All of this talk of people not being able to figure out a ballot machine had me a little unsure of the menatl accuity of some of the US citizenry. Surely, I have thought numerous times, no one can be so dumb that they cant figure out a punch ballot…or the butterfly ballot.
Then I get this customer complaint: A woman orders hot cocoa. IT was too cool for her, so she sends it back. SHe is given a fresh cocoa from the same machine. Without testing it, she gulps some down and YOW! boy that hot cocoa was actually, er, HOT. Yup, so now she wants us to pay for her pain and suffering. SHe is convinced that she has no duty to test the temperature of a hot fluid before tossing it down.
Oddly, I used this precise situation as a hypothetical in the debate over the McDonald’s case.
Do I need a question to make this a thread? Well, how about an assertion: we are teaching people that there is no need to use common sense or judgement. Don’t plan for retirement, the government has to help. Don’t read the voting instructions? well then, we must need a recount. Didn’t test that Hot Chocolate first, well then, to the Courthouse?
This woman rejected a hot drink because it wasn’t hot enough, then recieved one which was hotter. And decided to sue because it was too hot? Surely even her own lawyer is not expecting this to work. What possible grounds can she have? She asked for a hotter drink and got one. If it was too hot, she could have asked for a cooler one. Why sue.
There should have been a large printed warning on the cup stating that the contents might be extremely hot and that a person should test the contents so they don’t accidentallyy slam back scalding hot cocoa.
Either this woman is too stupid to live or she knows exactly what she’s doing.
What’s a scalded mouth and throat going for these days? All that emotional suffering has to be worth something. I bet she can’t drink from a cup anymore due to this traumatic incident… therapy is so expensive.
I think this has less to do with common sense and more to do with being an opportunist. The woman thinks that she can take advantage by playing the poor, unsuspecting victim card. It may work, but most probably not.
…and Maeglin, I think it’s a quote from A. Einstein.
And remember that all the information we have about this situation comes from unsupported assertions by Mr. Zambezi, who as we have all learned is not exactly the most plaintiff-friendly person. I personally can’t offer a serious opinion on whether this person is being irresponsible and greedy (much less whether this case indicates that we as a nation are actively teaching all our citizens to be irresponsible and greedy) unless I see a more detailed and balanced source of factual information about this complaint. But since I think the OP really belongs more in IMHO or the Pit anyway (since the specific instance described is more in the nature of a rant and the subsequent Broader Question seems to be weakly cobbled together to provide an excuse for a GD thread), don’t knock yourself out over it on my account.
Pretty fair assessment, Kimstu. IT is pretty much a rant, but this subject ends up being a debate as the McD suit did, so I made a decision to put it here.
Truth is, the clmt admits to the facts I stated. She believes that the server, by handing the cup back to her was waranteeing the product against being “too hot.” Her version is that the server said “here, try this.” And she felt that he was assuring her that it was exactly the perfect temperature. She specifidally denies making any attempt to test the temp before imbibing. She said some other far out things, but if I bring them up I will be accused of confabulation, so I’ll let it go.
I have no doubt in my mind that she is sincere and not an opportunist. I can generally smell bullshit, but my sensors didn’t sound on this one. In fact, she was on the verge of tears.
Yes, I am not plaintiff friendly. But this one really takes the cake.
I was discussing it with my boss and we really were mulling over the question: When did it get like this? When did personal responsibility become extinct or at least diminish, and whio is to blame.
Personally, I blame liberals and the subset of plaintiff counsel. And especially Ralph Nader.
You know, you’d THINK to sip at it a tiny bit, or take a plastic spoon.
I, unfortunately, neglected to test a cup of coffee last night…now my tongue is burnt and it sucks.
Mr. Zambezi: *I was discussing it with my boss and we really were mulling over the question: When did it get like this? When did personal responsibility become extinct or at least diminish, and whio is to blame. *
Well, I’m not sure we’re really talking about a new phenomenon here; at least one politician was complaining about just the same sort of thing as far back as the Jazz Age 1920’s:
Personally, I tend to suspect that it’s part of the universal human condition that some people tend to be weak self-pitying victimhood seekers (and your cocoa plaintiff may well be one of those), while others have a strong sense of self-reliance and personal responsibility. If we see a sharp rise in particular trends like frivolous personal-injury lawsuits, I’m inclined to think that it will be on purely practical grounds (such suits, especially the well-publicized ones, sometimes provide the plaintiffs with lots of money, and everyone would like to have lots of money) rather than because of some insidious sapping of the national moral fiber.
And I had to laugh at your characterization of Ralph Nader as a source of the deterioration of the American sense of personal responsibility! Yeah, how dare he go around in 1965 whining that a bad Buick Roadmaster design was causing catastrophic brake failures and Buick was hiding it from the consumers! Everybody knows that automotive corporations don’t jeopardize the safety of their products and then try to cover it up! (Especially not corporations such as Ford and Firestone!) Anybody who complains about unnecessary auto fatalities hushed up so as not to jeopardize profits is just a big sissy!
C’mon, Mr. Z., I’m willing to concede that there are a lot of whiners and irresponsible people out there, but this is ridiculous. If you want to argue that personal responsibility is really “extinct or at least diminished,” you’ll have to show some better evidence. And I don’t think that something like Nader’s Unsafe at Any Speed, a carefully-researched expose of some truly dangerous efforts by manufacturers to pursue profitability over basic user safety, will qualify as your Exhibit A.
I could probably make just as compelling an argument that the attitude arises naturally out of a society in which worship of money and the markets has become the new state religion. And, people are being told that they are entitled more of the money that the government is “stealing” from them. (You know, to do things like provide them roads, police, schools, social security, and clean air and water.) Or where people are told that they have a perfect right to do things that negatively impact on others and their environment, like drive around in massive SUVs, etc. And, any larger sense responsibility is silly and counterproductive.
I could, but I won’t. I just think some people are sort of silly and opportunistic.
Gotta agree with QuickSilver on this one. It sounds like a set-up. I don’t mean to impune Mr.Zambezi’s sensors here, but I think it’s a game. She is counting on being offered a settlement, and she will be offered one. Hey, the shop could easily beat this in court, but at a higher price than settling. 10 to 1, she’s done this before.
I just think some people are sort of silly and opportunistic.