Your assertion that her action is irresponsible is not proof of her irresponsibility. She was not the driver. The vehicle was not moving. It can be argued that she was extremely responsible.
So not using your hands to hold something, so you can remove a protective lid, can be considered responsible. lol.
Your assertion that the action of serving coffee at an industry standard is not proof of their responsibility. They were doing something they've done millions of times before without any issue. See how that works?
1) For at least a while, McDonalds started advertising that they would put the accessories into the coffee for you. Clearly, an admission that the coffee is too hot.
Not at all. Rather an admission that the stupidity of their customers was becoming too costly since they could no longer trust the judicial system to get it right.
2) That millions of people allegedly did not get hurt and 700+ did doesn't exclude the company from culpability.
It absolutely does. It demonstrates norms, and it shows how ridiculously dumb you have to be to have a problem.
One of the cases John Edwards became famous for was suing a pool company that made pumps so strong that they suctioned a young girl to the floor of the pool and pulled her intestines out through her anus. Clearly, there weren't a lot of people who suffered from this, but the company was found responsible for the injuries anyway.
I would not call John Edwards a model lawyer. Putting aside what he's known for these days, his type of law is exactly what brought tort reform to the forefront.
That there aren't thousands of complains simply means that it doesn't qualify for a class-action lawsuit, not that the company should just get away with it.
It means there isn't actually a problem.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 11/7/11 02:01 (UTC)So not using your hands to hold something, so you can remove a protective lid, can be considered responsible. lol.
Your assertion that the action of serving coffee at an industry standard is not proof of their responsibility. They were doing something they've done millions of times before without any issue. See how that works?
1) For at least a while, McDonalds started advertising that they would put the accessories into the coffee for you. Clearly, an admission that the coffee is too hot.
Not at all. Rather an admission that the stupidity of their customers was becoming too costly since they could no longer trust the judicial system to get it right.
2) That millions of people allegedly did not get hurt and 700+ did doesn't exclude the company from culpability.
It absolutely does. It demonstrates norms, and it shows how ridiculously dumb you have to be to have a problem.
One of the cases John Edwards became famous for was suing a pool company that made pumps so strong that they suctioned a young girl to the floor of the pool and pulled her intestines out through her anus. Clearly, there weren't a lot of people who suffered from this, but the company was found responsible for the injuries anyway.
I would not call John Edwards a model lawyer. Putting aside what he's known for these days, his type of law is exactly what brought tort reform to the forefront.
That there aren't thousands of complains simply means that it doesn't qualify for a class-action lawsuit, not that the company should just get away with it.
It means there isn't actually a problem.