Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Pligganease]

OK...

I love my country, but I despise the fact that people sue over the dumbest crap in the world (i.e. Woman sues McDonald's over hot coffee she spilt on herself.). Do you think that a bar should be held liable for what its patrons do when they leave?

[Hater Depot]

I think it would depend on the circumstances. The McDonald's case, for example, is famous but nearly universally misunderstood.

Coffee beans must be heated to bring out their flavor, and the lower the quality of the bean the higher the required temperature to produce tasty coffee. McDonald's was using cheap beans that needed to be very hot. In the previous decade or so they'd been sued by over 100 people who'd been burned. McD's made a choice--it was more profitable to keep buying the cheap beans, and just pay off and hush up the people who got injured along the way. So they did just that.

Now admittedly she put the coffee in a dumb spot, but maybe she didn't have any available cup holders. Whatever the case, she wound up in the hospital with third-degree burns that required expensive and painful skin grafts. Her injuries combined with McD's knowledge of the dangerousness of their coffee led to the large verdict (which was reduced considerably by the judge).

Basically I take everything I read about outrageous-sounding lawsuits witha big grain of salt.

[funplanet]

You are defending the woman??? come on! coffee is hot, period. I don't care HOW hot it is, we all know coffee is hot and if we spill it then we should expect to get burned!!!! it's the same stupid mentality as when someone joins the military and then whines when they have to actually fight...."I didn't know I might have to go to war!" BS

The woman was after money, pure and simple. McD has deep pockets, she knew it, and she took advantage of it.

It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, folks!!!!!!!

[desultude]

[Pligganease]

Come on... You can't really think that McDonald's should have been liable for that woman's lapse in judgement. You have to be more intelligent than that...

But, the main point of the thread is a bar's liability. I know that ou shouldn't serve a drunk person, but doesn't the stopping point come after they have achieved intoxication?

After that, if you stop serving them, aren't they going to leave intoxicated?

By this logic, when a bar does what they are required by law to do, which is 86 someone, they are pushing that person out to do what they shouldn't!

[Kuros]

[Ya-ta Boy]

Very nicely argued, Kuros.

[panthermodern]

Ultimately, the individual is repsonsible for the individual.

[Hater Depot]

What is McD's responsibility when they know their coffee is badly burning people? Can you drink coffee that hot?

[Captain Corea]

One thing I know (from working in the clubs) is that, for the most part, they don't give a shite about the customers. They care about sales! They pour booze down poples throats and when the person has had WAY too much, they give them some more.

Bartenders and servers are supposed to cut people off, but where do you draw the line? If they do "cut a table off" you can be dam sure that they will not be making any tips off that table (or even getting paid for the bill).

I guess my point is, is that it is not in the best interest of the establishment to stop people from drinking. This lawsuit, whether grounded or not, is most likely tying to hold them somewhat accountable.

[Butterfly]

[desultude]

[Gord]

McDonald's coffee used to be served at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 90 degrees celcius. Direct contact with skin will cause third degree burns in about seven seconds.

How many of us really apprecaited that it was that hot? Especially since the rest of the world pretty much served it at 60 degrees celcius (140F) or less. McDonald's now serves at 158F and will cause third degree burns in 60 seconds rather than the prior seven.

[sonofthedarkstranger]

McD's was responsible for the DEGREE to which she was burned, not the mere fact that she spilled coffee on herself. Third degree burns on her thighs and genitalia, requring skin grafts. Wouldn't have happened with a more normally heated cup of coffee.

[Sleepy in Seoul]

Back to the OP, I definitely do not think that bars should be held accountable for what their patrons do outside. You might as well start arresting the bar staff for assault if a drunk patron hits someone. A person who is drinking is able to make a conscious decision to stop drinking or not. If he/she is not able to make that decision, then he/she should not be drinking. If he/she does not make that decision, then that is his/her responsibility alone. Bar staff should not be expected to decide who has arrived in a car and who will be driving away at the end of the evening.

If that drunk informs the bar staff that they will drive after they leave the bar, while in an obviously intoxicated state, then that would be a different story.

Of course, I come from a far less litigious country than the U.S., so my views are very different. In my country, one cannot sue at the drop of a hat (or, indeed, for the drop of a hat). I believe that it helps make one actually take responsibility for one's actions, rather than blaming someone (anyone) else. I have heard (I don't know whether this is true or not - I sincerely hope it is not true) that a person arrested for drink-driving in the U.S. can sue not only the bar and bar-staff who served them the alcohol, but also the brewery and anyone else even tangentially associated with the alcohol at any point, such as the transport company.