Quote:
Originally Posted by coralpro
I wasn't at the trial but have read all the articles, I believe, covering the case. I'm just not one of those that buys negligence in most cases as a way of receiving a wealthy settlement for ones own action. Now if it was maintenance procedures bypassed on a Ferris Wheel or an airplane or perhaps parts not properly installed on a vehicle then I believe there is a concern about negligence that a company should be responsible for.
I'll give you a personal example of such a case. My wife had a dog on a chain in her front yard and a neighbor boy threw rocks at the dog and even rode his bike into the yard to hit the dog with a stick. The kid was dumb enough not to know where the dog was lying was not the limit of the chain and the dog got up and leaped at him and bit his leg. It didn't break skin but the mother of the boy took him to the hospital and then sued for medical expenses which she was awarded. My wife asked the judge if she should have had a sign up "beware of dog" and he told her that would have been even worse because she would be advertising she had an aggressive dog. The point being the dog was not aggressive but at the time she didn't have a fence and didn't want the dog possibly getting run over by cars. The dog only lashed out at a tormentor. Perhaps if it happened today the child would be sent to child court for animal cruelty but this was around 15 years ago and the judge at that time ruled because of owners negligence to keep a dog confined where it couldn't attack a person even if it was in their own yard and the kid went out of his way to get bitten. This is just one little case in which suits like the McDonalds case infuriates me. Whether they served it hot enough to boil an egg is not the issue. An adult has to be responsible for their own actions and be required to use common sense or they suffer the stupidity consequences. We can always find fault with someones actions but unless those actions directly caused injury then the person responsible has to bear the quilt and accept the consequences. The hot coffee was hot enough to cause a burn but they didn't make her spill the coffee. The burn resulted because of the spill and not because hot coffee was in a cup with a lid served safely.  |
Well, the jury did not agree with you and they heard the evidence.
But you are still ignoring an important legal principle. The question is more than whether she caused the spill, it is whether such a spill is reasonably forseeable by mc, donalds.