Is American law insane?

[cogwheel]

Coffee is boiled water... Classic Merkin joe is drip brewed and kept hot... but you can't ever assume it's not freshly boiled in the first place, so any reasonable person would treat a cup of coffee that he has not personally seen cooled/waited an appropriate time for it to cool (given that many modern cups are made so they retard cooling, if only because the insulation put there to prevent you burning your hand keeps the heat in the coffee) as he would boiling water.

When I get tea from my pot, I sure drink it more gingerly than lemonade made from room temperature tap water.

So maybe less insulation would be a better solution than bigger warnings. The more sensory input the better...

That said, the way most drip coffee is made (at least in America), it has cooled down quite a bit by the time it makes it into the pot, let alone the cup. I'm pretty sure most coffee drinkers here wouldn't expect it that hot, unless they used a percolator.

[Svartalf]

Dunno what's the exact temp of coffee dripping down into the pot, or the temp that coffee that's stayed there a while is kept by the hot plate, but if the coffee is reasonably fresh/the plate is on, I know I have to let the coffee cool a good time before I can drink it rather than blow to cool it and take little cautious sips.

[cogwheel]

Now I'm curious but not ambitious enough to measure the temp of our coffee maker <.<

[Svartalf]

Well, I would if proper thermometers were easy to find and affordable... of course, I'm poor enough that "affordable" hasd a rather restricted meaning where I'm concerned.

[Coito ergo sum]

Apparently in Florida it is a criminal offence to perform oral sex on your husband in a motel on your honeymoon.

Apparently, since at least 2003, any attempt at enforcing that one will fall on SCOTUS precendent and be without effect.

There are crazy laws enacted in every jurisdiction in the world. We can pick any country and find them.

[Coito ergo sum]

Putting a written warning on the cup makes NO difference whatsoever.
If you are in the catering business, you know for a fact that some people are going to spill their coffee.
And a company the size of Macdonalds will know that better than anyone else.
So if they sell very hot coffee, they KNOW that some people will get burned.

You can't put dangerous stuff out there, and just think that a written warning absolves you of any duty of care. Unless you are selling cigarettes I guess. But it's hard to accidentally smoke a fag.

Does an adult have any duty in that regard?

Yes, for sure. However, two points in this case are worth noting: (a) fault was split between the parties, whereby some fault was allocated to the woman - which is why the damages of $200,000 were divided 80/20 between her and the company. So, she got $160,000 in compensatory damages (damages to compensate her for actual injuries - uncovered medical expenses, trauma, etc., which had to be substantiated at trial with evidence), and (b) the coffee was 190 degrees or something like that. Boiling is 212. If you went to the drive through, and asked for hot water for tea, and they handed you a cup of nearly boiling water, and it spilled on you, you might reasonably suggest that they would have handed you water that wasn't quite so dangerous.

I think what happens in these cases is that we all have the natural reaction to say "duh! hot coffee is hot!" -- yes, but the real issue was "how hot?" And, was it negligent to serve the coffee quite that that hot. Given the number of serious burn injuries caused over the years, it seemed as if they might turn the heat down a notch.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Has anybody heard of someone doing this with their own coffee?

@Cogwheel, you may be making too leaps in logic.

[Coito ergo sum]

and if you want proof that the US law system is walking on its head... there are much more recent cases to show it. Just google "Kelo vs New London" for instance...

That is not an indictment of the US legal system. That was a 5-4 decision of the US supreme court upholding an exercise of eminent domain. Most other western countries are far less protective of property rights than the US, and while the decision is something that many people in the US, including myself, disagree with, in most other countries, the legal system simply assumes that the State can take private property for use in a "comprehensive redevelopment plan." You think they wouldn't allow that in GB or France or Germany?

[Coito ergo sum]

Now I'm curious but not ambitious enough to measure the temp of our coffee maker <.<

Generally speaking, the water for coffee brewing should be heated to 190-205, max -- 200 is the rule of thumb. That water is passed through the grounds and brews the coffee, any lower than that range and it won't brew as well, and any higher and it will scald the grounds. EDIT to note: in the case where the old lady got third degree burns, they SERVED the coffee to her at 190ish.

Serving is normally at about 155 to 170 degrees max. The 190 degrees to serve McDonald's coffee was well above typical serving temperatures. The rationale offered by McDonalds was that many of their customers travel somewhere before drinking the coffee and they want the coffee to still be hot. Not unreasonable, as far as I can tell. The jury didn't buy it, though, because substantial evidence was offered that showed that McDonald's knew a lot of their customers drank the coffee right away, and the jury thought that handing them a cup of scalding hot coffee knowing they were substantially likely to be accessing it right away made them liable in large part.

[Svartalf]

and if you want proof that the US law system is walking on its head... there are much more recent cases to show it. Just google "Kelo vs New London" for instance...

That is not an indictment of the US legal system. That was a 5-4 decision of the US supreme court upholding an exercise of eminent domain. Most other western countries are far less protective of property rights than the US, and while the decision is something that many people in the US, including myself, disagree with, in most other countries, the legal system simply assumes that the State can take private property for use in a "comprehensive redevelopment plan." You think they wouldn't allow that in GB or France or Germany?

That's the highest jurisdiction of the land finding itself full of enough activist judges to pass a decision that enables state and municipal governments to deprive citizens of their property for motives that are definitely NOT what Eminent domain should be used for. Basically, it enables them to confiscate property for the benefit of their cronies.

[Coito ergo sum]

and if you want proof that the US law system is walking on its head... there are much more recent cases to show it. Just google "Kelo vs New London" for instance...

That is not an indictment of the US legal system. That was a 5-4 decision of the US supreme court upholding an exercise of eminent domain. Most other western countries are far less protective of property rights than the US, and while the decision is something that many people in the US, including myself, disagree with, in most other countries, the legal system simply assumes that the State can take private property for use in a "comprehensive redevelopment plan." You think they wouldn't allow that in GB or France or Germany?

That's the highest jurisdiction of the land finding itself full of enough activist judges to pass a decision that enables state and municipal governments to deprive citizens of their property for motives that are definitely NOT what Eminent domain should be used for. Basically, it enables them to confiscate property for the benefit of their cronies.

I defy you to find a "western European country" that doesn't allow their governments to do EXACTLY the same thing as occurred in the case you referenced. I guarantee you they can. In the UK, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act of 2004 applies, and in the EU in general, as long as a "public interest" is found, they can make a private individual give up their property.

Again, I agree the decision was wrong and is a bad precedent. But, to say that it is an indictment of the US legal system is silly. It's one case about one area of the law, it was a near split down the middle, and it involved a specific factual situation -- it did not rule that the government can take the property for any reason whatsoever. And the court may revisit it.

The Majority opinion in Kelo was the liberal wing of the court, by the way: Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Scalia said no. Thomas said no. O'Connor said no. Rhenquist said no.

So, oddly, it's the traditional evil bastards on the court that said no to this.

In favor of the majority, they did hold that the government purpose in each of these cases is "a question of fact for the trier of fact." So, if property is being taken for an alleged "public purpose" the property owner has the right to a trial on the issue of whether the public purpose alleged by the government is indeed a proper public purpose. I still don't agree with the majority opinion, for a variety of reasons, but again - it's not some major indictment of the American legal system.

[Svartalf]

Damn few civilized countries are so blatant as to allow the use of eminent domain to seize property for the purpose of ceding it to private commercial developers.
and not only is it an outreageously bad precedent, it's an indication of a trend...

Shall I also mention the fact that in the US system, you can be acquitted of criminal charges, and civilly sued for the very same things, in spite of the most basic principles of double jeopardy prohibition, and lose that one?

[Coito ergo sum]

Damn few civilized countries are so blatant as to allow the use of eminent domain to seize property for the purpose of ceding it to private commercial developers.

You're sure about that? And, it wasn't ceded. The public purpose was for a comprehensive redevelopment plan.

and not only is it an outreageously bad precedent, it's an indication of a trend...

I don't like the precedent either, but it's not surprising given the legal philosophies of the majority in that case, which is very much in line with the socialist view of it.

Shall I also mention the fact that in the US system, you can be acquitted of criminal charges, and civilly sued for the very same things, in spite of the most basic principles of double jeopardy prohibition, and lose that one?

That makes perfect sense and has always been the case. It was part of what we inherited from the English common law. Criminal law and civil law are different.

This isn't some gotcha point that you are "mentioning" as if it's an unknown or a bad thing.

Look -- if a shoplifter robs a store, the police might arrest and prosecute or they might not. The store has an independent right to sue the shoplifter civilly for damages, if they wanted to. Also, the burdens of proof are different in civil and criminal court, so the fact that the prosecution can't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean that the store can't prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

This is a good thing. Not a bad thing.

It also has fuck-all to do with double jeopardy, which is that a person may not be twice put in jeopardy for the same crime. Civil suits are not crimes, and double jeopardy applies to government prosecutions.

Now, there is plenty wrong with the way the government has gotten round double jeopardy in the US (IMHO), but allowing people to sue offenders in civil court is not one of them.

[Svartalf]

It makes no sense... if you are not guilty of murder, you can't be guilty of wrongful death either.

[Coito ergo sum]

It makes no sense... if you are not guilty of murder, you can't be guilty of wrongful death either.

Of course it makes perfect sense, and I bet it's true in Europe too.

If a person is acquitted of a criminal charge, it's because the prosecution hasn't proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not a finding of innocence.

If a person is sued civilly, it is a finding by a preponderance of the evidence, which is a much lower standard of proof than reasonable doubt.

So, a person can be acquitted of battery, but sued civilly by the victim and it could be proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the person is responsible civilly for the injuries. If a person is convicted of battery in criminal court, the conviction can be used as rock solid evidence of civil liability too.

A quick google revealed that in Denmark they have dual civil and criminal standards of proof wherein civil liability has a balance of probabilities (similar to preponderance of the evidence) and a person can be held civilly liable even if acquitted in criminal court. I think if I go on I will find that in most western European countries it is like that. Australia has dual civil and criminal law systems and a person can sue an offender in "tort" even if the person is acquitted of a criminal allegation for the same alleged conduct.