Woman: I was kicked out of bar for being pregnant!

[Silurian]

So does anyone have a record of a women miscarrying after being knocked over in a bar.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes it was. If they serve coffee hot, and you sue because YOU were careless and spilled it, you are making a frivolous suit and deserve to lose.

When coffee is hot enough to cause 2nd degree burns, it is too hot. Is that not obvious?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Did you read the part where "hot" coffee is supposed to be served at 135-140 degrees F instead of 180-190? That McDonalds specifically kept it at such an elevated temperature so they wouldn't have to throw it out so frequently? That they knew full well what would occur because they had dealt with 700 complaints of similar burns, including third degree ones, and that their QA manager fully acknowleged that it was a hazard to serve it at that temperature to an unsuspecting public?

Why is this relevant? They kept it that way to make money. So? It would not have harmed her if she hadn't spilled it. As Cardgame said, as long as she had full possession of the coffee when she spilled it, she is responsible.

You're not aware of the facts. The people who told you about the case, and biased your opinion of it (while using it as an example of some political position they hold), are naive. They're naive, and they don't know that they're naive.

Nearly every reasonably educated person can be shown that the case was not frivolous. Some of those educated people have chosen to look into it, but many have not. Trust me, when nearly every lawyer and judge thinks the case had good merit, some random person with no real understanding of the law is not a good counter-weight to that opinion.

Please illuminate me. Why is Mcdonalds responsible if she's the one who spilled the coffee?

When coffee is hot enough to cause 2nd degree burns, it is too hot. Is that not obvious?

Well, in the House I currently live in, we have a water spout specifically designed to create 190 degree water, which I frequently use to make Hot Chocolate. Now:

Does using this water spout to create hot chocolate SPECIFICALLY cause me to burn myself, or would it be my carelessness?

If I decided to open up a business and sell hot chocolate out of my house, if someone burned themselves with it, could they rightfully sue me? (I'm talking about morals, not what the law currently is.)

If its too hot, wait for it to cool down.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Why is this relevant? They kept it that way to make money. So? It would not have harmed her if she hadn't spilled it.

Yes, it would have.

McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists w/ any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee wasn't fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat

Did you even read the article before trying to rebut it?

Please illuminate me. Why is Mcdonalds responsible if she's the one who spilled the coffee?

Civilized society doesn't allow runaway capitalism to trump justice. I think the reasons should be obvious to most people why that is so.

Do you think Chinese toys with high lead content should be sold in the US to unsuspecting parents?

Do you think vehicles which have a propensity to burst into flames and kill their occupants should be allowed without regulation? That it is the responsibility of the owner to have evaluated the risks before purchasing it? That once he has made the purchase that it is entirely his own responsibility?

Do you think businesses should be able to use cyanide baths to recover lead and silver without adequate ventilation when many people have already died as a result, and the dangers are well-known? That people still die from this in countries, such as Mexico, where the government doesn't really care what busineses do for the most part?

 

[Karalysia]

Yes, because under current law it's illegal to deny someone access to a public space, like a supermarket, on account of race. (I myself am not sure if I agree with that law -- I certainly would never patronize a business that did such a thing, but I'm not sure the state should use the force of law to punish them, either)

I didn't realize I was talking to a libertarian. No point in continuing this then.

 

[illram]

Please illuminate me. Why is Mcdonalds responsible if she's the one who spilled the coffee?

You posted in a thread where this came up about 6 months ago. It was fully explained there. Link to the thread and where the discussion on the case began.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What part of that changes anything? Coffee is hot. We now have to legislate how hot, HOT! is? I'm not impressed. McDonalds primary purpose is to provide food and drink to its customers that they want. We want stuff to be as tastey as possible. When we go into food establishments getting burned is a potential risk we take. Most places cook chicken wings to 180 degrees to the core (if they have good wings anyway). Does this give you the right to sue a business that cooked you a product that you wanted after you get burned? Of course not, that would be frivolous. As already stated, when you walk into a hot food eatery you already know that you are getting a hot product. To add insult to injury for this woman, the product said HOT all over it. She wanted something that was hot, she knew it would be hot, she knew there was a risk of burns when she purchased it, she was careless while handling the HOT! stuff, and was burned as a result.

And McDonalds is supposed to be 80% at fault because it was 20 degrees hotter than the coffee shop down the road?

Sorry: Frivolous.

That post from the thread was one of the few good ones...

 

[El_Machinae]

That post from the thread was one of the few good ones...

No, it just fits your bias. He just shows incomplete thinking on the topic. It's not even libertarian thinking, it's just pseudo-objectivist with a little bit of vitriol tossed in.
But, anyway, that thread is available for that discussion. It's well laid out, and informed people are chiming in. So, this topic drift doesn't need to continue.

 

[Elrohir]

(bolding mine)

Hang on a minute, earlier, you were saying that the mere possibility of the woman getting knocked over, leading to the woman possibly miscarrying, and her possibly suing the bar, and the bar possibly being held liable, was enough warrant kicking the woman out.

Now, even if I accept that this does not necessarily fall foul of discrimination laws, you must surely accept the possibility of it falling foul of discrimination laws? I mean, you're trying to tell me that the woman would sue no matter what, right? And that this would cause financial harm to the bar, even if she wasn't successful. So, by your own logic, the certainty of the woman suing, and the bar possibly being held liable, is enough to warrant not kicking the woman out.

In any case, the likelihood that it falls foul of discrimination law is clearly much higher than the likelihood that (a) the woman gets knocked over, (b) she miscarries, (c) she sues the bar, and (d) the suit is successful. Not least because she will definitely sue for being kicked out, whereas there's really no guarantee that she's going to get knocked over at all, much less that she actually miscarries. By kicking her out, you pre-emptively skip to step (c) -- she sues the bar. That's clearly not limiting liability, because even if you're right, and the discrimination suit has no merit in court, according to you the bar will still have to pay a lot of money on legal costs, and possibly to settle.

Hmm. I see what you're saying. That's actually not a bad argument. After thinking it over a bit, I'm inclined to agree now. I'm not totally on board, but I think it probably is the case that you're right, under these circumstances. Very good job nailing my position down, and into that corner!

 

[Camikaze]

@Mise- ^That holds for me too. I'm just stubborn in attempting to continue an argument.

 

[Mise]

Holy crap! You guys make me so happy, not just cos I win an internets, but also cos we all came to an agreement through rational discourse

 

[Silurian]

So does anyone have a record of a women miscarrying after being knocked over in a bar.

I have been unable to find an instance of this happening has anyone else.

One of the reviews for this bar states that a woman was observed being knocked over in 2006 but it did not say she was pregnant.

I found a pregnant woman who had her jaw broken in an assault by a stranger in a dispute over a table reservation in Dubai.

Pregnant women seem to get into fights involving boyfriends, husbands and their partners ex’s or new partner.
In the bars I have been in men will protect pregnant women and women with small children if there is a fight. This generally includes the men who are actually fighting who tend to move away from more venerable people.

 

[holy king]

Holy crap! You guys make me so happy, not just cos I win an internets, but also cos we all came to an agreement through rational discourse

look at what has become of you...