Speed bump video (now tort law discussion)

[Andy]

If the temp increase resulted in such a dramatic increase in both severity of burn and the time it took to occur, I would assume that McDonald's is liable to some extent. Increasing profit at the risk of the public health seems like bad policy.

And so you really personally believe that they should have been liable? Even though millions of drinks are served at or above the temp they served theirs at every year? Should every coffee shop in the world lower their temps to avoid extra lawsuits?

The issue I believe is foreknowledge not coffee temps. McDonaldÔÇÖs made a calculated decision to risk consumer safety in order to increase revenue. McDonaldÔÇÖs knew they would be sued but they decided to risk anyways because in the long run, it still benefits them to have cheaper coffee. I donÔÇÖt see the McDonaldÔÇÖs as having been victimized.

I agree with your libertarian ideal of personal responsibility. I just donÔÇÖt think thatÔÇÖs central to the argument. I see McDonaldÔÇÖs lack of corporate responsibility as the primary issue.

Now going off of what AaronÔÇÖs initial post, itÔÇÖs my understanding that the punitive damages had to match the size of the company not the extent of the ladies injuries so itÔÇÖs the structure of the law that awarded such a large amount and not necessarily that the lady was out to rob McDonaldÔÇÖs. Maybe some of the lawyers here can correct me if IÔÇÖm wrong.