[blisterpeanuts]

"Made-up straw man"? Rather harsh, not to mention totally missing the point.

There's a bit of a difference between spilling it on oneself and being spilled on by someone else. That's not a straw man argument at all. It's a tangential anecdote. Yes, indeed, had she caused me $10,000 in medical harm, it's possible and likely I would have sought compensation from her employer. But had I spilled the decanter on myself, which is the point of the Liebeck case, that would be a different thing entirely.

[PhasmaFelis]

And now we're back to the central misrepresentation, which we've already gone 'round several times in this thread, so pardon me if I quote myself.

Your argument is that everyone knows hot coffee can scald you and it's their own fault if they don't take precautions. If I sell you shampoo with unlisted hydrochloric acid in it, and some gets in your eyes and you're permanently blinded, should I be held blameless because "everyone knows that getting soap in your eyes hurts?"

Selling a product that is known to be mildly dangerous, in a state that is cripplingly dangerous and lacking appropriate warnings, is a clear public health issue and needs to be punished.

[blisterpeanuts]

We're all just a slip of the steering wheel away from instant death on the roads. This is just an unfortunate fact of life. Do the car manufacturers "need to be punished" every time someone screws up?

What about the alcohol manufacturers, who knowingly sell you an addictive substance that impairs your driving, damages your brain, causes some people to use extreme violence, and causes fetal alcohol syndrome in babies. My gosh, what could be worse.

The shampoo example is ridiculous. Why would someone put HCL in a shampoo? Shampoos are basic, and acid would neutralize the base and result in something like colored water.

Anyway, my argument is not exactly what you stated. Rather, I was pointing out that there is a difference between direct responsibility and responsibility once removed. When you start blaming those who are indirectly responsible for an accident of whatever sort, you are opening up the field to a much vaster field of targets for rapacious lawyers. There has to be a limit, realistically speaking, or society would grind to a halt.

Now as for coffee: cripplingly dangerous? A clear public health issue? Ridiculous, even if you're just being semi-humorous at this point.

[PhasmaFelis]

> We're all just a slip of the steering wheel away from instant death on the roads. This is just an unfortunate fact of life. Do the car manufacturers "need to be punished" every time someone screws up?

If I'm not paying attention while driving and get wrapped around a telephone pole, that's my fault. If my car bursts into flames on a minor fender-bender because the gas tank wasn't placed properly, that's the manufacturer's fault--and I believe there's plenty of legal precedent to support that.

Again, it's about expected/accepted danger vs. unreasonable danger. Not everything can be made marshmallow-safe, but we do expect a reasonable effort to keep hazards within expected bounds.

> The shampoo example is ridiculous. Why would someone put HCL in a shampoo?

I dunno! Why would someone serve a beverage meant for human consumption at flesh-melting temperatures? That's pretty ridiculous!

> Now as for coffee: cripplingly dangerous?

Stella Liebeck was literally crippled by it. I'm not sure what else you want.