Repeatedly ignoring documented incidences of serious injury shows a negligent attitude. That's what got them in trouble. They were abel to show that people were suffering serious burns and complaining and instead of taking measures to address the problem mcdonalds ignored them. This led up to some old lady suffering serious burns that needed surgery. She tried to get her medicals bills covered, they refused, it went before a jury, who found that mcdonalds was being negligent since they didn't take any measures to stop a problem they knew about, and refused to take any responsibility when these problems continued to happen, so they fined mcdonalds one day's worth of coffee sales in order to hit them hard enough to pay attention and fix the problem.
That is a logical fallacy. Everything in life has an inherent risk. It is a hot liquid in a cup that said caution:hot on the cup. Everyone burned knew they had a hot cup of coffee in their lap. The reason the case became famous was because the jury awarded her one days coffee sales. This was a few million dollars. They didn't see the irony that million of people every day had a cup of coffee without injuring themselves.
It's not a logical fallacy it's the reality of the situation. The jury saw a problem mcdonalds was refusing to remedy and was causing harm through their negligence.
The reality is the probability of injury. Providing a common product that millions of people on a daily basis use without injury is not negligent. Apply the same logic to kitchen knives. Should we make manufacturers only sell dull knives because people might cut themselves? No offense, You sound like a Personal Injury lawyer.
(post is archived)