that the average person knows what will happen in a certain situation given certain circumstances, correct? That's why it's common, yes? All I'm going to say is she obviously had a lapse in common sense when this happened. The coffee was hot, and hot things burn. Trying to open a full, hot cup of coffee in a car while it's between your legs is a lack of common sense, yes?

Again, not trying to argue, just saying...


However, I agree that 180+ degrees is way to freakin' hot.

[PSULion22]

Originally Posted by shutout35

I don't remember when this happened, and I really don't care, but I'm going to throw this out there anyways.

Common sense means that the average person knows what will happen in a certain situation given certain circumstances, correct? That's why it's common, yes? All I'm going to say is she obviously had a lapse in common sense when this happened. The coffee was hot, and hot things burn. Trying to open a full, hot cup of coffee in a car while it's between your legs is a lack of common sense, yes?

Again, not trying to argue, just saying...


However, I agree that 180+ degrees is way to freakin' hot.

My goodness, did you even read any of this thread?

The coffee was uncommonly hot, so that the average person would NOT know what would happen in this situation. The manner in which she held to coffee was not nearly as relevant as the coffee itself, hence the 80-20 decision.

Things at different levels of "hot", burn at different levels. If someone can't understand that, they lack intuitive, cognitive, and comparative ability.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by shutout35

Common sense means that the average person knows what will happen in a certain situation given certain circumstances, correct?

What if the cup contained Sulfuric Acid unbeknownst to the woman...........???????

That analogy is actually much more accurate than you may first think.

[RichMan]

Oh for christ sake people...the argument is not how badly she was burned but just the fact that she was. Whether the beverage is hot or M* F* hot, you still will react to it. Hence, she obviously knew that opening a hot cup of coffee set between her thighs, regardless of how damn hot it is, was not a smart choice on her behalf.

Should McDs had the coffee settings to normal, she would of still made the same stupid mistake and regardless how serious the injury could of been...maybe she would of sued anyways? Who knows.

No one knows her personally and no one really knows what went on in her head, so she could have taken advantage of the situation anyways, even at normal temperatures.

Go ahead...throw it all at me

[wyld1]

Originally Posted by PSULion22

My goodness, did you even read any of this thread?

The coffee was uncommonly hot, so that the average person would NOT know what would happen in this situation. The manner in which she held to coffee was not nearly as relevant as the coffee itself, hence the 80-20 decision.

Things at different levels of "hot", burn at different levels. If someone can't understand that, they lack intuitive, cognitive, and comparative ability.

I read all of it & this shutout adfmitted that the coffee was freakin too hot. I agree with that fact too, but anyone with common sense would not put a hot cup of coffee in an unstable situation where there are risks of spilling between their legs near their genitalia, wether it's 140 or 180 degrees. I've had coffee spilt on me & All though it was probable closer to 140 degrees it still burnt & wouldn't ddream of doing something so stupid as to put it where it could spill it in my crotch.

McDonalds were Stupid for making their coffee too hot to the point of causing severe burns. & The woman was stupid to put herself in such a position, that anyone with 1/2 a brain, would never think of doing because the chance of an accident was extremely high.

So they were both at fault.

Now we can get back to the subject of the lack of common sense in this world. instead of a stupid McDonalds argument.

[leaferguy]

Originally Posted by RichMan

Oh for christ sake people...the argument is not how badly she was burned but just the fact that she was. Whether the beverage is hot or M* F* hot, you still will react to it. Hence, she obviously knew that opening a hot cup of coffee set between her thighs, regardless of how damn hot it is, was not a smart choice on her behalf.

No, it's not! The whole point of the entire thing is that she was burned very badly by a cup of coffee that was too hot. Not just hot. Not warm. Not preheated. TOO HOT.

It wasn't an uncommonly stupid idea to put an average cup of coffee between her legs. She was not given a thermometer with it, however, so she didn't know it was as hot as it was.

The whole point is exactly how badly she was burned!

[RichMan]

Originally Posted by wyld1

I read all of it & this shutout adfmitted that the coffee was freakin too hot. I agree with that fact too, but anyone with common sense would not put a hot cup of coffee in an unstable situation where there are risks of spilling between their legs near their genitalia, wether it's 140 or 180 degrees. I've had coffee spilt on me & All though it was probable closer to 140 degrees it still burnt & wouldn't ddream of doing something so stupid as to put it where it could spill it in my crotch.

McDonalds were Stupid for making their coffee too hot to the point of causing severe burns. & The woman was stupid to put herself in such a position, that anyone with 1/2 a brain, would never think of doing because the chance of an accident was extremely high.

So they were both at fault.

Now we can get back to the subject of the lack of common sense in this world. instead of a stupid McDonalds argument.

I second that. Thx