The question you have to ask yourself, though is why are you outraged at all? It is merely a squandering of your own emotional energy. And as it turns out, there isn't much to be outraged about, as it really boils down to (pardon the pun) a war between two competing economic factions, neither of which has your best interests at heart. But both want to use you, and your outrage.
I had to take Mark to the fire house the other day when he spilled a pan of bacon grease on his hand. (By the way, the best way to make bacon is in the oven. Put the strips on parchment paper on a baking sheet (the kind with a 1" edge around it) and bake it. No mess, no splatter, and perfect bacon every time, thank you Cook's Country. Now, if you'll just stop using negative option subscriptions and drop the frivolous suit against your founder, I might actually re-subscribe to your magazine!)
Funny thing, the bacon package came with no warning about this. Maybe we should sue them, too?
It is a relevant question as to where personal responsibility begins and ends, with regard to everyday hazardous items that we handle on a regular basis. Running with scissors is dangerous. Should they all be blunted for safety? On the other hand, dishwasher makers have changed their designs after many children were impaled by knives sticking up out of the cutlery tray. It is never a cut-and-dried issue (sorry, pun again).
The "We hate McDonald's" side (and personal injury attorneys I've talked to) believe that the fact that McDonald's coffee is hotter than other sampled coffees (according to paid expert witnesses) is proof enough that they are at fault. But that is not entirely clear to the rest of us. I mean, after all, shouldn't we know that fast cars can kill you, hot beverages can burn, and that putting your fingers in the lawnmower means no more fingers?
What we have here is a fight between two opposing political and legal views. When I went to George Washington University, it was a "Liberal" law school, as opposed to nearby George Mason, which subscribed to the Chicago School of Law and Economics theories. At GW, they taught us "deep pocket theory" - that any wrong in society should be righted by whoever has the most money in the transaction. It doesn't matter about causation or who was at fault, just sue the guy who has the most bucks, and everyone is made whole. They can afford it, right?
The other side of the argument is that the litigation profession has gone too far. We have specious lawsuits being brought every day, and the cost of litigating these is driving up the cost of doing business, which leads to higher prices for consumers. It is akin to the abuses in the Patent system ("patent trolls"), or these "drive-by" ADA lawsuits where people harass the 7-11 owner about the angle of his handicap ramps.
When cars got smaller, the problem got worse. The Pinto suffered from this problem because, in addition, they started using 5 mph bumpers, which required huge bolts to attach, and Detroit was fond, at the time, of pointed bolts, as they were easy to install with an airgun on the assembly line. Sadly, no on figured out these bolts would act as detonator pins and puncture and ignite the fuel tank in a rear-end collision.
And the poor lady who burned her cooch? Sad story. A series of skin grafts and a painful recovery. She really didn't "win" anything out of the deal, regardless of who was at fault.
Am I outraged? At who? For what? I've learned long ago that horribly bad things can happen to very nice people - like my friend burned in the VW collision. We just have to thank God that horrible things haven't happened to us, just yet. I've also learned that these things work their way through the courts with or without my sense of outrage. Maybe the personal injury system needed reform, and maybe that reform has occurred or is occurring (not by the billboard count, though). The legal system still seems to favor lawyers the most, as people are slowly realizing. If you are outraged by that, you're not paying attention.
The point is, and I did have one, being "outraged" over these one-sided stories is often just a waste of your personal energy. The McDonald's cup-o-coffee case turned out not to be such an outrage after all. McDonald's spent more on legal fees than they did on the settlement. And the personal-injury attorneys likely didn't make out very well, if in fact they lost money in the deal. Coffee is still served hot, and whether McDonald's was "at fault" is really not very clear even today (unless you are a personal injury attorney, of course!). What was the point of being outraged over it all?
A better approach is to wait-and-see where it goes. Oftentimes, long after things have settled down, we find out the real facts, which often are far different than the "outrage" story posted by the media. And of course, the media loves an outrage story and will post half the facts to get you upset so you keep watching and keep clicking and keep viewing. You've sold yourself to corporate interests by being outraged. They've got you so angry you are seeing red, which means you are seeing nothing at all.
It is akin to the BLM movement. A guy with a sketchy background robs a cigar store. Confronted by the Police, he dives into the police car to wrestle the gun away from the Policeman, in an attempt to murder him. These are the facts as they came out in the end. The "outrage" story of the "unarmed black teen" or whatever, turned out to be entirely false. This is not to say that there are no cases of police abuse, only that this wasn't one of them.
But once you see a "pattern" or think you do, you start to see Jesus' face in a taco everywhere. Suddenly it seems there are a "spate" of police officers shooting or killing "unarmed black teens" for no reason whatsoever. Our brains, programmed in pattern-recognition, start looking for patterns where there are none. Every police shooting is now deemed unjustified, just as every incident on a United airlines flight today is now reported breathlessly. Nothing has really changed, other that we weren't looking for a pattern before, and the media wants to give us something we will click on.
In short, you are being used and you are letting yourself be used, by being "outraged" by the media. I have received several e-mails (some pages long!) trying to explain to me why I am "wrong" on the issue of this United thing, when really I have no opinion at all, other than there is likely another side to the story we are not hearing, and when someone says get off their plane, you kind of have to. Over time, we will hear more about this story, and a decade from now, when the dust settles, you will read about it on Wikipedia and wonder what all the fuss was about.
It is like the Columbine massacre. Other than the actual killings themselves, nearly everything reported by the media at the time was completely wrong - 100% wrong. And this is not an anomaly. The media reports rumor and innuendo all the time - or just half the story to slant things one way or another - whichever way gets you to watch, click, read, or buy. Boring stories don't sell newspapers.
So, stop being outraged. This guy thrown off the plane is suing. United will spend more on lawyers than he will get in the undisclosed settlement. Not much will change in the world. If a flight attendant taps you on the shoulder and says you have to get off the plane, you will still have to get off. That rule isn't going to change and never will change - because if you think about it, it would be unworkable to allow passengers to decide how the plane is to be flown.
And no, a "bill" (which is not a law) introduced by an opportunistic State legislator (who wants to suck up to voters) is not likely to pass, or if passed, not likely to be enforceable, as Interstate Commerce is not the province of local legislators who cannot even come up with a budget for their bankrupt State.
Hmmm..... If I lived in Illinois or Chicago, maybe that would be something to be outraged about?