[JetSetWilly]

None of that seems to change the fact that it was her own fault, I'm a bit confused how anybody could think it does.

There's thousands of people cutting themselves with kitchen knifes every year too. So what? It doesn't make the kitchen knife manufacturer somehow liable if you cut yourself if they "knowingly" sell you a kitchen knife despite being fully aware of the thousands of injuries caused by them every single year.

All the stuff about how she was injured (emotive irrelevance), how other customers are also injured - is just an irrelevant distraction to the central fact that it was entirely her own fault and her own responsibility.

[nemo]

She was found partly at fault. Based on the trial she wasn't found entirely at fault.

The injury actually was relevant and not an emotive distraction. McDonalds was selling coffee, not knives. Most would have the expectation that spilling a cup of coffee on yourself wouldn't leave you with 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body with 1st and 2nd degree burns on another 16%. She not only needed eight days of hospitalization for skin grafts, but also years of medical treatment.

McDonalds acknowledged that customers had gotten 3rd degree burns from using their product in the executed manner (multiple customers with 3rd degree burns), but that they were unwilling to make a minor change to the product that would prevent this.

It was the fact that they knew they had already injured people to the point of needing hospitalization that could have been avoided by making a minor change to keep people from getting injured that was at the root of why they were at fault. It was the fact that in court they stated that they were unwilling to make that change even after knowing about this injury that caused punitive damages, which the judge reduced.

[JetSetWilly]

I don't consider it to be a "reasonable expectation" that if you spill a hot beverage you bought all over yourself, you won't be burnt. It is a completely unreasonable expectation.

I'm in the UK and I can buy tea all over the country. It is always sold at near boiling temperature - because that's how you make most tea, with boiling water. If you buy a beverage you can't just "expect" that it can't hurt you.

I expect this is why the outcome of the case is McDonalds adding a warning to their product that should be obvious to anybody - they didn't change the product because there isn't actually anyhing wrong with supplying a boiling beverage.

[nemo]

Please be sure to use the term "3rd degree" any time you use the word "burn" in this context. It's the most important detail, omitting it looks suspicious.

I don't buy tea in the US since the water's never hot enough to brew a good cup. The nature of the preparation is such that there's often little difference between serving and brewing temps.

When I buy coffee I have no expectation that it's as hot as tea because not only is it prepared differently, but there is always a difference between brewing and serving temperature. The serving temp is only peripherally related to the brewing temp. Most chains tend to serve coffee around 160-170 F / 71-77 C.

If coffee's served at 180 F/82 C, something is seriously wrong with the place's setup. McDonalds was serving at 190 F/87 C. They cranked their Bunn equipment to the absolute top end of the serving temp. the hardware would allow. At the higher end every degree has a huge impact on the seriousness of burns.

[Crito]

> Most chains tend to serve coffee around 160-170 F / 71-77 C.

Coffee at 160F can quite easily cause third degree burns. It can cause third degree burns in less than one second.

http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3