I'm sueing each and every one of you in this post for
loss of brain cells directly related to reading this post

 

Not really. There is a jury instruction in California that states something to the effect that "one has the right to rely on others' good conduct." That's really what we are talking about here.

When you put coffee between your legs, you assume the risk of the discomfort/embarassment of having hot coffee all over your privates.

But, you do not assume the risk that a company will cause the permanent disfigurement of your privates by serving you illegally hot coffee. Especially after having ignored hundreds of complaints and citations from health department officials.

Had the coffee been of legal temperature, no harm would have occurred. Perhaps the lady was also contributorily negligent, but Mickey Dee's was clearly in the wrong here.

So, in conclusion -- Was the lady negligent? Sounds like it. Was McD's negligent? Absolutely. Responsibility should be assigned according to fault.

 

That's a two way street. The woman shouldn't have relied on McD's good conduct either. She should have done her homework and researched the warnings McD's had already been served and not patronized them. (sounds ridiculous doesn't it?...... also a two way street.)

On the other hand, maybe she did her homework, knew she had a case, figured she'd live through the burns, and it would be worth it for the chance at renumeration.
Several ridiculous conclusions and arguments here, the jury's included.

Bottom line, the judgement was made... so be it!

 

well then its settled. Im going to sue ford for making my truck "too fast" of a vehicle and claim mental anguish for the speeds it was capable of. then im goin out and buying an 05 gt50. then sue for an even faster vehicle, and get a saleen s7, then sue for it being too fast, and get a mclarenf1. then sue for it being too fast.............the american dream. something for nothing.