From: "¥ UltraMan ¥" 
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair misc.consumers.house misc.legal
Subject: Re: Liben and slander (Re: McDonalds Coffee Myths )
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:50:14 -0600
Cancel-Lock: sha1:34XEMj5uMnpEK5KJZ72j71TloXA=
Bytes: 2934

dpb wrote:
> Deadrat wrote:
>> dpb  wrote in news:f8gf7v$55s$1@aioe.org:
>>
>>> mm wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:11:32 -0500, dpb  wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>  The real problem w/ the case is that the idiot who
>>>>> spilled it wouldn't own up to her own stupidity
>>>> She admitted she spilled it.  It's obvious anyhow.
>>> That's not the same thing as owning up to the stupidity of the
>>> action and living with the consequences of her poor decision...
>>
>> I'm not sure that "owning up to stupidity" has a legal meaning.  She
>> admitted to her part in court.
>>
>>> So, who at MickeyD's spilled it on her?  She ordered coffee, she got
>>> coffee.  She sat it in an inappropriate place and did something
>>> stupid (drove) afterwards.
>>
>> Drinking coffee while driving is a commonplace action, one that
>> McDonald's relies on to sell coffee at their drive-throughs.
>
> But setting it between your legs and driving is simply _S_T_U_P_I_D_.
> Put it in the cupholder.

Hey jackass, why not actually read the facts of the case, or the other
cases McDonalds was found liable for over the same issue?
IIRC

There was no "cup-holder".
She wasn't driving.


>
>>> Still no case anywhere there I can see other than negligence and
>>> (mostly) stupidity on the part of the driver/customer...
>>
>> It's called contributory negligence.  ...
>
> Also known as stupidity (that's the tecnhical term).

Yep, and McDonalds was found to be way more stupid than the plaintiff,
MILLIONS of $$ more stupid to be exact.

I can see why you are so fearful of a tort system that assigns liability to
stupidity.