Sure. All of my questions have been about the product and why serving it should have caused legal liability. So ignoring the parts of the article that simply points out that most people don't correctly know details what happened (whether she was driving, dollar amounts she actually got, etc.) and focusing on what the article has to say about the product and why it might carry liability for MCD we get very little from this article, namely:
- MCD served coffee at up to 190 degrees
- they had 700 previous reports of burns
- MCD claimed customers wanted it served hot
Those are the precious few facts we have about the product from the article. I'm aware of other facts of the case not covered in the article (business reasons MCD chose to serve at that temp and such), but it still doesn't connect A to B; why serving coffee extra hot (at a temp you can get at Starbucks if you request it) should mean MCD is liable for burn injuries if you take the lid off and spill it on yourself. Do you get where I'm coming from?
- MCD served coffee at up to 190 degrees
- they had 700 previous reports of burns
- MCD claimed customers wanted it served hot
Those are the precious few facts we have about the product from the article. I'm aware of other facts of the case not covered in the article (business reasons MCD chose to serve at that temp and such), but it still doesn't connect A to B; why serving coffee extra hot (at a temp you can get at Starbucks if you request it) should mean MCD is liable for burn injuries if you take the lid off and spill it on yourself. Do you get where I'm coming from?