Originally by: Kerppe Krulli

---

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.

---