Boy, 4, Dies After Supermarket Fall

I can't imagine what the parents are going through...but whats the point in sueing, the reason there are so many rules in this country now are because of that exact reason, people sue for anything, it was the mother responsability, she should have been watching her son, it isnt the supermarkets fault -sigh-

If the coffee had been sold at a reasonable temperature for coffee, you would have a point. It wasn't, you don't. The product was dangerous beyond reasonable expectations and was completely unfit for the purpose for which it was sold. McDonalds was clearly aware of this beforehand.

Had the coffee been at a hot drinkable temperature (i.e. fit for purpose), it would have been a different matter.

You should reasonably expect a hot drink to be hot enough to be very painful if spilled on you, maybe even cause superficial burns.

This not-really-a-drink caused third degree (i.e. the highest category) burns over 6% of the person's body. That is not a degree of hazard that a customer should reasonably expect.

The person's OWN ACTION in this case was to put milk into a cup of coffee. So she's responsible for having slightly milky coffee rather than black coffee.

She isn't responsible for MCDONALD'S ACTION of deliberately and knowingly providing a very dangerous product that was completely unfit for the purpose for which it was sold.

It's a really sad story, but it's wrong to hold the store accountable for what has happened. The parents should have been watching their child more closely, advising him not to swing on the railing.

McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that, because those who purchased the coffee typically wanted to drive a distance with the coffee, the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.

However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

Coffee = hot. Sometimes, stupid people have to wait for coffee to cool before drinking. There are things in this world that are self-explanatory. If you don't understand them, then darwinism takes hold and you get cleansed from the gene pool. If you slap a lion, you will get mauled. Do I really need to explain that to people, even if I run a freaking zoo? I am not responsible for your stupidity. Making me out to be is unreasonable and irresponsible. If you are too idiotic to put together that something STEAMING might be a smidgen warm, then I truly hope you play with fire one too many times. There is no excuse for this type of idiocy.

Yes, really. I'm one of those weirdoes who thinks that beating people is wrong, especially those who can't effectively defend themselves.

[sarcasm]Maybe I haven't played enough Grand Theft Auto.[/sarcasm]

Given that you think that beating children is a good thing, please explain *in a way that is consistent with your position* why it would be wrong to pay a bully to beat the child instead and also why it would be wrong to beat a frail elderly person with dementia.

2. "The distraught parents, who have four daughters..."

Why only children? People who have been made frail by old age are about as easy to beat as young children, so why not beat them too? Especially those whose minds have been affected as well, as they can be very childlike.

Are you trying to make yourself look bad? If so, your semiliterate shouting was a good idea.

The woman in question suffered third degree burns over 6% of her body, an agonising thing that required a lot of medical attention and caused permament injury. McDonalds was serving something unfit for the intended purpose (it was far too hot to drink) and already knew that it was dangerous (there had been many other injuries before and McDonalds was well aware of the problem).

Also, the woman was not driving and the car she was a passenger in was not moving.