@KRyptic I have no problem with the document you're presenting, though biased as it is, it still illustrates perfectly why you are wrong.
Before I go any further I want to address your misguided example of labeling on peanut packages. I understand how people without a nut allergy could be amused by the seemingly obvious labeling. The reason it says "may contain nuts" on peanut packages is that peanuts despite their name ARE NOT nuts. They're legumes - related to beans and peas more than the regular tree nut. A peanut allergy, and a nut allergy are two very different things. Someone who is allergic to nuts can eat peanuts, but if the peanuts are processed along with regular tree nuts it can cause huge problems. That's why its's necessary to label them, and it's also why not all peanut packages are labeled "may contain nuts" Often it's more important to seek out information that to let your brain make assumptions.
Now from the top. No one is arguing whether or not Stella was partly at fault, she was. Both the jury and judge agreed on this and reduced both compensation and punitive damages. No one is saying she didn't know it's hot, she did. However all this is irrelevant. It's not a matter of hot and cold, but HOW hot?
Hot enough to cause significant damage in a matter of seconds? Yes.
Hot enough to be a dangerous product? Yes.
Now whatever temperature experts say you're supposed to serve coffee at is also irrelevant it was admittedly unscientific and a matter of opinion over taste. I'll let experts argue over taste all they like it has nothing to do with safety - An expert race car driver might say that to fully enjoy a Ferrari you have to hit a 100 km/h in 3,2 seconds and drive it at 250 km/h however that doesn't mean you are allowed to do it on a public road, and it's a flawed comparison anyhow because whatever temperature they do recommend I'll bet you they don't recommend serving it in a Styrofoam cup which structurally speaking isn't as robust as a standard ceramic coffee cup - and no, I'm not claiming it has relevance to this specific case just pointing out that you're not using all factors when making comparisons.
Now you go on to some anecdotal nonsense about what you personally do, and repeat that the jury found her partly at fault - I don't know why it's relevant what you do since you're not the topic of this conversation neither why you feel the need to repeat information - perhaps to emphasize that the jury was sympathetic, however there's no such thing as thing as an unbiased jury - emotions will always play their part when people judge people. This can be a good thing as easily as a bad one.
Now you quote the settlement part, which is the part where the bias seeps through. I don't know why though - Is it relevant? We can only speculate on the reasons, you yourself seem to agree on this so why is it important?
I'm going to quote you here because you start the next section with: "That's exactly the reason why a jury system can come to some results that has to have a mentally averagely sane person just shaking their head." However you provide no reason. What does the word "That" represent in the context of your argument? You follow it up with "Press enough correct buttons and have the juries crying in their seats and a frivolous case such as this actually get's past the first five sentences." If this line of text is what the "That" represents then you've seemingly forgotten that a jury is consisting of normal people who unanimously agreed that there was a problem. Sympathetic or not, six men and six women sat down for four hours and decided that spilling a cup of coffee should not result in 2 years of medical treatment. Which is a reasonable conclusion.
Now for the last part about Italy. I'm a Dane who has visited Italy twice. The first time seeing Rome and the second skiing in northern Italy by Gressan and however romanticized your idea of Italy is I can tell you from personal experience that you're dead wrong on this point. Not only is the coffee often served at a lower temperature than the rest of Europe it's customary to always serve coffee at a temperature so that you can drink it in one smooth mouthful - the only thing you're right about is that they do know their coffee. I'll provide an article with some information from the Istituto Italiano Espresso Nazionale if you'd like to verify beyond my anecdotal experience: http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-wine/drinks/9819624/How-hot-should-coffee-be-served
To summarize: While jury's are susceptible to emotional appeals I think you more than they have judged based on emotion. I understand how it can be easier to say "look at the idiots labeling peanut packages" or "That women was just stupid, I'm much smarter" but in the end it's all about the coffee. Which was unfit to drink when served due to temperature. So hot that it could cause severe burns in a matter of seconds and served in Styrofoam cups which where flawed, susceptible to damage and dangerous. The jury decided that based on these facts the product had breached it's implied warranty of fitness for its intended purpose and therefore found for the plaintiff.
0
@KRyptic I have no problem with the document you're presenting, though biased as it is, it still illustrates perfectly why you are wrong.
Before I go any further I want to address your misguided example of labeling on peanut packages. I understand how people without a nut allergy could be amused by the seemingly obvious labeling. The reason it says "may contain nuts" on peanut packages is that peanuts despite their name ARE NOT nuts. They're legumes - related to beans and peas more than the regular tree nut. A peanut allergy, and a nut allergy are two very different things. Someone who is allergic to nuts can eat peanuts, but if the peanuts are processed along with regular tree nuts it can cause huge problems. That's why its's necessary to label them, and it's also why not all peanut packages are labeled "may contain nuts" Often it's more important to seek out information that to let your brain make assumptions.
Now from the top. No one is arguing whether or not Stella was partly at fault, she was. Both the jury and judge agreed on this and reduced both compensation and punitive damages. No one is saying she didn't know it's hot, she did. However all this is irrelevant. It's not a matter of hot and cold, but HOW hot?
Hot enough to cause significant damage in a matter of seconds? Yes.
Hot enough to be a dangerous product? Yes.
Now whatever temperature experts say you're supposed to serve coffee at is also irrelevant it was admittedly unscientific and a matter of opinion over taste. I'll let experts argue over taste all they like it has nothing to do with safety - An expert race car driver might say that to fully enjoy a Ferrari you have to hit a 100 km/h in 3,2 seconds and drive it at 250 km/h however that doesn't mean you are allowed to do it on a public road, and it's a flawed comparison anyhow because whatever temperature they do recommend I'll bet you they don't recommend serving it in a Styrofoam cup which structurally speaking isn't as robust as a standard ceramic coffee cup - and no, I'm not claiming it has relevance to this specific case just pointing out that you're not using all factors when making comparisons.
Now you go on to some anecdotal nonsense about what you personally do, and repeat that the jury found her partly at fault - I don't know why it's relevant what you do since you're not the topic of this conversation neither why you feel the need to repeat information - perhaps to emphasize that the jury was sympathetic, however there's no such thing as thing as an unbiased jury - emotions will always play their part when people judge people. This can be a good thing as easily as a bad one.
Now you quote the settlement part, which is the part where the bias seeps through. I don't know why though - Is it relevant? We can only speculate on the reasons, you yourself seem to agree on this so why is it important?
I'm going to quote you here because you start the next section with: "That's exactly the reason why a jury system can come to some results that has to have a mentally averagely sane person just shaking their head." However you provide no reason. What does the word "That" represent in the context of your argument? You follow it up with "Press enough correct buttons and have the juries crying in their seats and a frivolous case such as this actually get's past the first five sentences." If this line of text is what the "That" represents then you've seemingly forgotten that a jury is consisting of normal people who unanimously agreed that there was a problem. Sympathetic or not, six men and six women sat down for four hours and decided that spilling a cup of coffee should not result in 2 years of medical treatment. Which is a reasonable conclusion.
Now for the last part about Italy. I'm a Dane who has visited Italy twice. The first time seeing Rome and the second skiing in northern Italy by Gressan and however romanticized your idea of Italy is I can tell you from personal experience that you're dead wrong on this point. Not only is the coffee often served at a lower temperature than the rest of Europe it's customary to always serve coffee at a temperature so that you can drink it in one smooth mouthful - the only thing you're right about is that they do know their coffee. I'll provide an article with some information from the Istituto Italiano Espresso Nazionale if you'd like to verify beyond my anecdotal experience: http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-wine/drinks/9819624/How-hot-should-coffee-be-served
To summarize: While jury's are susceptible to emotional appeals I think you more than they have judged based on emotion. I understand how it can be easier to say "look at the idiots labeling peanut packages" or "That women was just stupid, I'm much smarter" but in the end it's all about the coffee. Which was unfit to drink when served due to temperature. So hot that it could cause severe burns in a matter of seconds and served in Styrofoam cups which where flawed, susceptible to damage and dangerous. The jury decided that based on these facts the product had breached it's implied warranty of fitness for its intended purpose and therefore found for the plaintiff.
And Th-th-th-that's all folks!