Who's responsible...??

[hlhlaw07]

I think you are missing my point. The key should have been who was responsible for spilling the coffee in that case, IMHO. The extent of injury shouldn't have been relevant because if there was no spilled coffee, there would have been no injury. Why did it even matter how hot the coffee was? In OP's case, if he didn't stand on the furniture and lose his balance, then he wouldn't have fallen and injured himself. Perhaps I am missing some crucial points here, too, but how should Disney/DVD be responsible for an injury resulting from someone's (ill-advised, may I add?) decision to climb on its furniture?

LAX

That’s not the way tort law works at all. Serving coffee that is so hot someone gets third degree burns and has to have skin grafts after you have been repeatedly put on notice that it is too hot is on you when someone foreseeable spills that coffee on themselves. It is reasonably foreseeable that coffee will be spilled. So as the seller of coffee that is unreasonably hot and will result in more severe burns than a normal hot beverage, you have a duty to warn of the danger. The failure to either make coffee at a reasonable temperature or warn of the unreasonable temperature was the reason they lost. And Ms. Liebeck was not seeking millions. The jury gave her millions in punitive damages as to punish and deter McDonalds from continuing their behavior.

Providing a chair in a hotel room is not the same as providing unreasonably hot coffee. The chair comes with no hidden dangers that Disney needs to warn against.

 

[kniquy]

We were pleasantly surprised that they paid for the cab back and for the ambulance.

Disney did pay for the taxi back to the resort.

It is nice to hear that in these situations disney is still there to try and make sure you return to your vacation and not have to worry about getting back to your resort. Good customer service on their part.

 

[LAX]

That’s not the way tort law works at all. Serving coffee that is so hot someone gets third degree burns and has to have skin grafts after you have been repeatedly put on notice that it is too hot is on you when someone foreseeable spills that coffee on themselves. It is reasonably foreseeable that coffee will be spilled. So as the seller of coffee that is unreasonably hot and will result in more severe burns than a normal hot beverage, you have a duty to warn of the danger. The failure to either make coffee at a reasonable temperature or warn of the unreasonable temperature was the reason they lost. And Ms. Liebeck was not seeking millions. The jury gave her millions in punitive damages as to punish and deter McDonalds from continuing their behavior.

Providing a chair in a hotel room is not the same as providing unreasonably hot coffee. The chair comes with no hidden dangers that Disney needs to warn against.

I am not a lawyer and I am not trying to play one on the internet. That's why one of my earlier posts made a reference to the US legal system. To me (who cares, right? I know), it should be about common sense. If I spill hot liquid on myself (coffee or what have you), I would feel lucky if I don't get hurt too badly because it was my mistake. I honestly don't feel anyone should warn me about not spilling anything hot on myself or risk injury. As far as what's considered reasonable temperature, it's another can of worm that would veer this discussion way off topic.

I never had the intention to chastise the OP for seeking opinions (not sure if he took it that way). I was trying to emphasize how we really should take responsibility for our own actions. If he hadn't made to decision to climb onto the furniture (with whatever well intentions he may had at the time), this unfortunate accident wouldn't have happened. If it were me, I would have counted my blessing for not getting injured worse and chalked it up as a lesson learned (believe me, I have had my shares of boneheaded decisions and lessons learned!).

LAX

 

[sarah4770]

Well the coffee case was different. I remember being 16 years old, sitting in a car in the McDonalds parking lot, and spilling that coffee on myself. It was so hot that I screamed and had to pull my jeans off. I got burns from it. I can still remember just how painful that was. I have spilled coffee on myself plenty of times since then, but was not burned.
But i understand your point about personal responsibility.

 

[bashuck]

Well the coffee case was different. I remember being 16 years old, sitting in a car in the McDonalds parking lot, and spilling that coffee on myself. It was so hot that I screamed and had to pull my jeans off. I got burns from it. I can still remember just how painful that was. I have spilled coffee on myself plenty of times since then, but was not burned.
But i understand your point about personal responsibility.

The fact they served the coffee so hot never made sense anyway. If is too hot for my hands or legs, I sure don't want to drink it.

 

[mab2012]

Was the toaster faulty?

If the burnt toast was due to a faulty toaster, then you could maybe, at a stretch, argue that the burnt toast could foreseeably lead to someone attempting to disable the smoke alarm, thus resulting in the injury.

Not saying that I think the OP should be pursuing compensation. I wouldn't, in that circumstance, even if the toaster was faulty. But I'm befuddled as to how people seem to think it's entirely reasonable to somehow hold a hotel operator (be it Disney or Mandalay Bay) legally responsible for ensuring that a crazy person with a gun doesn't start shooting people on their property, and yet jump all over the OP for even questioning whether Disney holds some responsibility in this scenario. Granted, perhaps it's not the same individuals holding both opinions simultaneously. It is the same legal system though, and its evolution and application is surely the responsibility of all American citizens.