Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

Jose wrote:
This brings up an interesting hypothesis.[...]
There are several ways this scenario can be parsed.

Since the temperature of the coffee will affect only the receiver and
not the supplier...

Actually, that is not true. The temperature of the beverage (I did not
assume it was coffee) could be at the supplier's convenience.

Is it not the receiver's DECISION to either accept or prove the actual
temperature of the coffee before COMMITTING to an act (drinking)

For drinking, yes. For carrying the drink out to the car, maybe not.
You might lift the cup over the heads of your children to get it from
the counter to the table. You could be bumped when this happens, and it
could spill. If you had ordered warm milk, gotten it in an insulated
container, got bumped, and from the screams found that it was actually
boiling hot milk, is it your fault for not making everyone wait at the
counter while you opened the lid and stuck your dirty finger (or a clean
thermometer) into the drink?

The other side of this equation postulates that the receiver has the
responsibility to ASSUME NOTHING

Nothing? Really nothing? That it's not industrial strength acid? Had
the supplier given me =that= in lieu of orange juice, I think I would
have a case.

The REAL rub is in how we as people choose to live out our lives;
seeking protection from things that can hurt us or taking the
necessary steps to do all we can to insure we don't get hurt.

No, the real rub is how we as a people choose to =think=... whether to
actually consider the facts of an unpleasant and perhaps complex case,
or trumpet the easy thing to ridicule while scoring brownie points on
Usenet.

This is a little different scenario than the coffee cup. There is no
way to "test" the cartridge before pulling the trigger, therefore no
lapse in personal responsibility.

Granted. Well, almost granted... one could subject a representative
sample of cartridges to an analysis, but that would be inconvenient.
When sitting in a take-out car lane, it is also inconvenient (though
somewhat less so) to put the bag of burgers in the back while carefully
balancing the drink in order to open it and ascertain the degree to
which it might (or might not) be unexpectedly hot before taking what
would be a reasonable risk at the expected temperature. It's a matter
of degree. You preflight an aircraft, and I bet you do a more thorough
preflight if you are going to do aerobatics. Do you preflight a car? A
shopping cart?

It should also be noted that one of the purposes of the tort system is
to act as a brake against corporations taking unfair advantage of their
size by making our lives more risky to the benefit of their bottom
line. To that end, it is quite reasonable to take the corporation's
attitude into account when deciding on a verdict.

Jose
As always, there is validity in individual aspects of opposing argument.
I prefer to call this situation "Intelligent use of Usenet"
Best as always.

--
Dudley Henriques