Vox Humana wrote:

> > While there may be some misunderstanding on the part of some people who
> think
> > she was driving or the car was moving at a time, I think the more
> important
> > point is that she was careless in putting a cup of hot coffee between her
> > legs.
>
> If the coffee was served at a normal 140F temperature, she wouldn't have
> received 3rd degree burns.

Where did we get this normal 140F for coffee? Coffee comes out of my cheap
little Cusinart coffee maker at about 176F and the little burner plate keeps it
close to that.

> McDonalds knew that 750 other people had been
> burned. They also were advised to reduce the temperature of the coffee.
> They also knew that most people were drinking the coffee in their cars.
> They also knew that the lid would have to be removed to add the cream.
> Where does one put a cup of coffee when they have to remove the lid while in
> a car?

I can think of lots of places to put it on a car, the cup holders that come
standard in most cars, or which can be bought, the dash, the dash, on the seat,
just about anywhere but between the legs. Even if she didn't get scalded he
clothing would have been wet and stained.


> If you knew that you burned hundreds of people with your product,
> yet you decided to ignore warnings because you could squeeze out a few more
> dollars by jacking up the heat to near the boiling point, then don't you
> also share responsibility? I'm just turning the situation around. You say
> that the woman shouldn't have put the cup between her legs. I say that
> McDonalds shouldn't have served boiling hot coffee to people in cars,
> particularly when they knew the top had to be removed to add the cream.

Boiling hot? They were serving it about 30 degrees under boiling.


> Had
> the woman immediately sued McDonalds, then I would think that she was an
> opportunist. (Although I can't imaging putting our genitals in near boiling
> coffee in hopes of collecting some money.)

I can't imagine doing that even without a financial incentive.

>