🚀 go-pugleaf

McDonalds got what they deserved.  Giving people something meant for consumption
that if applied to skin will require skin grafts is assault.  The facts are at
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm . She only originally sued for enough to
cover her medical bill and McD's refused.

Jessica Alexander.


Doug Craigen wrote:

> No objection to much of the list, but two items stand out:
>
> "G. B." wrote:
> >
> > If a woman burns her thighs on the hot coffee she was holding in her lap
> > while driving, the restaurant is to blame.
>
> In the case in question, the blame was for selling coffee hotter than
> their own guidelines recognized as safe.  If she had bought the coffee
> anywhere else she wouldn't have gotten such serious burns when it
> spilt.  There's the question of reasonable expectations about the
> products you buy, and most of us have spilt coffee on ourselves before
> without requiring a doctor's attention.  Had she known how dangerous the
> cup she was holding was, she might have taken better precautions against
> spilling.
>
> > If you suck three packs of cigarette smoke into your lungs each day for 40
> > years and die of lung cancer, the tobacco company is to blame.
>
> They're not to blame for people choosing to smoke, just for denying the
> medical facts.  A person who smoked knowing it was bad for them can
> hardly blame the cigarette companies.  A person who kept smoking because
> they believed the tobacco companies is stupid, but in that case it is
> the tobacco companies fault.  If you assure somebody that a product is
> safe, you are assuming responsibility for their safety.  If you're not
> sure a product is safe, don't claim it is.  In this case it is the
> cigarette companies you should be railing against for trying to avoid
> their share of the blame.