The tort law debate rolls on

The debate over my Feb. 17 column just keeps rolling in.

Close your eyes and picture boiling water being poured on your privates.

I am guessing it is a very unpleasant picture, and not one normally associated with the pleasant, warm feelings and pictures associated with hot coffee.

Yes, one does expect their coffee to be hot, maybe even a little too hot, like the shower when you first hop in, or a casserole taken out of the oven. Adjustments can be made, and we can wait for things to cool.

However, the tired argument of hot coffee being the fault of the receiver rather than the dispenser is an ignorant one. If you have ever seen boiling liquid completely annihilate Styrofoam, or had boiling water come in direct contact with your flesh, you wouldn’t be saying how stupid it is. One expects HOT COFFEE, not private-melting, flesh-withering, boiling or near boiling coffee. Huge difference. Just like the difference in having a hot liquid thrown at your face and a boiling liquid thrown at your face — one hurts, the other causes real damage, maybe even blindness. The intent behind the two is very different.

It’s just not that hard to figure out, unless your life experiences have been very limited. — K.L., Las Vegas

Let’s examine “ignorant” together. Stay with your argument, now ...

Should the FDA set measurable legal standards re: liquid temperature for all “public” dispensaries of traditionally hot beverages? Did you know that liquids as relatively cool as 149 degrees have been proven to cause third degree burns?

Water boils at 212 degrees. The coffee at McDonald’s at that time was served between 180 and 190 degrees. Surely you’re not saying that coffee was boiling?

I have had boiling water on my flesh. Because I spilled it on myself. Hurts like hell.

If I burned myself savagely as a consequence of thinking it was a good idea to cradle a hot beverage between my knees ... you’re right: I would not be saying how stupid it is. What I would be saying is “I feel so stupid.” That’s the feeling I always get when I am unthinking, oblivious, impatiently careless or otherwise disrespecting of obvious dangers to myself or others. My parents raised me to respect that feeling, to learn from that feeling, and to take radical responsibility for the actions engendering the need for that feeling.

I value that teaching.

If I toted my Wusthof paring knife in my front jeans pocket and ended my hopes to father another child while bending down, would you support me going to court and saying, “Yes, I know knives are supposed to be sharp, but those Wusthof knives are irresponsibly, recklessly sharp. Punish them, compensate me, and oblige them to mill their knives at a greater angle.”

Would that not be an identical argument?

Even the maker of the film “Hot Coffee” includes the ironic observation: “The car did not have a cup holder.” (So Mrs. Liebeck had no choice but to use her knees?) Are you saying that, in the end, restaurants must anticipate any and every imprudent way a human being might navigate and tote the coffee purchased therein? Because, if you are, I would say that you have buttressed the point of my original column.

You are basing your argument on whether I can imagine (I assume you mean, have empathy for) the poor woman’s ghastly injuries. I can. I do. I’m one of the most empathic people I know. Ask around. I’m ridiculously sentimental and empathic. But empathy is no excuse to stop thinking! Empathy has nothing to do with this argument, unless you’re saying that tort is defined, ipso facto, by the extent of one’s injuries. I hope you aren’t saying that. Really surprising, unpleasant and unpredictable things can happen when we humans are imprudent, oblivious, etc. Up to and including death. But how does this banality argue tort?

What we’re disagreeing about, in the end, is whether you believe that an individual’s imprudence might at least mitigate in some part their claim. If I understand you correctly, your answer is no. Not if the injuries are severe enough.

You mention the difference in intent between hot liquid and boiling liquid. You lose me, here. If an employee throws liquid in my face at any temperature, I’m not only going to sue, I’ll charge the employee with assault.

My printer ink cartridge comes in a wrapper warning me not to eat the ink! Tort culture? I rest my case.

“Ignorant” means “absent knowledge.” Did you mean ignorant? Or did you mean our respective critical thinking leads us to different value judgments?

Thanks for joining this important discussion. I’m appreciating it.

Steven Kalas is a behavioral health consultant and counselor at Las Vegas Psychiatry and the author of “Human Matters: Wise and Witty Counsel on Relationships, Parenting, Grief and Doing the Right Thing” (Stephens Press). His columns appear on Sundays. Contact him at 227-4165 or skalas@reviewjournal.com.