... to this question, Pete:

>> At what temperature does hot coffee cause 3rd degree burns?

But don't need to know that to know what I think should be done about this case. No matter how hot it is (up to 212 degrees), it is easy to avoid being injured by coffee. Use it in the manner in which it was intended to be used, don't put the cup between your legs and -- good grief -- don't spill it on yourself. And then you won't even have ...

>> ... relatively short exposure ...

... and no chance of getting burned.

>> Would you at least be open to actually hearing the evidence
>> before passing judgment?

What we are discussing here is not, IMO, an evidentirary question. I'm willing to concede that boiling water (or coffee at temperatures less than 212 degrees) will cause serious burns if someone is dumb enough to spill it in his or her lap. My point is that it ought to be a matter of law that recovery is barred when someone does something that stupid.

>> This system has largely been replaced (due to the inherent injustice) with
>> what is called Comparative Negligence. Under a Comparative Negligence
>> system ... it holds both parties accountable for their actions.

If only it worked that way in the real world. Perhaps I was too cynical in embracing traditional contributory negligence, as I accept that comparative negligence has the potential for providing a more fair basis upon which to determine compensation. Unfortunately, it has been my experience (and occasionally to my advantage) that finders of fact simply don't or won't apply comparative negligence to a sympathetic plaintiff. Especially if there is a corporate defendant (or if they even suspect that there is insurance involved, which they pretty much seem to assume).

Maybe things are different in New York, but the Bay Area of California deserves its "liberal" reputation -- and that extends to the point of people never wanting to hold anyone responsible for their own actions.

----- jim o\-S