Way to go! As if the U.S. isn't already the world's laughingstock for warning labels on each and everything. ("Coffee may be hot", "Warning! Do not microwave toddlers")

It's the lawyers' faults!! For taking on these frivilous lawsuits! Coffee too hot? Don't put it BETWEEN YOUR LEGS. Or something. Really, personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo, the T.Rex, and common damn sense anymore. I used to cut up the girls' food all the time, until Number 1 said "Moooommmm! I can do it myself!" And then I *gasp* let her! She did just fine. Oh and for the record? Children aren't the only ones who can choke on food. http://casselliot.com/

Every parent has ample warning that hotdogs are a big choking hazard. Also popcorn, nuts, grapes, raw veggies.....you can not legislate common sense. I know a 2 year old that choked to death on a canned peach slice. can you imagine anything mushier than canned peaches? Tragedies happen. Governmental-type entities are not the solution, usually.

This boy's death, of course tragic, qualifies as a freak accident. 4-year-olds are not toddlers and are usually quite capable of eating a hot dog. Choking is one of those things that could happen to anybody and is not something that can be 100% prevented. And it could happen with almost any food, so blaming the hot dog company because their product was not chewed properly is totally insane.

Back when I was a kid (yeah, yeah, I know...here goes the old lady.) we were taught to sit down at a table, have some manners, conduct ourselves in civilized fashion, no loud talking and laughing, no running amok around the dining room, no food in other parts of house (you ate in kitchen or at table), no standing on chair or grabbing. Basic stuff. I realize now my parents didn't want us laughing like hyenas because the risk of choking. "Simmer down or you will choke on your food." "Don't bolt your food or you will get gas or choke."
Rare is the parent these days (since the 80's I have noticed) who bother to teach their offspring the most basic of table etiquette.
If a 4 year old chokes on food maybe, just MAYBE, because he wasn't being supervised. Perhaps some basic instruction in comporting himself while ingesting foodstuffs could have saved his life.
But these days it's all finger food (til the teens), running around like wild chimps and non-stop yammering from the little darlings.

Though Smith says he doesn't know exactly how someone would redesign a hot dog, he's certain that some savvy inventor will find a way. Read: "I just make the rules. Compliance is someone else's problem."

BTW, I'm curious as to where Janet Riley is getting those cylindrical grapes...

The Octodog! They really work!

http://www.octodog.net/

All I can think of them making hot dog patties. Gross. Some things are just disgusting in new forms, even if the taste is the same. Remember blue/purple/green ketchup? Nasty. But multi colored Pop Quiz popcorn? I was there. Don't ask me why blue pop corn is okay, but blue ketchup is not.

This type of legislation makes me want to rip my hair out. I'm a perfume junkie. There is this body who rules over the perfume industry, IFRA. They have barred perfume manufacturers from using ingredients that have been around forever... because some people have a skin allergy to them. I'm talking citrus oil here, not some crazy ass poison. The majority of this stuff is really harmless.

Instead of making warning labels, like they do for foods that "MAY CONTAIN NUTS!" they just outlawed organic matter in perfume to save 1 person in a million from getting a skin rash. The perfume industry is going down the shitter because all these classic frags are being reformulated with sub-par chemical versions of the real stuff. It smells like open asshole. They can keep it and I'll save my money for the underground perfume industry.

Perfume is an art form (perfume tells a story like a painting! I'm nuts, okay.)for a lot of us in this little cult and the art is quickly going away.

So the fact that a death was actually linked to a hot dog, as opposed to minor skin redness and itching, makes me, quite cynically, not surprised that they want to do something idiotic like make hot dogs come in patties or a maximum diameter of 1/8 an inch.

Aren't hotdogs already in a 'safer' form? It's called Bologna. Sh** tastes just the same. It's all forcemeat.
F*** it. All food must be liquified!! No more solids! Save the chiiiillldrreeeennnnnnn! Can't we all just sacrifice to save the Calebs and Caitlyns of the country?

Yet another attempt to bubble wrap the world because some parent most likely didn't teach his/her kid to sit down, shut up, and eat like a human being.

If this keeps up, we're going to have a generation of wussy, helpless kids.

Since hot dogs aren't healthy, the government could kill three birds with one stone:

1) legalize drugs, freeing up lots of police resources
2) make hot dogs illegal and send the now underutilized SWAT teams into the homes of those suspected of harboring those dangerous substances
3) without hot dogs, kids become less obese

The fatter the better. Amen!

I cook my morning egg with a spoonful of lard, and when I eat the egg, I eat that spoonful of lard. Hot lard is delicious! Last time I checked my bp it was 104/63. I loaned my bp machine to a young nephew who has bp problems so haven't checked it in a couple weeks. When I go back to the States, I will pick up a second one.

Several years ago, I worked for a non-profit organization that was part of the government program that provides free lunches in schools. Our organization reimbursed home day-care providers for the meals that they served, provided they met certain requirements. Our day-care providers didn't get their reimbursement money when they served toddlers foods that are known choking hazards. It seems like it would be common sense... but maybe not.

Anyway, I hate hot dogs, so when my kid is a toddler, it's unlikely she'll be eating them, no matter how finely they're chopped. For cheap protein, give me a boiled egg over a hot dog any day.

Amy,

Right again!

Pssssssssssssssssst ........

The next time of "those" fillings falls out.

Put some of those gold fillings in. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWw8Fj6kS-s

Goddamned stupid.

A few hundred million people managed to grow up without choking themselves. From age 1-5, it is almost guaranteed that almost all of them have had hot dogs at some point in that time.

100 children, however sad & tragic on the individual level, is not statistically relevent, especially since it can almost be guaranteed it happened because of 1 to 4 likely factors:

A. Parent never taught them proper table manners.
B. Parent routinely let child just shovel food in the hole. (See A)
C. Parent failed to properly mind child. (See A & B)
D. Parent didn't instruct child in basic hazards. (See A-C)

Stop asking for a nanny state and start being a parent. Rant over.

Goddamned stupid.

A few hundred million people managed to grow up without choking themselves. From age 1-5, it is almost guaranteed that almost all of them have had hot dogs at some point in that time.

100 children, however sad & tragic on the individual level, is not statistically relevent, especially since it can almost be guaranteed it happened because of 1 to 4 likely factors:

A. Parent never taught them proper table manners.
B. Parent routinely let child just shovel food in the hole. (See A)
C. Parent failed to properly mind child. (See A & B)
D. Parent didn't instruct child in basic hazards. (See A-C)

Stop asking for a nanny state and start being a parent. Rant over.

Sorry, seem to be double posting tonight!

Because children are also killed running into the street to chase a ball or a kitty. Should we eliminate use of motor vehicles near homes?

Nah, we'll just make 'em with big Nerf bumpers.

Two, four, six, eight
The nanny state is what I hate!

Gretchen, where does one get underground parfum? I hate the stuff being sold too....

They can keep it and I'll save my money for the underground perfume industry.

I'll choose a woman with real perfume over one wearing cat pee any day of the week.

When will they start putting the warning labels on coins?

ANyone notice the quote from the doctor?

If you ask me, anyone dumb enough to swallow a whole hot dog deserves to die.

Quite frankly anyone who dies in these bizzare accidetns deserve to die.

I'll bet $500 bucks this wasnt little timmys first choking on food incident.

It is remarkably simple to survive eating a small meal. Anyone incapable of it is not quailifed to live

Soylent Green is hot dogs!!

>> If you ask me, anyone dumb enough to swallow a whole hot dog deserves to die.

Let's not be hasty...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akmRrMmaJ-I

Flynne writes: It's the lawyers' faults!! For taking on these frivilous lawsuits! Coffee too hot? Don't put it BETWEEN YOUR LEGS.

The screams of the ignorant are in full force, I see.

The coffee purchased by Stella Liebeck in the famous (and denounced by morons who decide to weigh in before they know the facts) incident that prompted the lawsuit in 1994, caused her to sustain third degree burns.

When was the last time you sustained third degree burns from spilling a cup of coffee? Liquids can cause third degree burns at 130 degrees or higher. McDonald's training manuals decree that the coffee is brewed from 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190?

Is there a reason for coffee to be served that hot? None of the other local businesses in that township seemed to think so, since no one else's coffee came within twenty degrees of McDonald's.

Also, as she spilled the coffee herself, the jury determined that she was 20% at fault. Which means her compensation was reduced from 200,000 dollars to 160,000. Punitive damages from the suit were 2.7 million by the jury, but the judge reduced them to 480,000.

In sum, it is not frivolous to sue a restaurant for serving a beverage that will cause third-degree burns in less than three seconds.

How about the local school asking parents to stop buying peanut products for consumption IN THEIR OWN HOME so that no peanut residue is carried to school?

Sorry, I'm gonna have to reply by taking my Girls Scout peanut butter tagalongs, spreading them with peanut butter, toppings them with Reese's pieces, and offering it to my girls as breakfast. If your kid is that allergic, it's time to homeschool.

Who comes up with the government programs and associations and such that regulate this crap? What? We have budget deficits? I wonder why? Heard a commercial on the radio this weekend reminding me to keep my arms and legs out of dangerous farm equipment...a message brought to me by our provincial government. Thank goodness. I was just about to go stick my arm in a combine. Dumbasses!

Patrick -

I'm sick of people defending that moron because McDonalds served hot coffee. She was 100% responsible for her injuries, but juries are easily hoodwinked into fucking corporations over to "get even with 'em".

If you're dumb enough to put a cup of any hot beverage near your reproductive organs, you get what you deserve. Stupidity should hurt. She should have been laughed out of the courtroom and made to pay McDonalds' legal costs.

Also, to add insult to injury, I'd say the mother should be prosecuted for not knowing proper first aid (i.e. pediatric heimlich). I have no sympathy for people who lose their children to their own negligence.

As a mother who has known the heartache of losing 2 sons (from prematurity, not hotdogs!), I truly feel for the bereaved parents. I am sure they are trying to do everything they can to prevent another parent from suffering a loss as great as theirs.

As a nurse, I can tell you that there IS a higher proportion of toddlers choking on hotdogs, grapes, and peanut butter, than other foods. Grapes and hotdog "rounds" are the perfect size and shape to obstruct a tiny throat, and are difficult to cough up. That is why I cut the grapes and hotdogs before giving them to my 17 month old. (Lengthwise first, then into smaller peices.) I also don't give her peanut butter.

On another note, I often wonder why parents don't take first-aid/CPR classes. I had to go through more to adopt a dog from the pound than to take my child home from the hospital.

I taught my husband how to perform measures to rescue infants/toddlers from choking. He's already used it a couple of times on our eldest.

So, my long rant is just to say that I don't mind the hotdogs being labeled. Sometimes, common sense isn't too common... much better to educate the public than lose another child.

brian: She was 100% responsible for her injuries,

No, she wasn't. She was responsible for the accident that caused her injuries, because she was parked and holding the coffee between her legs when she sustained her injuries. McDonald's has no business serving a beverage hot enough to inflict third degree burns in under three seconds. Something that, again, local businesses seen to agree with, since theirs are all over 20 degrees cooler. What on earth is the point of serving something that hot? You couldn't drink something within fifty degrees of McDonald's holding temperature without sustaining burns.

So, my long rant is just to say that I don't mind the hotdogs being labeled. Sometimes, common sense isn't too common... much better to educate the public than lose another child.

Posted by: Karen M

Sorry Karen, but the way I see it the more stupid people who die the less get to fuck up the way everyone else lives their lives.

Did you see moreta's post?

Who the fuck is so goddamned stupid as to need a warning about placing their extremities out of working farm equipment?

And eric, my hot dog is attached to my torso which allows great leverage to pull it out in a choking situation

Jesus Christ it be so much simpler to round up all the moron and shoot em in the head then it is to try and make the world safe for them

Something else you should be aware of: McDonald's had been settling cases just like these for years, sometimes in excess of half a million dollars. Prior to this incident, they had gotten some 700 complaints of coffee burn injuries, but never lowered their temperature.

As has been pointed out, choking on hot dogs (and all sorts of other stuff) is nothing new. However, let me offer my personal, and highly cynical, opinion of why this is really going on. Marketing, baby! The formula is simplicity itself, except this one has a medical spin: come across a condition (or create one) that is common, craft the cure and then rub your stank over all it! Viola, your group’s ‘cure’ for a common problem that now has name-brand association.

Let me explain.

This happens all the time in medicine, especially now it is progressively guideline driven. It usually happens with diseases/conditions that really are not deadly or directly dangerous but associated with very rare, but catastrophic, outcomes such as disability or death (e.g. ADD medications such as Addreall and the drive to require all children who take them to have EKGs; how to ‘properly’ manage blood sugar in pregnancy and the OR/ICU environments), high-profile or highly funded (e.g. breast or prostate cancer and who and how it is to be screened) or are basically easy targets (e.g. obesity, its definition and treatment). Getting your organization’s name associated with a disease/condition gives one leverage to declare yourself the ‘expert’ and therefore become the group that writes the rules everyone else must live by and the recipient of all the funding (not to mention make it easy to fundraise and solicit donations). You ever take Phen-fen? You better get an echocardiogram to see if you are one of the 24 people (out of the tens-of-millions who took it) that have heart valve damage (sponsored by the American College of Cardiology). You a teenager taking Addreall? You better start getting regular EKGs just in case you have developed a rare arrhythmia from it (also sponsored by the American College of Cardiology). You pregnant and have gestational diabetes? You getter buy a glucose monitor, test strips and regular doctor visits to ensure tightly regulated blood sugar levels (brought to you by the Society for Endocrinology).

Is there any evidence this saves lives? Poor to none. Doesn’t it make it safer for someone with that condition? Possibly but at high cost and little overall practical benefit. I am sure there are those who can quote biased studies and anecdotal ‘evidence’, but the numbers (like the whole deal with the vaccine scare) withers when exposed to sunlight. But it does make good headlines, gets people all in a lather and sets the stage for a medical ‘hostile takeover’. But like I said, I am highly cynical.

As a side note about the whole coffee thing (and this is based on my meager memory): coffee needs to be brewed at 190+ degrees in order to release the fatty acids that give it the aroma and flavor that good coffee has. Note: 1) that is why there is an ‘oil slick’ floating atop a piping hot, fresh cup of black coffee and 2) I am not necessarily saying that McDonalds has good coffee. Nonetheless, this is something that is understood by all better-class brewers of the drink and why you never see any laws or regulations about how hot coffee must be—because it is how to properly brew aromatic/flavorful coffee—just warnings on every cup of coffee that the stuff is damn hot so don’t put it next to your junk. Please feel free to Wiki-slap my ass on this though.

This is unbelievably tragic, without a doubt. But other tragic aspects of this is are the lack of parenting (a parent can't watch over a child 100% of the time, but when the child is only four they're still learning the do's and don'ts of things like eating. Common sense dictates supervision.), the lack of good judgment (never in a million years would I feed a four year-old a hot dog. May as well give the kid a can of dog food.), and the usual overreaction of people. He choked on a PIECE of hot dog. He wasn't cramming the entire thing down his throat. It's pretty sad when warning labels need to go so far as to say things like, "This jar of peanuts contains peanuts, for those allergic to peanuts.", or "Without proper supervision, this (food, toy, activity) may be hazardous to your child.".

Let's all just all eat pudding, and only pudding from now on.

Mmmmmmmmm, pudding.

I've had so many arguments - er, discussions - with folks on the McDonald's coffee case. And I will admit up-front I used to do plaintiffs' p.i.(personal injury) work (another lifetime ago; or I'd probably be retired by now). Two salient points: (1) A jury of your peers decided the case was so not frivolous that the plaintiff was entitled to a boatload of money; and (2) I seem to recall a finding or expert opinion in the case that coffee of the temperature served was 'unfit for human consumption' - as in too hot for a human being to consume.

Who says hot dogs aren't healthy?

They have too much salt (especially after adding condiments). The buns have too many carbs. When I was a kid my mom cut me off at two, but as an adult (who is the sole meat eater in his household) if I don't eat a bunch at a time they'll spoil, or the buns will get hard, or something. Fortunately, those stories of massively obese people who eat thirty for breakfast have scared me into avoiding spoilage by simply not buying them in the first place.

They are wonderful, wonderful foods, though. At cookouts people are surprised that I eat hot dogs before burgers. When I attend a professional sporting event they're the highlight.

If you ask me, anyone dumb enough to swallow a whole hot dog deserves to die.

When he was a toddler, my son barfed up a banana because he ate it too fast, shoving it down as fast as his little hands could go. That was an Important Life Lesson.

Patrick writes: "Also, as she spilled the coffee herself, the jury determined that she was 20% at fault. "

Patrick, under the doctrine of joint and several liability, that doesn't matter. The jury can find the plaintiff 99% at fault, and the defendant is still liable for the entire amount of the award based on that other 1%. If the judge reduced the award, it was because the judge's own opinion that the award was excessive, not because the jury assigned some fault to the plaintiff.

I can give you a much worse example: a woman who was awarded $1M by a jury after she claimed that a hospital iodine injection (preliminary to a CAT scan) destroyed her psychic powers. It was eventually reversed on appeal, but the point is that the hospital still had to spend millions of dollars defending itself against a blatantly specious claim, which the plaintiff managed to drag out through multiple appeals for four years.
cite

On another lack of parental supervision note:

http://www.ocregister.com/news/fire-235077-beach-pit.html

This is the city I live in. We enjoy the fire pits year 'round. As it is, the city has removed a number of the fire pits, from the city run beaches, because of the cost associated with maintaining them and paying people who are so dumb they fall into the hot coals. Please note the height of said fire pit. Please also note, the story linked above happened at the State Beach in Huntington. Pretty soon we won't be able to have a bonfire or s'mores!

Did Stella Liebeck use asbestos gloves to pick up the coffee? Paper cups are poor insulators. I'm willing to bet real money she knew as soon as she picked up the cup that the coffee in it was very hot. And, yet, she still chose to put it between her knees.

How many times prior to this time had she purchased McDonald's coffee? How many times from that very McDonald's.

Liebeck was seated in a car and had put the cardboard coffee cup between her knees to remove the lid so she could add sugar and cream when she spilled it.

Other coffee-serving companies have also been subjected to lawsuits over burns from their coffee. And Stella's lawyer? He has sued McDonald's several more times over coffee burns. Sounds like someone discovered a money tree.

The screams of the ignorant are in full force, I see.

First of all, Patrick, fuck off. Just because I think the woman was an idiot for putting a cup of hot coffee between her legs does not make me ignorant. The lawyer thing was sarcasm, in case you didn't get that. Not that I expected you to, because you seem to have some personal screaming vendetta against me. But, whatever, Princess.

she was parked and holding the coffee between her legs when she sustained her injuries

So, why didn't she put her coffee in the CUP HOLDER? All cars have 'em. What made her forgo the sensibility of putting the hot coffee in the CUP HOLDER? ALL of the cars I've owned since 1975 have had CUP HOLDERS. Every single one. And they've all had at least 2 cup holders, sometimes more than that, even! The woman's stupidity was/is profound, and she shouldn't have been awarded a damn thing, except maybe by her own insurance company. You know why people drink HOT coffee? Because that's they way (uh huh uh huh) they like it! You know WHY restaurants serve it hot? Because that's how people drink it! And sometimes, sometimes, you see, Patrick, people put the coffee down for a few minutes so that it gets a little cooler. (And they usually put it in a CUP HOLDER, if they're in a car. I know I do.) And sometimes, people put ice in their coffee, too. They do it all the time in Rhode Island. Sometimes, people forget they've even got a cup of coffee for a while, and it's almost cold when they get back to it. And you what, Patrick? Sometimes, people re-heat their coffee in the microwave because it got too cold!

Shove your holier-than-thou attitude right back where it came from, sweetheart.

Cousin Dave wrote: "Patrick, under the doctrine of joint and several liability, that doesn't matter. The jury can find the plaintiff 99% at fault, and the defendant is still liable for the entire amount of the award based on that other 1%. If the judge reduced the award, it was because the judge's own opinion that the award was excessive, not because the jury assigned some fault to the plaintiff."

I'm a bit rusty on this stuff; but I'm thinking it's not as simple as joint and several liability (which can, in civil and criminal law, make either party liable for the full amount - such as if one slips away or is judgment-proof; and more commonly dictates that if there's 2 wrongdoers, they're both on the hook for the full award). It would depend on how the state's law handles jury awards (e.g., does jury's apportionment of fault/negligence impact the split), and whether it's a comparative or contributory negligence state. In some jurisdictions, your recovery is reduced according to your percentage of fault; in others, if you are at all at fault, you get zippo.

..and Flynne, i believe the whole point (at least in the jury's eyes0 was that the coffee was waaaaay too hot to drink.. that there an expectation that when you are handed coffee, it be safe to drink. Still woulda hurt granny's lap; but hot enough to cause third degree burns to the tender parts is hot enough to burn the throat.

I know that Mr. Teflon, but my question still stands: WHY didn't she use her CUP HOLDER?

And Stella's lawyer? He has sued McDonald's several more times over coffee burns. Sounds like someone discovered a money tree.

Money tree indeed. Hence my sarcasm. If McDonald's was sued the one time, and corrected the situation, there would be no need for more lawsuits. Or did multiple franchise owners/managers not get the memo?

I like to go to elementary schools and leave hot dogs around. I laugh maliciously.

Hmm... Mr. Teflon, I'll try to look into that further. Since I posted my last bit, I did find a few references to some states which apparently have a doctrine that if the plaintiff is judged to be more than 50% at fault, the award is automatically reduced by some amount. However, I suspect that when juries are aware of that, they just jack up the award further to compensate. I'm not aware of any states where if the plaintiff is even 1% at fault, the reward is zero. But I'll do some more investigating.

One thing about the Stella case: I've read that elderly people can be severely burned by contact with temperatures that would not injure healthy younger people. I'll try to find a reference.

"WHY didn't she use her CUP HOLDER?"

Because she was 79 at the time? I don't know, my mother is this age now and it's all about what's easier, more within reach. MIL too. In many people there seems to be a decline in the willingness to go that extra step to do something properly, instead going for a more comfortable (if sometimes hazardous) way of doing daily activities, as well as a decline in ability to judge situations and act accordingly. You have to be a bit clumsy or not have any strength in your fingers to completely tip a cup over just by trying to take the lid off.

One part of Stella's argument is that she was burned because her contact with the hot liquid was sustained and longer due to the cotton clothing she was wearing at the time. The cotton absorbed the liquid faster than non-cotton garments would have and thus, her contact with the hot liquid was longer.

Stella's lawyer went on to argue that had the liquid been slightly cooler, the sustained contact would not have resulted in burns as severe as those that resulted from McDonald's negligently hot coffee.

Liebeck's argument was that liquids at 180 degrees will cause third degree burns in 12-15 seconds of contact, whereas liquids at 160 degrees would require 20 seconds of contact to produce third degree burns. A British court rejected that argument as scientifically false when it was made in a copycat lawsuit there.

McDonald's coffee case facts, it's on the Net so it MUST be true...

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Even assuing it were true was the jury so fucking stupid as to belive an elderly woman without the strength to move her arm from her crotch to the CUP HOLDER net to her seat belt buckle would have been able to use those precious 5-8 seconds to jump from her car and strip off all of her clothes?

Stepping away from McDonald's for a minute...

Where is the outrage over the savage dangers of water? Where is the demand for water that isn't so... so wet?

It's for the children!

Au Contraire Patrick.

It IS frivolous, and here is why.

The temperature at which McDonalds served said coffee, is the temperature recommended by the coffee association of America for best flavor. Moreover, the drink in question was served that way at every McDonalds everywhere, with literally MILLIONS OF CUPS PER DAY sold to the public.

And I might point out, that "none of the local businesses" were selling that volume of coffee either. Obviously people bought the coffee knowing, expecting, and desiring that it be hot.

Out of the millions per day sold to the public, the number of accidental burns that occur are roughly...quite literally, less than 1 accident for every million cups over the course of a year.

So lets say a conservative estimate, 1 million cups sold in 1 day.

999,999,999 people buy coffee that they like, drink it without incident.

1 person decides to take this hot liquid, set it in their lap of all places, pop the protective top off while the car is active, and ends up burning her dumbass self.

Why pray tell, should the restaurant in question suffer ANY liability, for an accident caused because 1 person was dumber than a million others?

You can raise that "700 burns" number all day long, I'll just keep pointing out the MILLIONS of nonaccidents.

And Flynn, when has there EVER been no more need for lawsuits? Stupid people will always find something to sue over.

-----------------------

The bottom line is that if 1 million people do something and do not have accidents that result in injury as a result, the activity is safe enough to reasonably market to the public, in this case, buying very hot coffee.

If 1 person has an accident because they did something stupid with that very hot coffee, that does not reduce the overall safety of the activity, nor warrant, by any reasonable standard, liability on the provider, unless of course their product were in some way defective. If the cup had broken, if the top was unsecured because it was the wrong size...yes, I'd see my way to paying her medical bills, I wouldn't even need to be sued, that is just the right thing to do. But when a grown adult decides to take something known to be very hot, remove the protective materials, and place it in a vulnerable place on their body where the slightest movement amiss may cause a painful spill? No, they're on their own and I do not feel bad for them.

--------------------------------

What we need is a baseline level of assumed safety prior to any liability assessment. In the case of hot food or drinks for example:

Q. How many do you serve per day, week, month, year?
A. 1 million, 7 million, 30 million, etc.?

Q. How many accidents per million require medical treatment of any kind for each period?
A. 1, 7, 30, 300 respectively?

Q. Why is the food, drink, etc. served as it is?
A. Its very popular and customers like it, which is why they buy it more than the competition.

Q: How many accidents result from a faulty product design, broken or leaky cups, ill fitting lid, etc?
A. 0?

Me as Judge: OK, so let me see if I get this straight, millions of people use this without incident. And there are no incidents in which the packaging was insufficient to protect the buyer from the product's potential hazards. But out of every 1 million roughly, there is one person that exercises poor judgement and injures themselves.

By no reasonable grounds can the smart people protect the stupid people from everything they will do to themselves. Clearly the underlying fact is that the product is safe as long as a person uses it properly and uses proper judgement.

0 company liability.
Judgement that the plaintiff & her attorney are liable for court costs to include defendent legal fees.

And this:

brian: She was 100% responsible for her injuries,

No, she wasn't. She was responsible for the accident that caused her injuries, because she was parked and holding the coffee between her legs when she sustained her injuries.

Well, if she was RESPONSIBLE for the accident that CAUSED her injuries, then she WAS 100% responsible. Period.

And before anyong asks (you know who you are), no, I DON'T care that she was 79.

At that point, unless you have alzheimers, you are expected to know what to do and not to do with hot things.

Frankly, none of my grandparents were ever that dumb, and neither of my parents are. And my folks are not to shy of that age now.

And yes, you can be 79 and still be a stupid selfish opportunistic leach.

When McDonalds paid out for that frivolous suit, the cost was passed on to the rest of us, no, before that, when they had to start to prepare a defense for it.

How cold should it be? I thought food and beverages had to be held at a high temp to inhibit bacteria growth? Anyway, plenty of people miss their scalding hot coffee-my mom sure does.

Old people burn more easily. They have less subdermal fat to insulate and slower circulation to carry the heat away. I doubt someone else would have burned that severely that quickly from a liquid below boiling.

Regardless, I don't care how hot it was. It wasn't compressed steam. Coffee's hot. Take appropriate measures.

Or can I sue when I take a bite of the pizza too quickly and burn the crap out of my mouth??

All of which avoids the real issue on the McDonalds case-Why was a 79 year old driving????

Redesigning the hot dog is a GREAT idea, if there's a market for it. It sounds like plenty of parents would jump at the opportunity to buy a "safer" hot dog, so there's probably money to be made for some enterprising food company.

(When I was a kid, I used to slice up hot dogs to make "hot dog" sandwiches but then the pieces would slide off the bread...I'd have definitely gone for a hot dog patty given the option)

Mandatory hot dog legislation is a different story, however.

Also: "If you ask me, anyone dumb enough to swallow a whole hot dog deserves to die."

30 year old dude, sure. 4 year old? Not so much. 4 years old is too young to really be in charge of your food (OR to be reading warning labels on packages for that matter). The parents are the dumb ones, but do you really think that every child born to dumb parents deserves to die?

And by the way parents who have kids, the first thing they should do, is learn how to react to things like choking.

Patrick is probably one of these morons who smoked for years and years, developed lung damage, and then sued the tobacco companies because they sold him the cigarettes he knew would kill him. I hate these fing morons who defend these frivelous lawsuits. I also hate the fact that judges do not do their jobs and toss them out. Anybody know the jury pool has been so dumbed down that all you have to do is get a case to a jury and you have a good chance of getting a big payday. Only in America.

"1 person decides to take this hot liquid, set it in their lap of all places, pop the protective top off while the car is active, and ends up burning her dumbass self."

She was not driving, her grandson was. The car was not moving, he pulled over and stopped.

Cousin Dave, you are mistaken. I have found several websites that clearly state that because Stella Liebeck was found 20% at fault, her settlement was reduced. The punitive damages, a separate issue, was reduced by the judge.

Here's one such website. From the website: "The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill."

I'm sorry, Flynne. I had no idea you were still smarting from the last time I trounced your silly statements. Had I known, I might have waited a while longer before I trounced you again.

By the way, how do you know that truck had a cupholder? For all you know, it was some old beater that was made before cupholders were installed.

Momof4, Stella Liebeck wasn't driving. I linked an article above. It explains the details.

Conan, McDonald's uses a dense styrofoam for its coffee cups. Not paper.

Robert, regarding the temperature recommended by the Coffee Association of America, McDonald's actually serves it hotter. The recommended temperature by the CAA is 155-175 degrees. McDonald's requires theirs at 180-190.

You know, a lot of you are making blatant factual errors about this case, but that doesn't stop you from shooting your mouths off about it. And if being busted in something like that doesn't make you feel like a prize idiot, it should.

I posted a link that has the facts of the case. Why don't you all read it? And once you get over your embarrassment at the stupid assumptions you're making, you can come back then and weigh in on the subject.

She was not driving! The car wasn't moving! McDonald's serves their coffee hotter than recommended by the Coffee Association of America!
They do not serve coffee in paper cups, but in dense styrofoam with plastic lids!

Quite frankly, a lot of you should be embarrassed. You don't know the facts of this case, you've got a myriad of facts wronng, but you're still shooting your mouths off about it.

And Ron, Patrick doesn't smoke, thanks. And never did. And I've never taken a tobacco company to court, nor settled with them, nor been involved in any legal action involving a tobacco company.

I just bought a non-bark device for my little Pomeranian. It emits a sound only dogs can hear when they bark. I swear the instructions say, "may not work with deaf or hearing-impaired dogs". Really? Are people this stupid? Not to put hot coffee in their laps? Not to drive jet skis while drunk? Apparently so, and it's still the business's fault.

You all have no idea the liability insurance that your mom and pop business has to carry just for the prevention of such rare and foolish incidents. The price gets passed along to you. But you are also the ones who vote those laws in -responding emotionally: "Oh, that's so sad, somebody must be at fault!" Well, the truth is, bad things happen to good people at random all the time...and to their children...who may take too big a bite of a hot dog. It's awful, but it can't really be prevented, except by the parents...POSSIBLY...and I say that, as a parent, because I could cut up my child's hot dog one hundred and twenty times, then the 121st time he went to the school carnival, he might choke to death on a hot dog.

We must realize that Oscar Meyer isn't at fault for every rare hot dog accident. But we won't. We expect businesses to pay simply because they have the money.

Actually, Patrick, I know all the facts of the case, and have argued it extensively with thick-headed twits like yourself. You seem to believe in judicial infallibility.

So I'll repeat myself, louder.

The jury was wrong in its finding of fault.

I've been buying coffee and drinking it in my car for years. I've never once burned my junk. You know why? Because I'm not fucking stupid enough to put a cup of 150+ degree coffee next to my fucking dick!

I'm perfectly aware that she was in the passenger's seat. And in all likelihood there was no cupholder. And that's all irrelevant.

She knowingly put a cup of hot liquid between her legs with reckless disregard for her own safety. Any actions taken or not taken by McDonalds prior to that point are completely irrelevant. Especially when one considers that had McDonalds had their coffee as cold as 140 degrees there would have been significant burning.

I've got nothing to be embarrassed about. The jury fucked up. The judge was unwilling to vacate the decision as he should have.

Back to the original post, I saw this on the Nightly News tonight, with my favorite anchor Brian Williams actually having to talk about redesigning the hot dog. Maybe I'm projecting, but from the look on his face, it looked like he was stifling the urge to say "Or you could just cut up the hot dog yourselves, you freaking morons." Makes me think of the Weekend Update with Amy Poehler and Tina Fey where they talked about a woman who was redesigning bananas for easier shipping and eating. Amy's fumbling with the banana was second only to Joey's inability to open a milk carton.

Gretchen, whatever happened to Pop Quiz popcorn? I used to love it. Blue popcorn really does taste good, not so much the blue ketchup. And Juliana, I am totally trying that Tagalong thing. I once had a woman walk into my store while we were having a monthly sale to complain that we used latex balloons. Her daughter had a latex allergy. This woman had not ever, and would not ever, shop at my store, and ditto for her daughter. But when she walked by, she felt compelled to yell at me for failing to bubblewrap a space for her daughter that she would never enter. The daughter was in her thirties, by the way. I wanted to tell this woman to walk around her neighborhood, find a kid's birthday party, and explain to little Cletus that he can't have balloons because those latex molecules might make it the seven blocks to her house, where the 35-year-old infant occasionally visits.

So what really happened to little Eric? Was he sitting down at the table? Was he running and eating?

The website doesn't give a very clear picture.

http://www.ericadler.net/

Mom's a lawyer, too.

The parents are the dumb ones, but do you really think that every child born to dumb parents deserves to die?

Posted by: Shannon

If the child dies as a result of the dumbass parents negligence then yes they deserve to die.

Its called survival of the fittest. Chance are with such lackluster parenting on his parents part little Eric would have turned into an obnoxious mouth breathing moron like so many in america who cant seem to tell the differece between their asses and elbows.

Its like the arents of kids who drown in swimming pools and in the bath tub - its nature culling the evelutionary rejects.

Man no longer has any real natural predators, especially in north america, therefore anyone managing to off themselves thru sheer stupidity really, really, really deserves it

I am a (somewhat overprotective) single mother of two teenage sons. It would have never occured to me, in my overprotectiveness, that a hotdog could be such a choking hazard when my kids were 4. I mean, not more than a meat taco, or spaghetti, or the likes. Come on, hotdogs are very soft! As much as I can relate to the mother's pain and grief, in my opinion this was a freaking accident.

And Patrick, just for the record, you have a Mexican admirer here! ;-) I normally agree with you, but this time, although I only know the McDonald's case from what was written here, I have to disagree with you. Maybe here in Mexico we don't have such strict codes on how hot a coffee must be served, and some times yes, you get overheated coffee (even at local Starbucks stores, which should know better), but come on, you can feel it from the heat in your hands. If my coffee is too hot, I usually request a second cup so that I can put the original one in it so that I don't get third degree burns in my hand. I got a five buck cup support in my car so that the cup can rest there and not in my hand while I'm driving (which constitutes a traffic felony here). To put a hot cup between your legs, well... you're kind at fault for doing that, don't you think? Independently of the fact that the woman of the lawsuit was on her right to sue or not... there comes a time when you've got to take responsibility for your own (stupid) actions...

anyway, just my humble opinion...

A quick Google shows that there are well over 75 million kids in the US. 100 kids is less than one thousandth of 1% of that.

But yes, by all means, let's pass laws, and impose labeling requiremets, heck, let's just outlaw candy, because of an astronomically minisucle chance of choking.

I have two kids, and I can only imagine losing one of them. But come on, people. Don't run to the government every time something bad happens, crying "protect me!"

My two-year old once choked on a chunk of homemade pie crust. We heimliched that puppy out, and he's fine. I don't imagine we should be putting choking warnings on bags of flour or fruit filling because of it, should we?

Just stupid.

lourdesv: And Patrick, just for the record, you have a Mexican admirer here! ;-) I normally agree with you, but this time, although I only know the McDonald's case from what was written here, I have to disagree with you.

I don't care how people feel the jury should have ruled. What I find so troubling is that so many are committing rather obvious factual errors and still weighing in. Some folks on this board obviously have strong opinions on this, but even as they share them, certain pieces of misinformation are being given. There's nothing novel in that on this board. But there are a couple who I esteem normally quite wise individuals who should know better.

That said, if we start suing McDonald's for serving hot coffee, then what happens at Chili's, one of my favorite restaurants, when they bring out my fajitas still sizzling in the skillet? Obviously, if the oil is still sizzling, it's much, much hotter than coffee. And consider restaurants that serve certain items flambe. Should they be expected to pay if a customer mishandles their meal and burns themselves?

Heck, let's just make all restaurants not serve anything that's over 115 degrees (the approximate temperature where flesh burns).

I'm sorry, Flynne. I had no idea you were still smarting from the last time I trounced your silly statements. Had I known, I might have waited a while longer before I trounced you again.

Complete and utter bullshit. But thanks anyway, Princess.

I don't care how people feel the jury should have ruled.

That one statement explains so much. You're right, and everyone else is wrong!

The woman should not have put an obviously HOT coffee cup between her legs. That she got paid for it was a mistake, because that set the precedent for other people to engage in other frivilous lawsuits that drive up costs that are then passed on to the rest of us. Of course, that's fine with you because you don't care what anyone else thinks.

And Patrick, juries are wrong all the damn time. If they weren't, we'd have no need for the innocence project, and you'd have no worries that someone might be executed wrongly, no?

Patrick, a couple of more points on the coffee thing (I think we're spending too much time on this one case, but if the conversation's going that way...)

"This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill."

That's just compensatory damages, though, which are a tiny fraction of the total award in the types of cases we're talking about. In fact, it aggravates the situation from the standpoint of throwing the punitives into sharper relief: the compensatory damaged could be just $1, and the jury could still award punitive damages in the millions.

"McDonald's serves their coffee hotter than recommended by the Coffee Association of America"

Even if they did, that would not be a defense. Compliance with federal regulations isn't a defense in product liability suits, so compliance with a voluntary industry standard certainly won't be.

Conan, McDonald's uses a dense styrofoam for its coffee cups. Not paper.

My bad. I did some further research into that and found the styrofoam reference after my post.

Still, I stand by my position that she did know the coffee was extremely hot.

I feel for the woman and also wonder if McDonald's really needs to serve its coffee that hot. But she knew it was hot and she knew that styrofoam is not the most rigid of containers (by experience of holding the cup). Yet, she chose to place it between her knees (in a parked car) and pry the lid off.

And she chose to wear cotton while doing it.

This is not McDonald's fault. She held the cup in her hands without issue until the car was parked (her grandson? parked the car so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee). So, the vessel in which McDonald's served the coffee was up to the job (unlike the paper-thin cup in which Starbucks serves my morning brew which requires me to switch hands constantly all the way back to the office despite the cardboard band).

I feel for Stella. And I have always thought McDonald's serves their coffee ridiculously hot. I've always thought it was to disguise the hideous taste (although their new stuff is supposed to be better).

And how many times before this had Stella gone to McDonald's to get coffee? How many times to that very McDonald's? If more than once, from experience alone, she would have known the coffee was served very hot.

McDonald's decision not to settle for paying Stella's medical bills alone was, in hindsight, a poor one.

Nonetheless, the jury's choice was a poor one. McDonald's served a hot cup of coffee (just like many other establishments) in a cup designed to offer limited protection to the drinker while enabling mobility, keeping costs low, and being easily disposable after the coffee is finished.

As you yourself have pointed out, plenty of other products are served at temperatures that could cause burns. If you start awarding damages because someone mishandles a hot product served hot, you're going to have to start liking cold pizza, cold soup, and cold many other products formerly served hot.

In addition, the method by which Stella chose to remove the lid of her coffee contributed to her burns.

From Wikipedia:

Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.

And why did it take more than a minute and a half to get her out of the puddle of scalding liquid?

From Wikipedia:

Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.

And, Ford Probes have cup holders.

I'm a bit bemused by the turn that this thread has taken... are we all thinking that whether the Stella case was rightly or wrongly judged proves/disproves the general rule? Or is it that we all agree on the general rule, so now we're arguing a specific case just for the fun of it? (Okay, maybe that last bit was a bit cheeky. How about this: we're arguing a specific case because we're groping on how the general rule applies? And if we are, is this specific case useful as an illustration, one way or the other?)

Cousin Dave: Patrick, a couple of more points on the coffee thing (I think we're spending too much time on this one case, but if the conversation's going that way...)

Perhaps, but the misinformation on this issue was rampant. There were any number of items of blatantly false statements that should be addressed. She was not driving, she did not spill it while driving, etc.

Conan: And why did it take more than a minute and a half to get her out of the puddle of scalding liquid?

I don't know. Her age, perhaps. The doors were locked, her seatbelt was on. She was probably screaming in agony, etc.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that a distributed puddle of coffee can actually remain hot enough to cause burns after a minute and a half. You're talking about what? An eighth of an inch of liquid at the most? Can it really stay over 115 degrees for a full minute and a half?

And according to the link I posted, the coffee was sufficiently hot to induce third degree burns in under three seconds.

As for the rest of it, Conan, I concede it's possible, but you're speculating. We've established that McDonald's has their coffee held over twenty degrees hotter than all other establishments in the area. Perhaps she is used to getting her coffee at Dunkin' Donuts, or Burger King, or wherever. It's entirely possible that she has had experience with McDonald's coffee, but can we automatically assume she did?

Cousin Dave: That's just compensatory damages, though, which are a tiny fraction of the total award in the types of cases we're talking about.

Yes, I got that. I was merely pointing out that the compensatory damages were indeed adjusted for the amount that the jury determined she was at fault. The same thing happened in the case of Terri Schiavo. People assumed that Terri had been awarded all this money. Her reward was significantly reduced based upon the amount that was determined that she was at fault for her own supposed bulimia.

Yes, we're spending too much time on this, but I felt the misconceptions that people were forwarding as fact needed to be addressed. Even the jury (according to the article I posted) went in with a decidedly prejudiced mindset, firmly against the defendant. Then they actually got to the see the case. And they asked, like Conan, why is McDonald's serving coffee that's at least 65 degrees too hot to even drink.

Patrick, are you deliberately being stupid here?

You can quibble about little details of the case all day long, but none of them matter.

Was the car moving? Lets say not. OK, so what.
Paper cup or styrofoam? Styrofoam, so the serve it in a safe cup, matters, but matters in McDonalds favor.
Coffee Association of America recommendation: Lets say you're right, and its 20 degrees hotter. Doesn't matter, because it is served in a safe container with a safety lid and they ADVERTISE IT AS HOT.

So what matters?

A. Stella deliberately removed the safety lid.
B. Stella put this compressible container between her knees with no lid on it.
C. Stella spilled it on herself.
D. In the span of time between when stella bought her coffee & spilled it, literally thousands upon thousands of people were buying that very same coffee, and successfully avoided burning themselves.
E. In the span of that same day, roughly 1 million other people ALSO bought that very same brand at that very same temperature, and were satisfied with their purchase enough that they would do it again soon. None of those other 999,999 people will burn themselves.

So, I repeat my stance, a 1 in a 1,000,000 accident occuring ENTIRELY through CUSTOMER NEGLIGENCE does not equal out to ANY corporate liability.

Under what circumstances would YOU Have said she was at fault enough that no one owed the stupid bitch any money? If it had been heated in her microwave at home, could she have sued the microwave manufacturer or the electric company that provided her the electricity to use the microwave?

Teflon, I've done some Web searches, and to my surprise, I've not been able to find consistent information on which states have which doctrines of liability. The clearest reference I've been able to find is this one:

http://www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/jointseveral_chart.html

Since this is a plaintiff's lawyer website, I figure they have no motivation to exaggerate the scope of the problem, so their info is probably pretty good (if it's up to date, which it may not be; I can't find a date on the info). According to them, 36 states have some form of joint and several liability for at least some types of cases. Only 14 states have proportionate liability for all types of cases, and it's not clear to me if this applies to all damages or only compensatory damages. I can only find a reference to one state (New York, surprisingly) which eliminates all liability if the plaintiff is judged to be more than 50% at fault. For federal suits, it seems to depend a lot on which specific statute the action is filed under. The EPA Superfund authorization is one of the worst; it has wide-open joint and several, which is why less than 10% of the total Superfund allocations have ever been spent on actual cleanup. Nearly all of the Superfund money goes into litigation.

Nature will always determine who "Deserves it" with ruthless abandon. We may feel pained at the loss of young children, but nature has no such compunctions.

Patrick, I applaud your reasonable approach to this ordeal. (McDonald's - not the kid choking on the hot dog; which sadly has gotten sidetracked a bit). Brian - and others who disagree with the verdict - I respect your opinion; too bad you weren't on the jury that day. Cousin Dave, thx for the research.

I think one point here is that agree or disagree with the McD's verdict, the mere fact that reasonable people differ on the merits (I think it's fair to say there's differneces of opinion here!) indicates that clearly the case was not frivolous.

I tend to lean towards the Libertarian side of not protecting people from their own stupidity; but where there is a known risk that corporate America fails to address, well ... you see what happens. Seller beware!

We've established that McDonald's has their coffee held over twenty degrees hotter than all other establishments in the area.

So what. She had a hot beverage and treated it carelessly. And then she blamed the beverage maker for her own carelessness.

It's entirely possible that she has had experience with McDonald's coffee, but can we automatically assume she did?

No one's assuming anything here, Patrick. Nor is anyone speculating. I merely asked the question if she'd ever bought coffee at McDonald's before. None of the write-ups I've found so far indicate one way or the other.

From the National Coffee Association website(http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71):

"Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee."

"If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit."

Conan: No one's assuming anything here, Patrick.

Actually, a lot of people here assumed a lot of things, a lot of them wrong. Not you in particular, unless you consider thinking McDonald's sells their coffee in paper cups to be a particularly damning issue...which I don't.

But that she was driving (which she wasn't), or the car was moving when she spilled it (it wasn't).

Robert: Patrick, are you deliberately being stupid here?

It's been my observation that when people have been corrected, rather than admit their mistakes, they become insulting. Flynne and Feebie are cases in point. Conan and Cousin Dave are exceptions. You're apparently following the rule.

I brought up the salient points of this case because there was a lot of misinformation about it. Sorry it bothers you to be corrected, but facts are facts. As Al Franken likes to say, you're entitled to your own opinion (so you think she was at fault; that's no concern to me, or to her), but you are not entitled to your own facts. The car was not moving, she was not driving.

Kudos to the poster who pointed out that old people suffer burns more easily.

Patrick's point is that because she sustained such significant burns McDonald's must be at fault. This is a bit like saying that if an elderly person walks into my shop, slips and breaks a hip, I must be at fault. Because hey, you don't sustain those kinds of injuries unless someone does something really bad.

And if you are more at risk of burns or injuries, it is your responsibility to take care.

And if McDonald's serve their coffee hotter than other places, so what? Some people prefer it hotter. Should there be a law that all places must serve it at the same temperature?

You might as well argue that because McDonald's food is unhealthy people should be able to sue them for any health problems.

"As for the rest of it, Conan, I concede it's possible, but you're speculating. We've established that McDonald's has their coffee held over twenty degrees hotter than all other establishments in the area. Perhaps she is used to getting her coffee at Dunkin' Donuts, or Burger King, or wherever. It's entirely possible that she has had experience with McDonald's coffee, but can we automatically assume she did?"

No, we cannot be certain. But on the balance-of-probabilities (which is what civil lawsuits are decided on) it is far more likely that she would have got coffee from McDonald's before. If so, she would have known how hot they serve it and should have taken care accordingly.

Wow! You are harsh, people.

We were sitting at dinner one evening when our 8 year old son started to choke on a cheese-stick. He quickly turned blue. I was shocked. First of all, he had never choked as a baby, toddler, or preschooler and I thought that the risk had passed. Secondly, it happened so suddenly and quietly. I ran around to do the Heimlich maneuver. When that didn't work, my husband reached down his throat, grabbed it, and pulled it out. Shaking, I looked around the restaurant full of people. No-one had even noticed our little drama.

He was not acting improperly and we were not neglectful. If we had not been right there, he would have died. I can certainly see how that could happen right under a parent's nose.

By the way, hot-dogs should be cut into quarters for preschoolers. It is easy. Some people don't have common sense though. My sister-in-law scooped the shredded carrots I had given her toddler out of her mouth because carrots cause choking.

I forgot - she admonished me that carrots cause choking. I think that choking on shreds would be quite a feat though.

It's been my observation that when people have been corrected, rather than admit their mistakes, they become insulting. Flynne and Feebie are cases in point. Conan and Cousin Dave are exceptions. You're apparently following the rule.

Patrick, you are deliberately being obtuse. You started it by calling me "ignorant" when the only thing I said was (besides the obviously sarcastic lawyer thing) "Coffee too hot? Don't put it BETWEEN YOUR LEGS!" You were the one who chose to say I was being ignorant. I never said anything one way or the other about who was driving, or anything else about the case except that she was stupid for doing that one thing. How was it a "mistake" to point out you don't put hot coffee between your legs??? Sheeeeeesh.

I guess a nanny state would be perfect for you, as long as you're in charge, of course. You just LOVE telling everyone how wrong they are about everything.

Nick S: Patrick's point is that because she sustained such significant burns McDonald's must be at fault.

No, Patrick's point is that everybody and his dog decided to weigh in on this incident, and just about everyone and his dog didn't even know the facts of this case, quoting patent misinformation.

Regarding the McDonald's coffee case - something nobody has mentioned: The woman needed to have SKIN GRAFTS!
I'm not necessarily defending her, but I too have had third degree burns from HOT COFFEE. I got a little over anxious waiting for that first cup of the morning and the whole pot ended up on my left leg. I ended up at Memorial Sloan Kettering for the better part of the day rather than at Tavern on the Green for brunch. My leg was a blistered mess for months and required several follow-up visits to a doctor when I returned to L.A., to make sure it was healing and not infected. I had to keep it wrapped with dressing for weeks.
At 79 years old this must have been awful. I was only 25 and it sucked.
But this whole hot dog thing is CRAZY! I feel for the woman who lost her son, but nobody will take responsibility for anything, will they?
I bought a wall clock recently and it came with a warning: DO NOT EAT. THIS IS NOT FOOD.
No kidding. That was the warning.

I don't know, Judy, those little cuckoo birds are mighty tasty.

NumberSix - they are good, especially breaded, deep-fried and dipped, aren't they? Unfortunately, I didn't buy a clock with any of them.

Jen you were present, and acted quickly and smartly to save your sons life.

Erics parents were too busy

Darwinism in action

Incidentally how long was the cheese stick, and hae you used his near death experiance to teach him the importance of properly cewing?

No, Patrick's point is that everybody and his dog decided to weigh in on this incident...

Getting burned with coffee must have been ruff.

Hot dogs can be very dangerous. When will this madness end?

http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_055083026.html?keyword=topstory

Without casting stones at anyone touched by the tragic loss of this child - I once saw a stand-up comic who sold T-shirts with one of his sayings, along the lines of "Humans are the only species who let their stupid live."

Hmmm... scrapple is safe to eat, yes?

It's the result of parents who are too lazy to actually PARENT (it's how we got the name, people, letters weren't chosen out of a hat) and then see fit to blame other people when little Junior shows the failure of their parenting. It's horrible that he died, but it's not the hot dog's fault his parents weren't smart enough to cut it up into pieces that easily go down with a little chewing.

It really makes one wonder what would have happened had something less dire occurred. Fell out of a tree? Pass a law that says all trees have to be cut down to a safe height! Hit his head on a table? Remove all surfaces that extend in any way from the ground! See where it leads?

And Jen- You were smart, quick, and managed to save your son's life. This boy's parents, however, had not managed to do so, and so their course of action was to blame the hot dog company for not making their products completely infallible. You seem like a smart, level-headed woman. Would you have blamed the cheese stick company if your son had died?

And Robert- To provide a rebuttal one of your previous posts:

1. She removed the safety lid so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. You ever tried putting something in a cup that has a lid on it? Not the easiest thing to do.

2. She put the container between her legs because it's damn hard to put cream and sugar in a cup and stir it while its in a cup holder.

3. She spilled it on herself. Yes, she did. If it had been at a safer temperature, then she would have had less of a case. But the coffee was at an unsafe temperature, which provided her unnecessary injury.

4. Was it moving? No. That means she had reason to believe that she could hold something between her legs while she was sitting down.

5. Styrofoam cup? Yes. It means that it's safer, and you can't feel temperature through it as well.

6. Advertised as hot? Yes. Hot, not scalding.

Thank you, and have a pleasant day.