I do not believe we can be sure that the reasoning used by Cardoza still applies 100% today. This case reminds me of the McDonalds coffee case in which a woman placed a cup of hot McDonald’s coffee between her legs while she added cream and sugar. It spilled and gave her 3rd degree burns. Yes, it’s a complicated case but, in the simplest form of looking at it, some could argue that the cup of coffee was not made to be placed between the legs and the woman was negligent for placing it there. However, the case proved more so that the fault was on McDonalds since the statement on the side of the cup was not warning enough to customers that the coffee could burn their skin if coffee fell on them. Common sense is not so common. Hot coffee is not a warning that it can burn you.
This is the end of the preview.
access the rest of the document.
Palsgraf, McDonalds Coffee case, case. U.S. law, nofault car insurance, LIRR worker