for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

Grammar pedants - help please.

95 watchers

larkim Oct 2016 9:28am, 13 Oct 2016 1,104 posts	Quote Pin larkim Why "Caution" rather than "Danger"? There is a "danger" from the very hot water (assuming it is very hot, not just a bit warm). You should use "caution" when using it to avoid the "danger" that it presents. I'd have said either is appropriate as there isn't clarity as to whether its being used as a noun ("a danger") or a sort of adjectival form ("be cautious"). Overall I'd prefer "Warning: very hot water".
macca 53 Oct 2016 9:40am, 13 Oct 2016 24,098 posts	Quote Pin macca 53 Badger has it correct - it's a rudimentary risk matrix but with no control measures. Doesn't this go to the heart of the old McDonald's coffee charges - if enough people complain and you do nothing about it then you are liable for their "injury"
larkim Oct 2016 10:04am, 13 Oct 2016 1,108 posts	Quote Pin larkim But the warning sign is a risk mitigation. It might be unaffordable to reduce the water temps at that output as reducing output temps there might increase legionella risks elsewhere in the system. And fitting temp reducing valves at the output site might be uneconomical. Or the signs could be a temporary mitigation reflecting an interim step before "better" options are made available. So whilst the hazard has not been reduced, the risk of impact of that hazard (for someone who can read English at the very least) has been reduced.
Dvorak Oct 2016 5:24pm, 13 Oct 2016 12,316 posts	Quote Pin Dvorak I saw this and thought of you.
Columba Oct 2016 5:29pm, 13 Oct 2016 11,484 posts	Quote Pin Columba 😀
LindsD Oct 2016 6:05pm, 13 Oct 2016 12,319 posts	Quote Pin LindsD Eek
Badger Oct 2016 10:03pm, 13 Oct 2016 7,743 posts	Quote Pin Badger larkim makes a good point above. Pretty often these signs are defense against lawsuits as much as anything; anyone with common sense would be careful about the temperature, but if you have a warning sign, anybody who 'accidentally' scalds themselves and try to sue don't have a leg to stand on. I once talked to a retired judge (Mr Justice I forget who exactly) who was very scathing about the McDonalds coffee judgement; described the suit as 'frivolous' because fresh coffee was obviously going to be hot, and it became the plaintiff's responsibility to handle it safely as soon as she'd bought it.
LindsD Oct 2016 10:36pm, 13 Oct 2016 12,334 posts	Quote Pin LindsD applauds
Dvorak Oct 2016 11:46pm, 13 Oct 2016 12,319 posts	Quote Pin Dvorak I think that the "McDonalds Coffee Case" is one that is largely misunderstood. "Coffee is hot, hot coffee burns, duh" is how I would sum up general perception of it. Maybe if you read this, you might view the specific case rather differently: lectlaw.com
Badger Oct 2016 12:20am, 14 Oct 2016 7,745 posts	Quote Pin Badger I'm aware of the severity of her injury, and made the point about the temperature at the time; he said that was irrelevant, for the reason above. I am, in this case, not expressing a personal opinion but reporting that of a legal professional.