OT: And Now The Rest of the Story...

[Thomas Rogers]

Stone, clearly the prosecuting attorneys showed that warning labels on a product that isn't as save as it can be isn't enough.



TJR

 

[shawn stonbraker 2]

TJR, I know what you are saying, but, it only takes common sence. There are warning labels on mowers that tell you not to put your hand under the mower when it's running, and they keep me from doing it. How much safer do they need to be before the person is officially called a dumba**?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Stone, the lawn more is a good example.



Lawn mowers used to be more dangerous. There used to be no guards over the discharge chutes, no auto-cutoff release handle, etc. Would we be okay with the lawn mower from 1950 if it simply had a warning label on it, or have the extra precautions added value in the form of increased safety? And would the average company feel compelled to add such additional precautionary features/measures on their own, if not faced with punitive litigation?



TJR

 

[shawn stonbraker 2]

I know what you are saying, I work in x-rays and can tell you that even with the warnings there, we still have people come in that did just that. (alot more with snowblowers than mowers) You don't see them getting taken to court to have the blades taken off or to have the blades made to not be able to remove fingers, etc. At some point, the consumer has to be held liable. These cases are just wrong. No matter how you look at it. If I were McDonalds, I would have done the same thing. Why is it my fault that stupid, irresponsible people put hot liquid between thier legs in cars, and not expect to get burned. No matter what the temp of the liquid is. The lawyers saw a way to make big bucks off of something and they took it. If the majority of the money went to the person, instead of lining the lawyer's pockets, I'd have less problems with this. But we all know that's probably not the case.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Stonemiser said:

At some point, the consumer has to be held liable.

You are right, and for McDonald's that point was after they lowered their temp in response to the verdict. At that point and henceforth it's all on the consumer as McDonald's showed that they complied with reasonable temperature standards and were as safe as possible.



TJR

 

[shawn stonbraker 2]

Good point TJR. I agree that McDonalds can now lay it on the consumer by them lowering the temp. It just strikes a rib when people are that irresponsible to burn themselves when they know it's hot coffee ( Key word "HOT") and then let lawyers go after someone when it was thier stupidity that got them in the shape they are in.:wacko: