Originally by: cyrrus strongarm

---

what the hell! look,i am a reasonable person..i dont ask for much or, complain very often. i dont even mind that the server is down for six, or even more, hours. my only concern is that i want to play the game. i have been waiting patiently, since 1530gmt for the expected 1600gmt fix. then like at about 1550 (or so) the time was extended by an hour. then i wait for another hour then, just about the time its supposed to go live...it gets extended by an hour and a half... if it was an honest mistake or something, that is fine... if there are issues and you are going to go through with an extention of downtime, amend it accordingly...it is a real pain to have to keep waiting, just to come to the deadline and have to wait longer. if i had known, i would have done something other than read this thread for 2hrs...

---

Originally by: Terrante

---

Originally by: Katrina Cortez

---

Originally by: Gellan Alabel

---

Seriously, it like suing McDonalds cuz you did not know coffee was HOT. ;o)

---

She won that lawsuit...

---

Only in America

---

Originally by: THe assAssian

---

Originally by: Todd4921

---

Edited by: Todd4921 on 31/05/2011 17:24:57
Stop complaining and read the EULA.
They can basically do anything they want and don't have to refund you.

Deal with it or go make a better game.

---

Spoken like a wise man

---

Originally by: CO Bradley

---

58mins left on skill queue. I knew I should have added a 30day skill just in case. Damn it.

---

Originally by: Kerppe Krulli

---

Edited by: Kerppe Krulli on 31/05/2011 19:10:13

Originally by: Evil Stare

---

Originally by: Jaebodiah

---

What is with all this talk about coffee? Coffee is hot...plain and simple. The ***** is a dummy. There's nothing more to it than that.

---

Just a few facts.

The coffee was way hotter than it needed to be.

She was in the hospital 8 days

She needed skin graphs as she 3rd degree burns on 6 percent of her body.

She had 2 years of medical treatment

She just wanted the medical bills covered but the red headed clown told her to eff off.

She died in 2004 so it really doesn't matter anymore.

Facts

You can also google for the info or just wait for someone to beat you with a clue bat.

---

Lets take the talk of personal responsibility to its logical conclusion. You give someone coffee, it is standard practice that someone will open the lid to flavor the coffee and that is foreseen, especially when you also hand them cream and sugar. You must factor in that the lid will be removed in a vehicle. Therefore, as producer of said product you must ensure the coffee and container are designed to be safely handled in an open space like a car and that the liquid is safe for the consumer. To do otherwise is negligence.

To say she was responsible for opening the lid shows confusion of the issues at play. The container was designed to be opened, otherwise they can design it to snap on and not be taken off. opening the lid to flavor the coffee is standard practice amongst coffee drinkers. She had a right to expect the coffee wouldn't cause 3rd degree burns if it spilled, which was an entirely foreseeable.

She was hurt by defective design of the cup and the coffee itself. Saying it was her fault and not McDonalds would let all manufacturers off from defective design. Part of tort is being responsible for defective design if a product is used in a foreseeable manner and the injury is foreseeable given the circumstances. Here it is foreseeable someone will open the lid (designed that way) and coffee spills. Too hot coffee causing burns to skin is foreseeable injury and McD's was on notice that this occurred previously in the past and made a conscious decision not to change anything. McD's had a duty to ensure safety of the coffee, including the packaging and temp that it was served.

New example: a person driving a car has a general duty to conduct the car in a safe and responsible manner. If a driver runs through a red light, the driver violates that duty. As it is foreseeable that running a red light can result in a car crash, and that people are likely to be injured in such a collision, the driver will be liable in negligence for any injuries that in fact result to others in a collision resulting from the running of the red light. Would you now claim that the person who was hit was actually at fault since they didn't look both directions and stop at the intersection before proceeding through?

Stating the lady was at fault is essentially stating that even though McDonald's created conditions it knew was unsafe and could/and did cause harm to others, she is to blame for being hurt by the unsafe conditions.

---