Melted genitals is seriously my go-to response when people bring up this suit.
Unfortunately that can get seriously annoying when it is directed at people who know that part already.
For example when I mention that I do not think very highly of punitive damages as a concept, there is always at least one asshole who says that i can’t possibly mean it because MELTED GENITALS !!!1!! - as if I had not considered that detail in the first dozen discussions of the case.
You’ve seen those six words form a different sentence, though?
“Please saw my legs off.”
–George Carlin
It’s only “punitive” because McDonald’s refused a reasonable settlement.
I don’t mean “punitive” as a value judgment but in the technical sense.
And for the record, I don’t blame her for making the best of a flawed system.
For the record she wasn’t seeking punitive damages, but reimbursement for medical bills (for those melted genitals and the two years of medical treatment to deal with them). McDonald’s refused to reimburse for the injury they were partly responsible for. Due to the mix of prior McDonald’s having multiple cases of severe burns, the fact that they had full knowledge that they were injuring customers, and their refusal to settle, the jury hit them with a punitive fine.
Since corporations are granted personhood, punitive damages are one of the few ways to deal with irresponsibility that harms the public. The justice system can’t imprison corporations, and there’s no death penalty option even when a corporate person behaves in ways that knowingly let people die for a bit of profit. In this case McDonalds was aware they were causing serious injuries, and the fine got them to pay attention and stop injuring customers. So long as tort reform doesn’t take away the capacity for society to hold businesses accountable for the harm they can cause, the system’s flaws are sometimes a concern, but really minor compared to places afflicted with tort reform violating people’s 7th amendment rights and enabling corporations to get away with egregious public harm with impunity - the things that have happened in TX since tort reform passed are dystopian hellscape material.
Ah, “tort reform.” Another phrase that signals bad intentions. Right up there with “SJW” and “liberal”.
Of course I know that.
I just mean that I don’t see anything wrong with her conduct at any stage of this.
ETA: To me it seems that like so many things in American politics the position in favor of punitive damages is informed by a deep distrust of the state. Conversely, coming from a different background I am uncomfortable with leaving the defense of public interest in private hands. So of course I am perfectly fine with her getting everything she asked for (or possibly more, if she had asked for it.) The difference is that in my ideal world she would not get any more than if her neighbor had caused her the same injuries. Because I agree that it is in the public interest to discourage businesses from scalding their customers, the state should then come down on McDonald’s like a ton of bricks and fine them, possibly far in excess of the highest figures even considered in this case. I realize that that isn’t necessarily realistic under the current system and that many in America probably find it perverse that I would rather see that money end up in the treasury than with a victim.
I’m reading all these comments, wondering how could anyone be brewing or serving coffee at greater than 100 degrees. These people are brewing coffee at 200 degrees? Did their machines use special pressurized chambers that kept the water from boiling? If you put coffee at 150 degrees into any paper cup, it will just explode wouldn’t it?
Then I remembered that Americans are still using F when the rest of the world has moved to C.
first thought: snobs actually use superheated water at about 15 bar pressure? wow, this _is_ impressive!
second thought: ah, Fahrenheit. not Celsius. never mind.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.