Skip to main content

View Diary: John Edwards, Trial Lawyers, and McDonald's Coffee (223 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the relationship between the parties (none)
    determines in part the duty of care owed.  for example, let's say i am walking down the street.  i see you crossing it and a car speeding around the corner about to hit you. am i negligent if i don't yell out and warn you? no.  why? because you and i have no relationship that would create an obligation on my part (a duty of care) to you.
    •  Food (none)
      is dead.  Which means that it's somewhere in the process of rotting...

      It's perfectly reasonable to feed someone ground meat that's been properly stored for a period of time that doesn't exceed normal standards.

      Unless you know that it's not normal.  Perhaps you know that it was identified as tainted.

      Selling that burger would then be irresponsible and negligent and endangerment.

      Serving coffee at a temperature that's physically dangerous--and substantially above that used throughout the industry--is similarly irresponsible and negligent.

      Had the case revolved around burns caused by coffee at the same temperature as everyone else used, and if there weren't a long list of prior complaints, I suspect the plaintiff could have been older, frailer and gotten a cold shoulder from the court.

      McDonald's acted with willful disregard for the safety of those who would bear the risk of burns.

      20 degrees is hardly a minor difference, as anyone can tell.  60 degrees is a cool room.  40 degrees is the inside of a fridge.

      A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment. -- Garrison Keillor

      by ogre on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 07:53:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site