Quote:
Originally Posted by August
Yet that IS our system of justice.
|
I guess I don't see your point. You've argued convincingly against plenty of things the government has done, but you draw the line at the fact that the law is the law? What if we were talking about regulation of firearms? It's okay to ban hot coffee through judicial action but it isn't okay to keep responsible citizens from a constitutional right through the same methods? How would you write such a law?
I'm totally lost, but I must defer to the jugement of my betters. Can you explain more?
Quote:
|
I see your point but serving a beverage in a Styrofoam cup that is so hot it can cause 3rd degree burns over 6% of the human body is kind of the opposite of idiot proofing don't you think?
|
The cup never caused burns. Also, it is assumed that people won't spill what they
know is a boiling liquid onto themselves and would take proper precautions. If they didn't, why allow any liquid in any container whatsoever to be raised to a harmful temperature?
And McDonalds
still serves coffee in styrofoam containers today. That wasn't the issue. The issue was that Liebeck's case implied that she didn't know that the coffee would burn her, causing her to handle it inappropriately. That is why larger warning labels were adopted, as well as a lower temperature.
Of course, the whole case is ridiculous. There has yet to be a suit over people spilling non-harmful liquids on themselves, because it is generally acknowledged that no matter what the type of container, it's a bad idea to spill things on oneself.
The only issue here was personal accountability, and that has been destroyed by the judgement. Liebeck was not the first to misuse a product in a way harmful to herself, despite clear instructions and common sense, but she reinforced the precedent that nobody is responsible for anything they do with a product.