FIRST we import McDonald's Fast Foods from the U.S.A. and now we are attempting to import their litigation culture.

Having seen on television the terrible scalds inflicted by the hot drink that McDonald's had sold, I greatly sympathise with any victims, be they adult or children.

However, a hot drink was requested and served with a warning on the container to be careful. If this was only at a tepid temperature, the customer would have be entitled to complain.

As the victim was shown to be scalded over his/her shoulder and back, it is apparent that this was caused by the adult who was carrying the drink. It beggars belief that this person is now trying to negate their clumsiness, and to salve their conscience, by blaming McDonalds.

In the U.S.A. some time ago, a stupid woman who purchased a hot drink then got into her car and placed the drink between her thighs. The outcome was that she badly scalded herself and then took the seller to court, blaming them for her injuries. To everyone's surprise, except the American public, she was awarded damages despite her own stupidity and negligence.

It would seem that this litigant has similar ideas. I trust that our courts know how to apportion blame, and send this vexatious litigant away with the advice that "hot drinks DO scald" and that they should therefore be careful.

A. P. TOBIAS