I can't read your mind so I don't know your intent behind the choice of wrods was. With the limitations of our current technology I'm afraid I rely on you writing out coherent arguments instead of assuming that I can rearrange the letters in alphabet soup.

Now that you have successfully used written language to explain your thoughts to someone who can't read your mind, I can respond to your ideas.

The issue of criminal culpability vs civil culpability is one of chiefly legal importance and is largely irrelevant in this discussion. Does the concept of being responsible for an act depend on only criminal code and not civil code? That's a false dillema. Both are irrelevant. Assigning blame has been a part of human culture since before the written word, let alone modern American criminal and civil code. I'm only pointing to a civil case because it supports the mainstream view of who is to blame for an accident.

When people discuss amongst themselves if someone is "at fault," most people speak from a moral viewpoint. I assume some lawyers like to talk about legal issues in that space, but I am not.

I am saying that in a just world, Mcdonalds would never have been negligent enough to intentionally keep coffee at temperatures that are dangerous to life. If coffee was stored at safe temperatures, an honest mistake by a frail old lady would not have resulted in third degree burns that melted the skin of her vagina to her thighs and to each other. Therefore I think they are at least partly at fault for this accident because the coffee objectively should never have been served that hot in the first place."

I linked you to a civil case because it supports the mainstream view of who is to blame for an accident. Obviously the old woman is at fault somewhat. A jury found her to be 20% at fault. I disagree with you, however, that McDonalds is also NOT at fault. I concur with the jury's verdict that McDonalds is 80% at fault.

What do you have to support your view that McDonalds is 0% at fault for this accident and the woman is at 100% fault?

As an aside, if you're simply upset that McDonalds doesn't serve their coffee hot enough for you, well... If you want coffee that tastes so bad that it has to be served at 190F in order to disguise the taste of burnt coffee beans, you will have to do better than spending one dollar in the McDonalds drivethrough.