The coffee was super-hot not because "some kid making minimum wage" didn't check the temperature, but because the company had an active policy of keeping coffee at high temps in order to extend its life, thereby saving money. McDonald's also knew full well that it was well above the normal temperature for coffee and that this was causing problems, as it had already received hundreds of complaints about it. The woman simply wanted to have her medical expenses ($20,000) reimbursed, not anything beyond that. McDonald's refused and then she sued.
McDonald's made a business decision to serve a product that it knew was unsafe. And as for personal responsibility, the jury did find the woman 20% responsible and reduced the compensatory damages accordingly. Later the much-publicized $2.7 million punitive award was reduced to about 1/5 of that amount.
Your analogy is not relevant because it points to "somebody" installing the overpressurized canister, after the fact and a one-time event. It would be a more appropriate analogy if the paintball manufacturer had made a business decision to make paintballs consistently come out of its product at a much higher velocity than other similar products. Also, suppose they had previously received hundreds of complaints about that. And then one day you accidentally shoot yourself. From previous experience, you would expect to have pain and bruising, but you would not reasonably expect to have permanent brain damage, nor were you warned about that. You are partially at fault, but the manufacturer was aware of the danger and continued making its product that way regardless. So they share in the responsibility and are liable.
Slashdot Mirror
The coffee was super-hot not because "some kid making minimum wage" didn't check the temperature, but because the company had an active policy of keeping coffee at high temps in order to extend its life, thereby saving money. McDonald's also knew full well that it was well above the normal temperature for coffee and that this was causing problems, as it had already received hundreds of complaints about it. The woman simply wanted to have her medical expenses ($20,000) reimbursed, not anything beyond that. McDonald's refused and then she sued.
McDonald's made a business decision to serve a product that it knew was unsafe. And as for personal responsibility, the jury did find the woman 20% responsible and reduced the compensatory damages accordingly. Later the much-publicized $2.7 million punitive award was reduced to about 1/5 of that amount.
Your analogy is not relevant because it points to "somebody" installing the overpressurized canister, after the fact and a one-time event. It would be a more appropriate analogy if the paintball manufacturer had made a business decision to make paintballs consistently come out of its product at a much higher velocity than other similar products. Also, suppose they had previously received hundreds of complaints about that. And then one day you accidentally shoot yourself. From previous experience, you would expect to have pain and bruising, but you would not reasonably expect to have permanent brain damage, nor were you warned about that. You are partially at fault, but the manufacturer was aware of the danger and continued making its product that way regardless. So they share in the responsibility and are liable.