Saw this on Fark:

Dead tourist

Guy walks away from a vehicle containing water and survival supplies. In a desert.

One does not want to say this person deserved to die, but he was, well, an idiot.

Many years ago, in a weekly newspaper called The Sunday Post, there was a regular column by a reporter known as The Hon Man. (Nobody ever figured out where he got the name, as far as I know.) One year, he went around the world interviewing ex-pat Scots. He wrote an article about his experience in Australia - again, driving to Alice Springs, but I believe he was westbound, not eastbound. About half-way there, he passed an 18-wheeler; a few hours later, his rental car engine overheated and died. Figuring there was no point in walking to Alice Springs (which was still several hours by car) and no point in walking back (as he'd been driving for several hours) he struck out cross country. After about 45 minutes, he heard voices, walked toward them, and hailed them, quite unaware that he was doing anything out of the ordinary. The ranchers, who were probably the only other human beings within 60 miles, read him the riot act and gave him some no-nonsense lectures about traveling in the desert.

The problem, I think, is that to most people from Britain, or Europe, the concept of being able to walk for an hour in any direction without encountering civilisation is more or less inconceivable. They've grown up thinking that being 5 miles from the nearest town is the back of beyond. I agree with the police sergeant who is calling for hire car agencies to provide mandatory instructions to foreign tourists in the event of breakdowns. It's too simple to chalk this up to one exceptionally stupid person; agencies whose stock-in-trade is dealing with foreign tourists have (IMO) a responsibility to understand cultural differences and how those could end up endangering their customers.

Yes, it may seem obvious to us that, if you're travelling to a foreign country, you should familiarize yourself with the local hazards, but that's not always as easy as it sounds, and in any event, the vast majority of people don't spend a great deal of time thinking about "worst case scenarios and how to handle them", as we've seen.

To take one example, a co-worker and I attended a security training conference in Baltimore some years back. There was an overhead pedestrian walkway from the rear of our hotel to the conference centre. The evening session finished rather late (it was dark, anyway) and we walked back to the hotel via the walkway. About halfway, we started feeling very uneasy - at the time, Baltimore had (I think) a fairly high crime rate, and here were we, a couple of stupid Canadian tourists, merrily walking along an unlighted overhead path with no way off except forward or back. We would have been easy pickings for any muggers who needed a quick score. But being from Canada, and moreover from a part of Canada with a rather low crime rate (at that time, anyway), we didn't think anything of it until we were at the point of "Oh s**t, maybe this wasn't such a good idea". (For those who are interested, we continued on to the hotel without incident; presumably, the reputation for street crime in US cities was exaggerated in our minds. But there's no doubt that the locals avoided unlit, empty pathways at that hour of the night and took the long way around, by the well-lighted, well-travelled main street.)

I was going to make a flip comment about another Darwin Award, but I think Aardwolfe did a much better job of putting my reaction to this sad story into words. The only thing I can add is that none of us will ever know what thought processes ran through this man’s mind before he struck out on his own – to him, his course of action probably seems rational at the time. I hope that everyone who reads this takes away a good lesson about surviving, be it remaining with your vehicle, having enough stuff to keep you alive, the knowledge or training to get you out of a tough spot, etc. I’m sorry this guy had to go this way, it’s a crappy way to die, but if the Australian authorities tighten up the requirements for what tourists have to be told, maybe his death will not have been completely in vain.

Putting more regulations on business owners to tell people not to be stupid. Great, just what the world needs is more government intrusion and nanny rules.

What ever happened to self responsibility? If you are going to be a world traveler, it is your responsibility to find out about the area before you dive in. If you don't, you will pay the consequences. Austrailia is known for being a wild and largely uninhabited island.

I am sorry that his person perished due to his own ignorance. But being ignorant is a crime punishable by consequences. The vehicle rental agency apparently stocked the vehicle with adequate supplies. The user choose not to use them and paid with his life.

Travelers have injured themselves and died since the beginning of time. Travel is inherently danagerous because you are going to areas you are unfamiliar. What may be considered normal knowledge by locals is unknown to the traveler.

I visisted New York City a few years back. Went to dinner in China town and decieded to walk back uptown to my hotel. For a while the sites, hustle and bustle of the city were exciting. At some point I looked up and determined I was in a part of town with no street lights, people lurking around in the shadows and kind of a warehouse rundown area. Flagged a cab and got out of the their pronto. Got lucky that no one bothered the tourist. Live and learn.

ignorance is often fatal. Don't have to be a tourist to prove this. Don't have to be in exceptionally strenous circumstances to prove this either. The ignorance of the todler walking in traffic can be fatal - The toddler is considered juvenille and so others are blamed by the death ensuing the ignorance. The ignorance of the cyclist not wearing his helmet may be fatal. The cyclist is considered adult and so we don't blame others for his death as he attempts to put his head through a telephone pole at > 60 miles an hour. I don't think that it helps to try to make others responsable for the ignorance of an adult. If the information is available and the supplies are available then the reasonably wise adult will take responsability and care for themselves. The less wise will not. If the gov't puts more regulations on what business must or mustn't do to prevent the ignorant from killing themselves it only makes life harder on businesses. It does little or nothing to keep the ignorant alive. Let's presuppose that the Govt requires the rental agent to provide a written list of instructions and a stern speach before the ignorant adult is allowed to drive off in the rental car. Is that ignorant individual who was not wise enough to have researched this information for themselves any more likely to listen to the stern speach or to read the list of instructions. Are they any more likely to take out and read those instructions then they were to pickup one of the water bottles and carry it with them as they walk out into the desert? The flaw is thinking that you can impart wisdom to the unwise. You can instruct, cajole, supply and unwise individual but they will remain unwise and ignorant and those are the fatal characteristics. Meanwhile as you make these annoying behaviors legal mandates you make the lives of everyone else more difficult and annoying. You do actually generate more jobs for bearuocrats and enforcement officers so it may be good for someone.

It's been a while since I've rented a car. But I recall the vendor providing a short instruction sheet. Included on the list was instructions that one should get familiar with the location and nature of the auto's mechanisms (light switches, wipers, etc.) I naturally do this now as part of a routine.

Without knowing the particulars of the rental company's procedure, it's entirely possible that they didn't even offer this basic level instructions. What if the driver did not even know there was water in the car? A short paragraph on what to do in case of a breakdown in the dessert could save lives and is not unreasonable to require car rental companies in the area to include some sort of information in advance of releasing the vehicle.

I find it odd how we can suggest putting a cheat sheet in our PSK with the though, in part, that we may be unconscious and an ignorant stranger may be able to follow some simple instructions to save opur lives. But then resist the notion that governments should regulate a sector of business to do the same. Plus we are quick to judge the poor sole who was too ingnorant to know better to stay with the car. The fact is, we are all ignorant on certain matters. We strive to educate ourselves in ways to equip ourselves to survive, both with equipment and with knowledge. This poor sole obviously did not. Frankly, with the gear restrictions associated with travel these days, I would appreciate a significant survival kit in a rental car along with instructions on how and when the kit should be used, especially in a vast ocean of sand (a.k.a., dessert). In some respects, it's not too different from requiring life boats and related equipment on boats.

Folks,

I just want to point out that this guy may have had some pre-existing medical or mental condition which rendered him incapable of making a rational decision (OK, pundits, don't tell me his condition was stupidity!!!) at a very critical time.

Maybe he had a diabetic incident -- a seizure and was disoriented afterward -- a TIA -- heck, I don't know, I'm not a doc.

Has there ben any follow-up to this case? Autopsy results or something?

I have to believe that "someone" in the past was saved by the supplies found in these rental vehicles. No doubt we will never hear about those stories.
Nothing wrong with a rental agency going through a checklist for this type of rental. Perhaps that is standard procedure and it just did not happen in this case.
Then again, we may not know the whole story.

[POLITICAL SOAP BOX]

There is little doubt that you can save lives by preaching to and supplying individuals with preparations that they might not have had the opportunity or foresight to do themselves. There is no harm in an individual business providing such a service for it's customers and it even may be a competitive advantage for them showing the greater concern for their customers. OTOH, there is great harm to society in general when the government takes over the role of protecting adults from their own lack of wisdom. The government cannot become involved in any but a "least common denominator" manner and this often ends up being either prohibitivly expensive (for the taxpayer or the regulated business or both) or it shows up as prohibitions on certain activities (an imposition on our privacy and a limitation on our liberties). Perhaps worse, by making it something that is under the legal review of the govt you fuel the cycle of litigation in a new arena making lawyers and insurance agents a fortune and picking the pocket of all citizens on three tiers - first as taxpayers to pay for the enforcement and justice aspects of the new regulations, second as customers forced to buy an artificially inflated product that was more expensive in order to meet the imposed regulations, third as participants in activities for which they now have to pay insurance costs. Whether they are required to buy the insurance or to pay inflated costs for lisencing of others who accept the insurance costs. All of this because some very small minority of individuals are not wise enough to take responsibility for themselves and the society accepts the illogic that it is rightly the responsibility of the society to prevent the natural consequences from catching up with the foolish.

Mind you, I don't like the fact that people die unnecessarily due to their own foolishness. I feel compassion for them and I pray that none of my family will have to pay those consequences (most of them are quite unprepared). I simply feel that liberty is bought with responsiblity. You have both or neither but it is impossible to have liberty without responsibility. and it is unjust to force others to take responsibilty for the consequences of you exercising your liberty. I would prefer a society of liberty rather than a society of safety. I would prefer a society where individuals are allowed to suffer the consequences of exercising their freedom the the opportunity of challenging thier boundaries and experiencing great successes.

[b][/POLITICAL SOAP BOX][\b]

Wow! Did my short statement fuel all of that?
I think if I owned a rental company in this type of business, I would, after hearing about this situation, take it upon myself to make sure that any renters understood the risk potential and how to react to it.
I am not advcating that the government get involved in any way.
I just think it would a smart move for anyone in the business.
But it is not impossible that this type of action was taken and just not followed.

Skater,

My post wasn't directly a response to you. There were others in this thread suggesting regulation and I have seen similar threads about gov't responsability vs private responsability in relation to SAR and PLB's on this forum and others. Just something I have been thinking about and brewing a response to for a while.

My apologies to the forum for side-tracking to an off-topic political rant.

No problem with me.
You are certainly closer to the issue than I am; your experiences with people who do not look out for themselves are much greater than mine, you being a paramedic/EMT - Sorry, I don't remember which.
And I agree the last thing we need is more government involvement that makes us pay to protect those people who do not exercise common sense.
A lively discussion for sure, but I personally don't consider your comments to be offensive.

Sometime we should discuss spilling boiling coffee in your lap while in your car and then bringing a law suit against the people who sold you the coffee......and winning.

Just kidding!

Got to agree with minime...

I once worked with a fellow hwo was fond of saying " Stupidity should hurt... it doesn't take too many lessons to realize that you don't touch a hot stove." I couldn't help but agree then, and I can't help but aqree now.

Troy

Evolution in action.
gino

All else being equal, I think killing your customers is bad for business.

>>Sometime we should discuss spilling boiling coffee in your
>>lap while in your car and then bringing a law suit against
>>the people who sold you the coffee......and winning.

Fwiw, that case was not as cut and dried as everyone thinks. As Snopes.com puts it,

"[McDonald's] knew, thanks to a string of similar scaldings it had quietly been paying off, that its coffee was not just hot, but dangerously hot."
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp#coffee

which is a link to

http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaReso...Coffeecase.aspx

"Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.
.....
"During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn."

As Mamabear has indicated, we do not have enough details to assess his individual decision, so I will not comment on his particular case.

[Rant on]

What does scare me is the paternalism running rampant in society today. No one is responsible for the consequences of his own decisions and actions or omissions. It is always the fault of someone else. Thus we conclude the rental car company might be at fault in failing to warn.
Should it have given him a printed list of warnings and recommendations? Then should it have further concluded that anyone actually needing such information would also be so stupid, careless, or incapable of reading and comprehending that it need to emphatically summarize them for him orally (assuming such a person would also listen)? We assume that the vehicle was inextricably stuck in an area where it might reasonably be found or noticed.

I have no doubt that travelers could overlook a 1.3 cubic feet water container, one weeks supply of food, a tent, and possibly other tools and supplies. Furthermore it is also possible one might not look at a map before leaving his well-provisioned vehicle, or even conclude that he could walk several hundred kilometers through a wild/desert region in 100 degree Fahrenheit temperature. But somehow such behavior does not seem very foreseeable or reasonable.

It is the paternalist regulation of business and life that has given us unnecessary and ridiculous warnings. Thus we have owners manuals for cars that are hundreds of pages long inflated with safety recommendations, pictures, and diagrams of every potential hazard. Match boxes are emblazoned "KEEP AWAY FROM CHILDREN," and "CAUTION: CLOSE BOX BEFORE STRIKING." If you buy a Ruger firearm, it comes with a warning engraved on the barrel to read the owners manual before use.

ENOUGH ALREADY. Does anybody really believe that these warnings do any good?

Justice Hand said it best nearly a century ago: The business of life is better carried on through the use of dangerous machinery than not. We cannot make life foolproof. Somebody will always find a way to hurt or kill himself. We need to demand that people behave reasonably or else suffer the consequences. We cannot so dumb-down and restrict life to fit the lowest common denominator without sacrificing many of the things that make life fun and productive.

[Rant off}

John

I agree with most of your points.
I think that the rental car company should have given a list to the customer and they should have shown the supplies (I do not assume that they didn´t). The company should be able to offer explanations. I consider this reasonable service.
But from that point on the person is reponsible for himself. There should be no need for new regulations.


Actually they are good for a laugh and a who-finds-the-dumbest-warning contest. My favorite is "warning sharp blade" on a knife.

Hmmm...gotta go with mamabear2 on this one (whom as usual) made a good observation and raised a valid point.

While we could kick this "Monday Morning Football" all over the place with speculation, the reality in this case (at least to my current knowledge) is that hard and fast facts are few and far inbetween and based uopn the dearth of information <img src="images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> , I find more questions than immediate answers.

Yes, while one has to wonder about leaving the vehicle & resources as he is purported to have done, I suspect that none of us would want to be second guessed / judged based upon such sketchy facts.

FWIW, like many others, my initial gut reaction falls along the line of "Darwin Award candidate", "evolution" "if you're gonna be dumb, then you've gotta be tough". It is very easy to prejudge baed upon incomplete data.

Loss of life is not a laughing matter. About the best that we can hope for is to find the truth and learn from history.

I find it both a sad commmentary and regrettable that our society has come to labeling knives as sharp, and having to label coffee cups with warning that the contents sold will be hot etc. The road to hell is alleged to be paved with many great intentions.

Not a rant, just my before morning cup of coffee musing...

Regards,
Comanche7

Yow! Some very harsh and discompassionate responses from those familiar with the challenges of survival. I hope your own karma is in order...

Maybe he didn't know that there is 80 litre of water in the Toyota.

I know how desolate the outback roads are in Australia, a week not seeing a vehicle is not uncommon.

I agree about having the rental company giving a brochure and verbal instructions of what to do when the vehicle breaks down.

LOL!
I like the one on my prescription of sleeping pills: "Warning, may cause drowsiness."

Like I said, let's discuss it.
There are at least two sides to every story. The details which you point out, like all the footage of the Rodney King fiasco, have not been viewed by everyone.
In the short description, it sounded foolish, with the additional information, there seems to be reason for questions.
Thanks for the input.

I have to say that if most people from this group, "ETS", ran a business like that, each of us would take it upon ourselves to make sure the renters of our vehicles were familiar with what we supplied for survival, as well as having them file a trip (flight) plan. It would allow us to feel we "prepared" as best we could, since part of the preparation was under our control. At least that is my assumption as legitimate business owners with a concern for survival. But perhaps not.

How many EMTs, Paramedics, Fire Fighters, Law Enforcement Officers, etc, have been involved in a situation that turned out to be the worst case scenario, not for lack of trying, and felt justified in saying "I did the best I could." I hope the business owner in this situation can say the same. I know, they are different scenarios, but the idea is "did we do the best we could".

If nothing else, we have learned from this tragedy.

Or the multiple variations on "other side up" printed on the bottom or "this side down" printed in the same location. If these warnings are truely critical someone will be injured before having the opportunity to read them.

As an Australian, I can honestly say putting brochures in the car or even some sort of survival kit would makes us more culpable to a lawsuit than not having them.
The brochure itself would be a major drama as we would have to cover many languages and make it absolutley idiot proof.
The downside is we are learning from American tourists that visit here a lot about civil lawsuits.
If you drown its the beach, town, mayor or lifegaurds fault.
If you drive on the wrong side of the road its our fault cause we don't have the same rules as Americans do etc etc.
I'm not yank bashing just giving a rough example of how crazy things can get.
I believe Britz hire is working on safety gear for all their 4WD campers as German tourists have a nasty habit of dying in various ways! It is quite crazy to see how people carry on in outback Australia. And thats excluding all the crazy East coast Australians that get into difficulty as well.
I'm sure similar things happen in the US as well.
The solution, which is education is one that costs money, money that some business can't or won't spend.
My rant.

RE McD's coffee being "too hot"

OK, The lawyers say the coffee should be at 155 degs. I have a question for you. Do you make coffee at home? Tea? Ever measure the temperature? (I have). It's a heck of a lot closer to the 185 degs of McDs than the 140-150 of "other" places - in fact, with Tea, your putting 212 deg water into the cup, right?

If you've JUST brewed the coffee at home (and it has not cooled on the warming plate) it's darned close to 200 degrees. Use a french press, or a perk pot, it is OVER 200 degs

lol, my favourite is "wear goggles whilst using this hammer"

Bushman

Everything you say makes perfect sense. The question in my mind, lawyers, gypsies, tramps and thieves aside is, could someone in this business do SOMETHING to help prepare for an incident that might help save a life? If I owned the business, I would hope that I would help to prepare in some way.
In the hands of the right lawyer, any preparation no matter how good, could probably be challenged and proven inadequate.

Is it better to be sued for selling cold coffee than it is to be sued for selling boiling coffee with no instructions or training?

"Common sense goes out the window when lawyers enter a room, or it is taken to such an extreme that it is no longer common."

On a bag of airline peanuts:
"may contain trace amounts of peanuts or nuts"

OK!
That gave me my laugh for the day.

THANKS!

Actually, there's a lot more to this lawsuit than what is popularly believed. McDonald's was guilty as sin -- and here's why.
******************************************************
(Reprinted from the Legal News and Views, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers)

McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system.

The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries.

Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light.

According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.

*****************************************************

Written by the not exactly unbiased trial lawyers of Ohio

Like I said, coffee in you home is HOTTER - I can PROVE my point. All _I_ need is a thermometer

Yes, she was burned - burned BADLY. It doesn't mean the coffee was hotter than normal. Hotter than other fast food places - maybe. Sure as heck not hotter than I serve at home

And I forgot a few other little points. 700 people burned? Sounds like a lot, huh? Now figure that they have surved, oh, 15-20 BILLION cups of coffee - you have a .0000046% chance of being burned - or less than a 1 in 21 million chance

Lets face it, she did something dumb, with a beverage KNOWN to be hot - she put it between her legs!

Sorry, bud, I stand by my original post.

700 people is a huge number of people to make claims against a company for any one product.

IMHO, the temperature of your home brew is immaterial. The vast majority of other food establishments sold coffee that was 20 degrees cooler than Mickey D's. They were advised to cool it down & they declined. In the end, it was their arrogance that nailed them. The lady ended up getting a much smaller amount anyway, not the millions that everyone thinks.

The whole thing reminds me of the Pinto and the Corvair fiascos.

I'll wager that at home, you're not serving it in a styrofoam cup to someone in a relatively cramped enclosure, with restricted movement. In other words, if you spill it in your lap, you can jump to your feet and pull the material away from your skin; if necessary, you can whip your pants down around your ankles. This is not possible for someone sitting in a car.

Whether the trial lawyers are biased or not is irrelevant. Is the account accurate? If you feel the facts, as stated in the article mamabear quoted, are incorrect, then please state which facts are wrong. If the facts are right, then they're right, and it's irrelevant who points them out.

I can speak somewhat from personal experience. Last summer, I was visiting my brother and made a pot of tea to take out to the patio. I didn't know that the handle on the ceramic teapot had broken some years before, and my brother had fixed it with superglue. This had never caused a problem, as he had never filled it more than half full; this time, however, I made a full pot, with the result that the handle separated, the pot smashed, and splashed boiling hot tea over my right foot. (I was wearing socks but no shoes.)

I immediately stripped off the sock, ran inside, and began running cold water over my foot. Even so, I sustained a rather painful first degree burn. Had this happened when I was seated inside a car, even one that was parked (as was the case in the McDonald's lawsuit), I might well have sustained second- or even third-degree burns.

You may feel that it's acceptable for a business to simply accept that a certain percentage of its customers will be injured, hospitalized, or even killed by one of its products, in order to increase its profits. mamabear and I simply pointed out the facts of the case; it's up to each of us individually to decide if McDonald's had a right to endanger its customers, even to a minimal extent, in order to make money.

The ONLY fact I dispute in the account is "excessively hot" - All the rest is details. I've granted that she was badly injured, and that she had the right to sue. I do know, that given all the other facts, if _I_ was on the jury, I would NOT have voted for an award - the 180 deg heat is NOT enough to convince me. Sorry. All the rest is details

Reply transferred to "Around The Campfire".

In the real world - where natural consequences rule - individual responsability for their own actions is all that matters. Do what you will to educate, inform, cajole, protect people. When someone dumps hot coffee on their groin, walks away from the road in the outback, goes out in the winter without a coat etc. The natural consequences follow. The individual with the coffee in their lap will be burned. No amount of lawyering will change that and no amount of corporate liability evasion or responsibility will prevent it. If you do it at home, with the thermos you filled from your home while drinking it in your car, or with the boiling water on your alcohol stove whilst backpacking. The natural consequence of pouring boiling water on your groin will be burns. Coffee is made with boiling water - such is life. BTW, if you are the first customer in line at Duncan Donuts after a fresh pot brews that coffee will be just as hot as McD's. It is only after it sits on the burner for a while going stale that there develops a difference. Coffee made in both establishments is made with boiling 212 degree F water. If you walk away from your car in a desert and carry no water the natural consequence will be dehydration and death. No amount of lawyering after the fact will change that and no amount of "corporate responsibility" will prevent that. Short of removing the liberty to enter the hazardous environment there is no way for society to prevent such events. Only the individual personally involved has that ability.

About the Bloke in the outback, Who failed to educate him? The travel agency? The Aussie Govt? The car rental agency? His parents? His high-school teacher? His kindergarden teacher? What was he supposed to have been taught? Assess your situation before making major decisions? Dont leave the water behind? Hot dry places are hot and dry? If you drive 1/2 hour out you will have to walk 2 days back? Which of these lessons was the lesson that he didn't get taught and whose responsibility was it to teach him?

He was the bloke on the scene. His were the natural (unavoidable) consequences. His was the ultimate "effecitve" responsability. All the rest is lawyering and BS IMNSHO

These things become somewhat clearer when we look at true cases of insanity such as a fellow who believes that he can fly jumping off a building - not to commit suicide but truely convinced that he can fly. People correctly conclude that the man was mad and that tho sad the event lies with him.

I think I know what you said, and I guess I disagree.
What often separates us from the "real world" is our humanity towards each other; that is probably how we most impact the "real world."
If we can help protect some people from their own ignorance, even if incorrectly perceived, with some basic education that might save a life, why not. If they choose not to heed our guidance and still put themselves in mortal danger, at least we can say we made an honest attempt to keep them safe.

To each his own.

simply because you are endowed with a sense of compassion and general good will towards your fellow man does that mean that you must be burdened with the responsibility to compensate for his idiocy and that therefore you are liable for penaties when you fail to intervene in his life to prevent him from harming himself? Certainly if you have a willingness to help someone out and they are interested in your help (and don't consider you a busy-body PITA) then, by all means, help them out. If you fail to help someone out for whatever reason, must you be liable because they were stupid and hurt themselves? If they consider you a busy-body PITA they will ignore, rebuff, or accoste you for the intrusion then forge boldly forward to face the natural inescapable consequences of thier own actions.
[FULL RANT ON]
This will happen regardless of how much you wish you could prevent it unless you actuall physically interfere with their behavior - guard-rails on roof tops, chain-link fence with barbed wire-tops allong the road sides where it might be dangerous to walk off into the wilderness, coffee made with luke warm water slowly steeped for hours at a teped 80 - 110 degrees. etc. If you truely wish to prevent folks from spilling coffee on themselves serve it in containers that can only be accessed through a straw and require that they come into the establishment to drink it and not allow them to take it away and require it to only be served after it has had the opportunity to cool down below 110 degrees F. BTW What are you going to do about those sizzling Fajita plates that the mexican restaurants are serving. They are sizzling grease - Much hotter than 212 Degrees F! How about those korean places with the live hibachi in the middle of the table or the PuPu platters with the alcohol flame in the middle! Oh! My! GOD! Think of the Children for Gawds sake!
[FULL RANT OFF]

That felt good!

I rest my case.
No ranting necessary.