You need to look at the specifics of the case. There is hot, and there
is HOT. She reasonably expected hot, but was served HOT.

Had she spilled hot coffee, she would have learned to be more careful,
but she would not have had extensive injuries. She spilled HOT coffee,
which caused extensive injuries.

Ah, reasoning only a lawyer could love. Or concoct.

I've been drinking coffee for over 35 years. To my knowledge, unless
you're buying one of those $4.00 iced mocha latte espresso
abominations from Starbucks, everyone expects coffee to be hot. In
fact it is HOT. The HOTTER, the better.

Coffee drinkers know this from experience. Non-coffee-drinkers often
know this as well, through a quality known as "common sense" --
something the jury clearly did not possess or recognize.

Further, McDonalds had been warned repeatedly (I think there had even
been prior incidents) that their coffee was TOO HOT and chose to serve
it that way anyway, knowing that it could easily cause unexpected
injuries. It could reasonably be argued that this hidden danger was
reckless disregard for human safety.

"Reasonable" is clearly in the eye of the beholder. In this case, the
jurors decided to "stick it to da man" (AKA: The big corporation with
deep pockets) without regard to common sense.

In the absence of any kind of structural failure (as in the cup
bursting open) most people would blame the "operator" -- which, in the
case of the McDonald's coffee spill was the woman. In the case of
the Cessna crash, the "operator" was the pilot -- although I'm sure
the attorneys will do whatever they can to show that the Caravan
failed in some basic way.

Everyone feels bad that the woman spilled hot coffee on her privates.
I've heard that she required reconstructive surgery to her nether
regions -- something that surely no one would want to endure. I feel
sorry for her -- but she spilled the coffee on herself. In this, she
was the "operator" -- and she blew it.

In much the same way, I feel bad for the Caravan pilot who died. I'm
sure he suffered horribly during those last few moment. Sadly, he was
the "operator" -- and he blew it.

The skydivers who died, on the other hand, may have a case against the
operator. They were merely passengers in the plane that (apparently)
the pilot flew into weather neither he nor the aircraft could
handle.

Of course, money isn't going to help them anymore.

The heirs of these passengers, on the other hand, *may* have a case
against the "operator" -- the pilot. In the absence of some sort of
basic structural flaw in the Caravan, however, stretching the case to
punish the maker of the vessel in which they were flying seems rather
ludicrous -- and I hope common sense will prevail in a way that did
NOT occur in the McDonald's case.

Since there are so many stupid (IMHO) judgements, the good judgements
that look stupid on the surface get thrown into the same bin. And (lest
we tar lawyers unfairly for this), it is the job of the lawyer to be
persuasive - and the job of the other lawyer to do the same. The
JUDGEMENT is rendered by.... (wait for it).... a Judge. (Sometimes a jury).

THAT is where the problem is.

I think we can all agree with that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"