Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Another mass shooting
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ssj4sadie" data-source="post: 16782124" data-attributes="member: 2456"><p>I never said it wasn’t her responsibility. I was pointing out the reason she won was because of how hot the coffee was, not that she had no responsibility in the matter. It’s a bad comparison. The equivalent would be a gun company manufacturing a barrel with a margin of error that included a range to which a barrel could explode when loaded with hot ammo. Then the manufacture doesn’t inform you of this barrel only being capable of standard ammo 100% of the time. Yes, it is your responsibility to ensure you are loading correct ammo, however it is the manufacture’s responsibility to inform the consumer of design limits. </p><p></p><p>The jury went 80/20 responsibility with McDonalds bearing the brunt. If McDonalds advertised their coffee was served at near boiling temps, I would say it would be 100% her fault. But they didn’t and she couldn’t make an accurate risk analysis. I wouldn’t mind dipping my hand in 140* water real quick. But I sure as shit wouldn’t dip it 190* water. Knowing the potential harm puts the risk mitigation in my hands. The world is not so black and white in regards to responsibility. </p><p></p><p>But that isn’t the case with Glock getting sued. Comparing gun and car manufactures is the better comparison. In those cases responsibility can absolutely be 100% assigned and I think it is almost always the responsibility of the gun/car operator. Like why tf should Tesla be sued because someone used autopilot to nap, crashed, and killed people?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ssj4sadie, post: 16782124, member: 2456"] I never said it wasn’t her responsibility. I was pointing out the reason she won was because of how hot the coffee was, not that she had no responsibility in the matter. It’s a bad comparison. The equivalent would be a gun company manufacturing a barrel with a margin of error that included a range to which a barrel could explode when loaded with hot ammo. Then the manufacture doesn’t inform you of this barrel only being capable of standard ammo 100% of the time. Yes, it is your responsibility to ensure you are loading correct ammo, however it is the manufacture’s responsibility to inform the consumer of design limits. The jury went 80/20 responsibility with McDonalds bearing the brunt. If McDonalds advertised their coffee was served at near boiling temps, I would say it would be 100% her fault. But they didn’t and she couldn’t make an accurate risk analysis. I wouldn’t mind dipping my hand in 140* water real quick. But I sure as shit wouldn’t dip it 190* water. Knowing the potential harm puts the risk mitigation in my hands. The world is not so black and white in regards to responsibility. But that isn’t the case with Glock getting sued. Comparing gun and car manufactures is the better comparison. In those cases responsibility can absolutely be 100% assigned and I think it is almost always the responsibility of the gun/car operator. Like why tf should Tesla be sued because someone used autopilot to nap, crashed, and killed people? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Another mass shooting
Top