 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew H. Carter" > wrote in message ... > > > My guess it wasn't quality of the product, rather quantity. > Remember William "The Refridgerator" Perry, IIRC he would > typically have a dozen eggs at a sitting, for lunch maybe 2 > Big Macs. > > With most if not all people it's not what, but how much you > eat. Body builders will tell you, either put out more than > what you take in, or take in less than what you put out if > you want to lose weight. > I doubt that they are claiming they got fat on a single burger. I believe that they are claiming that the advertising which targeted children, was misleading. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vox Humana wrote:
> I doubt that they are claiming they got fat on a single burger. I believe > that they are claiming that the advertising which targeted children, was > misleading. They were somehow led to believe that burgers and fries were diet food? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, Dave Smith
> wrote: > Vox Humana wrote: > > 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. http://pages.prodigy.net/gaglenn/law...fee/truth.html -- Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Smith" > wrote in message ... > 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. > > > Boiling hot? They were serving it about 30 degrees under boiling. > http://pages.prodigy.net/gaglenn/law...fee/truth.html "McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. Further, McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee. Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Smith" > wrote in message ... > Vox Humana wrote: > > > I doubt that they are claiming they got fat on a single burger. I believe > > that they are claiming that the advertising which targeted children, was > > misleading. > > They were somehow led to believe that burgers and fries were diet food? Who said that? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, Dave Smith
> 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. And if you read the link below, you will see that the court found her partially responsible, and the damages were reduced accordingly. http://pages.prodigy.net/gaglenn/law...fee/truth.html -- Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Vox Humana" > ha scritto > > You're referring to the woman who got a cup of coffee from the drivethru > > window and couldn't think of a better place to put it than between her > > thighs? A bump and... Ouch! > > > > I could see suing if a server poured coffee on me, but not after putting > the > > cup where anyone with half a clue would realize is dangerous as hell. > > Yes, but it is obvious that you aren't familiar with the details of the case > as you assume that the car was moving when the coffee was spilled. You're right, it's been a while and I remembered the car as moving. But even in a still car I wouldn't put something dangerously hot (and you can tell, if you have any experience with coffee, how hot it is from the temperature of the outside of the container, no matter what it's made of) between my thighs. There is an element of common sense here, rather like that which keeps you from putting your hand on a hot stove because you feel the heat rising up from it. McD's would likely have been smarter to pay her costs, but I don't see them as being particularly at fault. Kyle (fix the email address to reply) > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Andrew H. Carter" > wrote in message news  > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:28:01 GMT, "Vox Humana" > > scribbled some thoughts: > > >> > > > >Death might be preferable to living in Hamilton! > > > Some areas weren't bad, though it's been a while since I > last was there and like many areas, the concrete jungle is > spreading. > Not to worry. The concrete jungle has avoided Hamilton. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >, Dave Smith > > wrote: > > >>Vox Humana wrote: > > > >>>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. > > > > http://pages.prodigy.net/gaglenn/law...fee/truth.html > I've seen this too, but I believe the plaintiff's lawyer just made up the 140° part -- and McDonald's lawyer was too stupid to challenge it. Best regards, Bob |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dan Abel" > wrote in message ... > In article >, Dave Smith > > wrote: > > > Vox Humana wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > http://pages.prodigy.net/gaglenn/law...fee/truth.html > I'll put on my Alton Brown/geek lab coat, fire up the electronic probe thermometer and see what the old Krups automatic drip unit does. I'll report back. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
>At McDonalds in Australia, they have been introducing nutrition panels on
>product wrappers . Has this happened in the US? Who cares if it has or not? It wouldn't keep idiots from suing it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
>If the coffee was served at a normal 140F temperature
Preserve us from people who serve coffee at 140F. >They also knew that most people were drinking the coffee in their cars. And the rest of us know that people may do whatever reckless thing they want without it being some corporation's fault. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:18:18 GMT, "Vox Humana"
> scribbled some thoughts: > >"Andrew H. Carter" > wrote in message >news >> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:28:01 GMT, "Vox Humana" >> > scribbled some thoughts: >> >> >> >> > >> >Death might be preferable to living in Hamilton! >> >> >> Some areas weren't bad, though it's been a while since I >> last was there and like many areas, the concrete jungle is >> spreading. >> > >Not to worry. The concrete jungle has avoided Hamilton. > Then it's definitely hit Fairfield. -- Sincerely, | NOTE: Best viewed in a fixed pitch font | (©) (©) Andrew H. Carter | ------ooo--(_)--ooo------ d(-_-)b | /// \\\ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:57:49 GMT, "Vox Humana"
> scribbled some thoughts: > >"Andrew H. Carter" > wrote in message .. . > >> >> >> My guess it wasn't quality of the product, rather quantity. >> Remember William "The Refridgerator" Perry, IIRC he would >> typically have a dozen eggs at a sitting, for lunch maybe 2 >> Big Macs. >> >> With most if not all people it's not what, but how much you >> eat. Body builders will tell you, either put out more than >> what you take in, or take in less than what you put out if >> you want to lose weight. >> > >I doubt that they are claiming they got fat on a single burger. I believe >that they are claiming that the advertising which targeted children, was >misleading. > When I was growing up, I don't recall being out alone by myself too much unless it was with friends at the park about a 100 feet awy. -- Sincerely, | NOTE: Best viewed in a fixed pitch font | (©) (©) Andrew H. Carter | ------ooo--(_)--ooo------ d(-_-)b | /// \\\ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:28:27 -0500, Dave Smith
> scribbled some thoughts: >Vox Humana wrote: > >> I doubt that they are claiming they got fat on a single burger. I believe >> that they are claiming that the advertising which targeted children, was >> misleading. > >They were somehow led to believe that burgers and fries were diet food? Diet is what you eat, not to lose weight or gain weight, rather what you eat. My typical diet is pizza, though I also bicycle to work approx. 6 miles one way. -- Sincerely, | NOTE: Best viewed in a fixed pitch font | (©) (©) Andrew H. Carter | ------ooo--(_)--ooo------ d(-_-)b | /// \\\ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dan Abel" > wrote in message ... > In article >, Dave Smith > > 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. > > > And if you read the link below, you will see that the court found her > partially responsible, and the damages were reduced accordingly. > > > http://pages.prodigy.net/gaglenn/law...fee/truth.html > There are few instances where things are black and white. I allow that she didn't do the ideal thing. Ideally, she would have gone into the store and would have drunk the coffee there. There are many things that could have mitigated the situation. Never the less, McDonalds admitted to serving a product that was not fit to consume and despite hundreds of reports of burns, they enforced a standard that served an unfit product. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kyle Phillips" > wrote in message ... > > "Vox Humana" > ha scritto > > > > You're referring to the woman who got a cup of coffee from the drivethru > > > window and couldn't think of a better place to put it than between her > > > thighs? A bump and... Ouch! > > > > > > I could see suing if a server poured coffee on me, but not after putting > > the > > > cup where anyone with half a clue would realize is dangerous as hell. > > > > Yes, but it is obvious that you aren't familiar with the details of the > case > > as you assume that the car was moving when the coffee was spilled. > > You're right, it's been a while and I remembered the car as moving. But even > in a still car I wouldn't put something dangerously hot (and you can tell, > if you have any experience with coffee, how hot it is from the temperature > of the outside of the container, no matter what it's made of) between my > thighs. There is an element of common sense here, rather like that which > keeps you from putting your hand on a hot stove because you feel the heat > rising up from it. > McD's would likely have been smarter to pay her costs, but I don't see them > as being particularly at fault. I think that it would only be common sense if you knew that the coffee was so hot that it would cause 3rd. degree burns in a few seconds. I know that the coffee that I drink at home won't do that because I have spilled it on myself without consequence. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Andrew H. Carter" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:18:18 GMT, "Vox Humana" > > scribbled some thoughts: > > > > > >"Andrew H. Carter" > wrote in message > >news > >> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:28:01 GMT, "Vox Humana" > >> > scribbled some thoughts: > >> > >> >> > >> > > >> >Death might be preferable to living in Hamilton! > >> > >> > >> Some areas weren't bad, though it's been a while since I > >> last was there and like many areas, the concrete jungle is > >> spreading. > >> > > > >Not to worry. The concrete jungle has avoided Hamilton. > > > > > Then it's definitely hit Fairfield. > Definitely. But soap and water, dentists, and other vestiges of civilization are more common in Fairfield. I have to admit though, Hamilton has Sugarcraft. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Andrew H. Carter" > wrote in message news > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:57:49 GMT, "Vox Humana" > > scribbled some thoughts: > > > > > >"Andrew H. Carter" > wrote in message > .. . > > > >> > >> > >> My guess it wasn't quality of the product, rather quantity. > >> Remember William "The Refridgerator" Perry, IIRC he would > >> typically have a dozen eggs at a sitting, for lunch maybe 2 > >> Big Macs. > >> > >> With most if not all people it's not what, but how much you > >> eat. Body builders will tell you, either put out more than > >> what you take in, or take in less than what you put out if > >> you want to lose weight. > >> > > > >I doubt that they are claiming they got fat on a single burger. I believe > >that they are claiming that the advertising which targeted children, was > >misleading. > > > > > When I was growing up, I don't recall being out alone by > myself too much unless it was with friends at the park about > a 100 feet awy. Right. Even if I had a pocket full of money, there wasn't a cheeseburger or fry to be purchased. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dan Abel wrote:
> > > 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. > > http://pages.prodigy.net/gaglenn/law...fee/truth.html > Thanks, but I saw that link (or a similar one) several months ago when this law suit was discussed. I thought that 140 F sounded absurd, so I checked my coffee maker, and it was 176F. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dan Abel 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. > > And if you read the link below, you will see that the court found her > partially responsible, and the damages were reduced accordingly. > Yes, I knew that she was found partially responsible. Since she was the one who used her thighs to hold a cup that she knew contained hot liquid, she was entirely responsible. She ordered hot coffee to go. That's what she got. When you hold a paper cup with hot coffee between your legs you have to expect that you will spill it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Smith" > wrote in message ... > Dan Abel 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. > > > > And if you read the link below, you will see that the court found her > > partially responsible, and the damages were reduced accordingly. > > > > Yes, I knew that she was found partially responsible. Since she was the one who > used her thighs to hold a cup that she knew contained hot liquid, she was entirely > responsible. She ordered hot coffee to go. That's what she got. When you hold a > paper cup with hot coffee between your legs you have to expect that you will spill > it. But it could have spilled inside, at a table, with the same consequences. Does that make it OK to serve dangerously hot coffee? I guess that you are focused on the fact that she did something unconventional, and I am focused on the fact that the coffee was dangerously hot. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Smith" > wrote in message ... > Dan Abel wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > http://pages.prodigy.net/gaglenn/law...fee/truth.html > > > > Thanks, but I saw that link (or a similar one) several months ago when this law > suit was discussed. I thought that 140 F sounded absurd, so I checked my coffee > maker, and it was 176F. > Mine was 165F immediately after the coffee was brewed. When I poured the coffee into a ceramic mug, the temperature dropped to 148. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vox Humana wrote:
> But it could have spilled inside, at a table, with the same consequences. I suppose that it could have spilled inside, but I doubt that she would have received a serious injury in a delicate spot of her body. Holding it between her legs presented the possibility of the contents dumping right into her crotch. Unfortunately, that is what happened. > Does that make it OK to serve dangerously hot coffee? I guess that you are > focused on the fact that she did something unconventional, and I am focused > on the fact that the coffee was dangerously hot. ALL hot coffee is dangerously hot. It's hot. It can scald / burn. People ordering coffee know it's hot. We get our coffee and we test it for heat before we gulp it down. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that coffee is hot. The degree of heat varies. I suppose that she could have done the same thing with a large cola with lots of ice, spill it in her lap and sit there with the ice in her crotch until she got frost bite. Then we would be saying that not only should she not have held it between her legs but that she should have been faster cleaning it up. But alas, that would involve common sense. If there is anyone at fault in this case I would suggest that it was the defense lawyers who failed to dispute the temperature reading at other outlets. I know how hot the coffee is in my coffee maker, and it's about the same as I get at Tim Hortons and other coffee shops. If I was served 140 F coffee in a restaurant I would like to be calling the waitress back for hot coffee. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vox Humana wrote:
> > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > http://pages.prodigy.net/gaglenn/law...fee/truth.html > > > > > > > Thanks, but I saw that link (or a similar one) several months ago when > this law > > suit was discussed. I thought that 140 F sounded absurd, so I checked my > coffee > > maker, and it was 176F. > > > > Mine was 165F immediately after the coffee was brewed. When I poured the > coffee into a ceramic mug, the temperature dropped to 148. Let me get this straight. Your home brewed coffee comes out 17 degrees lower than Dan's and 28 degrees cooler than mine. Then when you poured it into a ceramic cup it immediately dropped another 17 degrees. When I poured it into a ceramic cup it hardly dropped. Let's just say that I find your evidence amazing. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Smith" > wrote in message ... > Vox Humana wrote: > > > But it could have spilled inside, at a table, with the same consequences. > > I suppose that it could have spilled inside, but I doubt that she would have > received a serious injury in a delicate spot of her body. Holding it between > her legs presented the possibility of the contents dumping right into her > crotch. Unfortunately, that is what happened. > > > Does that make it OK to serve dangerously hot coffee? I guess that you are > > focused on the fact that she did something unconventional, and I am focused > > on the fact that the coffee was dangerously hot. > > ALL hot coffee is dangerously hot. It's hot. It can scald / burn. People > ordering coffee know it's hot. We get our coffee and we test it for heat before > we gulp it down. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that coffee is hot. The > degree of heat varies. Hot and dangerously hot are not the same. The plaintiff established that other restaurants served their coffee at lower (safer) temperatures. I think the fact that she sustained such sever burns shows that the coffee was far too hot. Even the whiteness for McDonalds testified that the coffee was unfit to drink as dispensed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vox Humana wrote:
> > Hot and dangerously hot are not the same. No. All hot is dangerous. Hotter things are more dangerous because they burn faster, but you can get burns from lower temperatures with longer exposure. > The plaintiff established that > other restaurants served their coffee at lower (safer) temperatures. I think > the fact that she sustained such sever burns shows that the coffee was far > too hot. And I think that is where McDonalds defense was weak. Do some web searching to see the temperatures recommended for brewing and keeping coffee. You'll see numbers like 200 and 185, not 140. > Even the whiteness for McDonalds testified that the coffee was > unfit to drink as dispensed. I wonder what words actually came out of his mouth to get twisted into that comment. I made a pot of coffee this morning and poured myself a steaming cup of coffee. Do you think I gulped it down? No. Of course not. I let it cool off. I know coffee is hot. I know that it will burn me if I drink it like that. McDonalds sells food to go. What you do with it after that should not be their responsibility. If someone gets a hot hamburger at the take out window, drives off, opens up the package, bites into the hot burger, burns his mouth and loses control of the bar, is that MacDonalds' fault? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:41:08 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
wrote: > >"zxcvbob" > wrote in message ... >> Vox Humana wrote: >> > "jmcquown" > wrote in message >> > .. . >> > >> >> Kyle Phillips wrote: >> >> >> >>> "Vox Humana" > ha scritto >> >>> >> >>> I think it will be an interesting case. >> >>> >> >>>> Hopefully people won't distort the facts like they always do >> >>>> with the McDonald's litigation resulting from burns from >> >>>> insanely hot coffee. >> >>> >> >>> You're referring to the woman who got a cup of coffee from the >> >>> drivethru window and couldn't think of a better place to put it >> >>> than between her thighs? A bump and... Ouch! >> >>> >> >>> Kyle >> >> >> >> IIRC the elderly woman who filed the coffee lawsuit did not go >> >> through the drive-thru. She just spilled coffee in her lap. >> >> >> > >> > Actually, she was a passenger in a car. She ordered coffee with >> > cream. The drive parked the car so she could add the cream. The >> > coffee spilled, causing 3rd degree burns to her genital area. The >> > woman was hospitalized for about two weeks, suffered immense pain, >> > and had to have therapy afterwards. She initially only asked to be >> > reimbursed for her medial bills which amounted to about $20K. Over >> > 750 other people had reported burns to McDonalds. Their own >> > consultants told them to turn down the temperature (from almost >> > boiling) to 140F but they felt they would lose money if they reduced >> > the temperature to a normal 140F which is about what your home coffee >> > maker is set to. >> >> But a home coffee maker is *not* set to 140F. That's about the upper >> end of what a home *water heater* is set to. >> >> >> > It was a calculated risk that had already resulted in hundreds of >> > known burns. McDonalds also claimed that the reason they served he >> > coffee at such a high temperature was because people bought it to >> > drink when they got to a their destination - except that internal >> > documents showed that they knew most people drank it in the car. >> > Therefore, they knew that the coffee was dangerously hot, most people >> > drank it in moving vehicles, and that the lid would have to be >> > removed to put in cream and sugar. >> > >> >> So now they sell tepid coffee. :-P >> >> (I was afraid this would get started again...) > >Sorry. But it illustrated my point. When people want to point to a >"frivolous" case, they point to this one. They always says that some old >biddy got a cup of coffee and then sped down a bumpy street and burned >herself. When you examine the actual details in the case, it looks much >less unreasonable. I simply think that the best place to resolve these >things is in court and that everyone should have access. > BLAME THE ADULT IN CHARGE if the parents had done their job the kids would not have a problem... but seems the parents didnt know either.. maybe some idiot in charge of education will wake up and make nutrition a part of education.. maybe big food doesnt want that/?? maybe today is monday and I lost another weekend!!!!!!!!!!!!! Herm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:38:54 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote: >"Dave Smith" > wrote in message ... >> Ox Humana wrote: >> >>> I'm sure that the plaintiffs will be scrutinized with an electron >>> microscope >>> by a teem of attorneys and private investigators. However, in our >>> system, >>> everyone should have access to the courts. >> >> I agree, but I also think that we should also have protection from >> frivolous law >> suits. >> > >And who is to decide that they are fivolous? It's easy to say what "should" >be but unless you have a suggestion as to how to make it so then your >comments are just so much uninformed whining. In California, the California Court of Appeal can decide when an appeal is frivolous. And you can get your (lawyerly) *ss sanctioned off, as well as your client. "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity." - Nick Diamos |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harlan Harris wrote:
> Although I agree that this lawsuit is pretty frivolous, there is a fairly > serious issue in many cities, which is an utter lack of access to decent > healthy food. And why is that? I am sure that if there was a nutritious food someone would find their niche in the market. The problem is that too many people have been sucked into the concept of cheap, fast food. > McDonalds too, in the hopes of getting a settlement that would allow me > to move somewhere where I could buy a turnip without a 30 minute bus > ride. Is McDonalds liable for obesity in poor urban neighborhoods? No, I > don't think so. But is their food a contributing factor? Yes, > undoubtably. Is it economics? When I was working on the road there were lots of fast food options. I don't like McDonalds food. It may be fast, but it's not cheap. Their fast food competition was no better. There were lots of places where I could sit down and eat a meal, and lots of places where I could have a custom made sandwich and a drink for less than it would cost me to eat at the golden arches. I find it difficult to blame a restaurant for the obesity of their customers when they can make better food at home for less. Perhaps their obesity is just another manifestation of the laziness that drives (literally) them to fast food restaurants for starchy greasy food instead of going to the effort of shopping and cooking decent food. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Vox Humana" > ha scritto (snip) > > > > You're right, it's been a while and I remembered the car as moving. But > even > > in a still car I wouldn't put something dangerously hot (and you can tell, > > if you have any experience with coffee, how hot it is from the temperature > > of the outside of the container, no matter what it's made of) between my > > thighs. There is an element of common sense here, rather like that which > > keeps you from putting your hand on a hot stove because you feel the heat > > rising up from it. > > McD's would likely have been smarter to pay her costs, but I don't see > them > > as being particularly at fault. > > I think that it would only be common sense if you knew that the coffee was > so hot that it would cause 3rd. degree burns in a few seconds. I know that > the coffee that I drink at home won't do that because I have spilled it on > myself without consequence. Fresh coffee is hot, and if you have dumped a freshly brewed pot on yourself without suffering consequences you have been lucky. Exactly how hot may vary -- you wouldn't be lucky with my coffee maker -- but a drink made by dribbling boiling water through grounds and collecting the infusion in a cup is going to be hot, and one should expect it to be so and act accordingly. Personal repsonsability and all that. To blame MCD's in this case is like racing into the street without looking and blaming the person who runs us over for driving too fast. He may have been, but it's our fault that we ran out into the middle of the street. Kyle |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Next time someone hits their thumb with a hammer, they'll probably sue the hammer maker. After all, they should have known that you might hit your thumb, and they should have installed.......... thumb guards ?? > >> IIRC the elderly woman who filed the coffee lawsuit did not go through the >> drive-thru. She just spilled coffee in her lap. >> >Actually, she was a passenger in a car. She ordered coffee with cream. The >drive parked the car so she could add the cream. The coffee spilled, >causing 3rd degree burns to her genital area. The woman was hospitalized >for about two weeks, suffered immense pain, and had to have therapy >afterwards. She initially only asked to be reimbursed for her medial bills >which amounted to about $20K. Over 750 other people had reported burns to >McDonalds. Their own consultants told them to turn down the temperature >(from almost boiling) to 140F but they felt they would lose money if they >reduced the temperature to a normal 140F which is about what your home >coffee maker is set to. It was a calculated risk that had already resulted >in hundreds of known burns. McDonalds also claimed that the reason they >served he coffee at such a high temperature was because people bought it to >drink when they got to a their destination - except that internal documents >showed that they knew most people drank it in the car. Therefore, they knew >that the coffee was dangerously hot, most people drank it in moving >vehicles, and that the lid would have to be removed to put in cream and >sugar. > <rj> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vox Humana wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message > .. . >=20 >>Kyle Phillips wrote: >> >>>"Vox Humana" > ha scritto >>> >>> I think it will be an interesting case. >>> >>>>Hopefully people won't distort the facts like they always do with the= >>>>McDonald's litigation resulting from burns from insanely hot coffee. >>> >>>You're referring to the woman who got a cup of coffee from the >>>drivethru window and couldn't think of a better place to put it than >>>between her thighs? A bump and... Ouch! >>> >>>Kyle >> >>IIRC the elderly woman who filed the coffee lawsuit did not go through = the >>drive-thru. She just spilled coffee in her lap. >> Look here for a synoptic recounting of the story:=20 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Corporation> And it looks like others want a piece of that kind of action:=20 <http://tinyurl.com/48ypv> > Actually, she was a passenger in a car. She ordered coffee with cream.= The > drive parked the car so she could add the cream.=20 Let's stop here for a second. She had the coffee cup between her legs=20 to remove the top to add other ingredients. > The coffee spilled, > causing 3rd degree burns to her genital area. It's not so simple as "the coffee spilled." The cup was crushed in the=20 process of removal of the lid. She did it. It didn't just happen by=20 itself. Styro cups are weak-walled. All of them. > The woman was hospitalized > for about two weeks, suffered immense pain, and had to have therapy > afterwards. She initially only asked to be reimbursed for her medial b= ills > which amounted to about $20K. Over 750 other people had reported burns= to > McDonalds.=20 How about get real here... The premise of her not being responsible operates on the basic=20 assumption that McDonald's (and everyone else) has to provide you what=20 you want without your having to take any responsibility for its=20 disposition. They give you a cup of coffee. What you do with it after=20 that is up to you. The assumption here is that McDonald's had the=20 *obligation* to remove *all* hazard from the environment, even in the=20 case of stupid actions by its customers. According to this, McD should=20 have tried to get to zero possibility of injury, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR=20 CUSTOMERS DID. Some facts: McD's sells something over a million, three hundred thousand cups of=20 coffee a day. In the 10 years referred to in court, they had 700=20 complaints. 3,650 days times 1.35 million and they got 700 complaints.=20 4,927,500,000 cups of coffee and 700 complaints. Almost 5,000,000,000=20 - BILLION - cups of coffee and after every SEVEN MILLION one person=20 was burned.. Nearly one seven-millionth - 1/7,000,000 - of the coffee cups served=20 burn someone because they don't remember that hot coffee is hot. One=20 out of every seven million. You have a better chance of winning a=20 lottery than burning yourself at those odds. Coffee is routinely brewed between 195 and 205F in restaurants. Any lower temps and the complaints skyrocket about weak-tasting coffee. Commercial coffee makers are designed to work at this temp range=20 because the results are what Americans expect and demand. Espresso is=20 hotter still because of the steaming. Food held hot for sale in the US must, by law be hotter than 140F. That's plenty hot enough to cause burns. Every hot buffet line has to keep the food above that temperature to be legal. You risk burns every time you hit the allyoucaneat bar. I bet more than 700 people get=20 burned every decade. But, since no international chains operate=20 buffets, the pockets aren't so deep. Coffee makers for home use brew up at nearly the same temps as the commercial ones. Any one that bubbles water up and into a coffee pot=20 has to boil the water before it will drip into the ground coffee. A styrofoam cup is a fragile thing. Consumers demanded them over the stronger (and more dimensionally stable paper cups) because they keep coffee hotter longer. Note: they keep coffee hotter longer. This whole case mixed apples and oranges. Who the hell puts hot food between their legs? Do the demand of a well-flavored cup of coffee and the desire to have a hazard-free environment contradict each other? Is it not reasonable to take prudent precaution to avoid coming in=20 contact with hot, corrosive, sharp or otherwise potentially harmful=20 conditions? Would this woman have put a cup of coffee between her legs=20 at home? Would she have let a child do it? Does that maybe imply that=20 she might just have figured it out with a moment's reflection? All the "admissions" from McDonald's were and are the real-life standards that virtually all restaurants and, indeed, mom's home kitchen, have to live with. The laws of physics. Of course hot food=20 and drink will burn you. Of course coffee fresh out of the machine is=20 too hot to drink., Of course no one knows about the degree of burning possible from McD's coffee. Just like they don't know about anybody else's coffee. The expert testimony was interesting, too. According to them, if the coffee had been at 155, it wouldn't have hurt her. Try this. Get your hot tap water running for a while and stick your finger in it. It will burn. Almost no one's kitchen sink water is over about 125F. Now take=20 a 12 or 16 ounce cup of it and pour it in your lap. Tell me how much=20 burn ointment it takes to get you to stop saying those bad words. Hey,=20 your home coffee maker according to their testimony is only running at=20 135 to 140. Pour a cup of that in your lap and tell me how it feels.=20 But the great reality is that I've never seen a coffee maker that=20 delivers 135=B0 - 140=B0 finished coffee. In 30 years of professional=20 foodservice, not once. In making coffee for my parents in their=20 restaurants in the 50's, not once. At home using everything from a=20 Chemex pot to a Mr. coffee, not once. She had a 20% fault in the process. Puhleeze. Vulnerable defendant in these times of zero-consumer-risk lawsuits and a nice old lady who forgets that hot stuff burns. Puhleeze. Where's that whole business of being responsible for one's own=20 actions. Stupid or otherwise. > Their own consultants told them to turn down the temperature > (from almost boiling) to 140F but they felt they would lose money if th= ey > reduced the temperature to a normal 140F which is about what your home > coffee maker is set to.=20 Sorry. You've loaded your description with all sorts of emotional and=20 uninformed bullshit lifted directly from web sites that are utterly=20 unbalanced in presentation. That "normal" you suggest is exactly *not* normal. I just went to the=20 kitchen and made a pot of coffee in my Proctor-Silex drip machine. It=20 registered 180=B0 on my Polder tip-probe thermometer and on two=20 quick-reads. I looked at a package of Folger's little individual cup=20 coffee packets and it asks for the brewing water to be "near boiling." And you're choosing to ignore much too much about brewing coffee in=20 the world at large. All those machines that let you fill the reservoir with water that=20 later is pumped up and over ground coffee work at near boiling=20 temperatures. They have to in order to get the water to flash over to=20 steam to make it go uphill to the drip head. Percolators boil water to get it up to the top. Stick a thermometer into a cup of coffee at your closest Starbucks and=20 tell me how hot it is. > It was a calculated risk that had already resulted > in hundreds of known burns. McDonalds also claimed that the reason the= y > served he coffee at such a high temperature was because people bought i= t to > drink when they got to a their destination - except that internal docum= ents > showed that they knew most people drank it in the car. Therefore, they= knew > that the coffee was dangerously hot, most people drank it in moving > vehicles, and that the lid would have to be removed to put in cream and= > sugar. In another post to this subject, you said: >If the coffee was served at a normal 140F temperature, she wouldn't=20 >have received 3rd degree burns. You've rather blindly accepted that 140=B0F as fact. Nope. It's just not = so. >McDonalds knew that 750 other people had been burned. They also=20 were >advised to reduce the temperature of the coffee. They were advised of many things, including the numbers of complaints=20 from people who would complain about weak-tasting coffee is=20 brewed/served at lower temperatures. >They also knew that most people were drinking the coffee in their=20 >cars. They also knew that the lid would have to be removed to add=20 the >cream. Where does one put a cup of coffee when they have to=20 remove >the lid while in a car? Since the 80's, virtually every car available in the US has had drink=20 holders. Stella was sitting in the passenger seat. Additionally, the=20 glovebox door is right in front of her to swing down and rest a hot=20 cup of coffee on; I mean the car wasn't moving at the time, they said. >If you knew that you burned hundreds of people with your product,=20 yet >you decided to ignore warnings because you could squeeze out a=20 few >more dollars by jacking up the heat to near the boiling point,=20 then >don't you also share responsibility? I'm just turning the=20 situation >around. You're talking emotional shit. McD's didn't "jack up the heat." They=20 use standard Bunn or comparable commercial coffee makers. They hit the=20 door pre-set to industry standards. Most don't let users adjust the=20 temperature settings beyond a small range because the machines=20 wouldn't work as well at lower temps. >You say that the woman shouldn't have put the cup between her legs. I note you haven't said you though it was reasonable for her to have=20 done so. >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. McD's served coffee exactly the same as virtually *EVERY* other=20 restaurant, convenience store and ammo shop that sells coffee. The=20 machines come with temps designed into them. >Had the woman immediately sued McDonalds, then I would think that=20 she >was an opportunist. (Although I can't imaging putting our=20 genitals >in near boiling coffee in hopes of collecting some money.)=20 In fact, >she only asked to be reimbursed for her costs. I would have=20 been the >smart thing for them to just have paid the hospital bills=20 and thrown >in a few dollars for pain and suffering. It would have been the thing that would make it go away. But *SHE* put=20 the cup there. How does one get to be 79 years old and not know that=20 fresh-brewed coffee is hot enough to burn? Has she never before had a=20 cup of coffee? Did she never make it at home? Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vox Humana wrote:
> There are few instances where things are black and white. I allow that she > didn't do the ideal thing. Ideally, she would have gone into the store and > would have drunk the coffee there. There are many things that could have > mitigated the situation. Never the less, McDonalds admitted to serving a > product that was not fit to consume and despite hundreds of reports of > burns, they enforced a standard that served an unfit product. Nobody "admitted" serving an "unfit" product. You're trying to wring out as much emotional mileage from this question as you can with a fanciful disregard for any contextual facts. It's a thoroughly shabby performance. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Kyle Phillips"
> wrote: > > > McD's would likely have been smarter to pay her costs, but I don't see > > them > > > as being particularly at fault. > > To blame MCD's in this case is like racing into the street without looking > and blaming the person who runs us over for driving too fast. He may have > been, but it's our fault that we ran out into the middle of the street. I take it that you aren't a lawyer, and don't play one on tv. I'm not a lawyer either, but I expect that someone who is speeding and runs into a pedestrian will get nailed for it. The problem with much of the discussion in this part of the thread is that people want to assign 100% responsibility to one party. It doesn't work that way. Obviously it wasn't the fault of McDonalds that the woman spilled the coffee. The damages awarded were reduced accordingly. -- Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, Dave Smith
> wrote: > Is it economics? When I was working on the road there were lots of fast food > options. I don't like McDonalds food. It may be fast, but it's not cheap. Yeah, what's with that? Fast food used to be cheap, but now I see people dropping unbelievable money for mediocre food. We had a fast food place open a couple of miles from my house. There was a good BBQ place in that shopping center, and they put a sign in their window saying that you could get a burger and fries there for the same price as a combo meal at the fast food place. -- Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Smith" > wrote in message ... > Vox Humana wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > http://pages.prodigy.net/gaglenn/law...fee/truth.html > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, but I saw that link (or a similar one) several months ago when > > this law > > > suit was discussed. I thought that 140 F sounded absurd, so I checked my > > coffee > > > maker, and it was 176F. > > > > > > > Mine was 165F immediately after the coffee was brewed. When I poured the > > coffee into a ceramic mug, the temperature dropped to 148. > > Let me get this straight. Your home brewed coffee comes out 17 degrees lower > than Dan's and 28 degrees cooler than mine. Then when you poured it into a > ceramic cup it immediately dropped another 17 degrees. When I poured it into a > ceramic cup it hardly dropped. Let's just say that I find your evidence > amazing. Yep. I65F in the pot immediately after the last water dripped through the grounds. Poured into a large ceramic mug, give it a stir, and the probe registered 148F. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message ... Vox Humana wrote: > "jmcquown" > wrote in message > .. . > >>Kyle Phillips wrote: >> >>>"Vox Humana" > ha scritto >>> >>> I think it will be an interesting case. >>> >>>>Hopefully people won't distort the facts like they always do with the >>>>McDonald's litigation resulting from burns from insanely hot coffee. >>> >>>You're referring to the woman who got a cup of coffee from the >>>drivethru window and couldn't think of a better place to put it than >>>between her thighs? A bump and... Ouch! >>> >>>Kyle >> >>IIRC the elderly woman who filed the coffee lawsuit did not go through the >>drive-thru. She just spilled coffee in her lap. >> Look here for a synoptic recounting of the story: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Corporation> And it looks like others want a piece of that kind of action: <http://tinyurl.com/48ypv> > Actually, she was a passenger in a car. She ordered coffee with cream. The > drive parked the car so she could add the cream. Let's stop here for a second. She had the coffee cup between her legs to remove the top to add other ingredients. > The coffee spilled, > causing 3rd degree burns to her genital area. It's not so simple as "the coffee spilled." The cup was crushed in the process of removal of the lid. She did it. It didn't just happen by itself. Styro cups are weak-walled. All of them. > The woman was hospitalized > for about two weeks, suffered immense pain, and had to have therapy > afterwards. She initially only asked to be reimbursed for her medial bills > which amounted to about $20K. Over 750 other people had reported burns to > McDonalds. How about get real here... The premise of her not being responsible operates on the basic assumption that McDonald's (and everyone else) has to provide you what you want without your having to take any responsibility for its disposition. They give you a cup of coffee. What you do with it after that is up to you. The assumption here is that McDonald's had the *obligation* to remove *all* hazard from the environment, even in the case of stupid actions by its customers. According to this, McD should have tried to get to zero possibility of injury, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR CUSTOMERS DID. Some facts: McD's sells something over a million, three hundred thousand cups of coffee a day. In the 10 years referred to in court, they had 700 complaints. 3,650 days times 1.35 million and they got 700 complaints. 4,927,500,000 cups of coffee and 700 complaints. Almost 5,000,000,000 - BILLION - cups of coffee and after every SEVEN MILLION one person was burned.. Nearly one seven-millionth - 1/7,000,000 - of the coffee cups served burn someone because they don't remember that hot coffee is hot. One out of every seven million. You have a better chance of winning a lottery than burning yourself at those odds. Coffee is routinely brewed between 195 and 205F in restaurants. Any lower temps and the complaints skyrocket about weak-tasting coffee. Commercial coffee makers are designed to work at this temp range because the results are what Americans expect and demand. Espresso is hotter still because of the steaming. Food held hot for sale in the US must, by law be hotter than 140F. That's plenty hot enough to cause burns. Every hot buffet line has to keep the food above that temperature to be legal. You risk burns every time you hit the allyoucaneat bar. I bet more than 700 people get burned every decade. But, since no international chains operate buffets, the pockets aren't so deep. Coffee makers for home use brew up at nearly the same temps as the commercial ones. Any one that bubbles water up and into a coffee pot has to boil the water before it will drip into the ground coffee. A styrofoam cup is a fragile thing. Consumers demanded them over the stronger (and more dimensionally stable paper cups) because they keep coffee hotter longer. Note: they keep coffee hotter longer. This whole case mixed apples and oranges. Who the hell puts hot food between their legs? Do the demand of a well-flavored cup of coffee and the desire to have a hazard-free environment contradict each other? Is it not reasonable to take prudent precaution to avoid coming in contact with hot, corrosive, sharp or otherwise potentially harmful conditions? Would this woman have put a cup of coffee between her legs at home? Would she have let a child do it? Does that maybe imply that she might just have figured it out with a moment's reflection? All the "admissions" from McDonald's were and are the real-life standards that virtually all restaurants and, indeed, mom's home kitchen, have to live with. The laws of physics. Of course hot food and drink will burn you. Of course coffee fresh out of the machine is too hot to drink., Of course no one knows about the degree of burning possible from McD's coffee. Just like they don't know about anybody else's coffee. The expert testimony was interesting, too. According to them, if the coffee had been at 155, it wouldn't have hurt her. Try this. Get your hot tap water running for a while and stick your finger in it. It will burn. Almost no one's kitchen sink water is over about 125F. Now take a 12 or 16 ounce cup of it and pour it in your lap. Tell me how much burn ointment it takes to get you to stop saying those bad words. Hey, your home coffee maker according to their testimony is only running at 135 to 140. Pour a cup of that in your lap and tell me how it feels. But the great reality is that I've never seen a coffee maker that delivers 135° - 140° finished coffee. In 30 years of professional foodservice, not once. In making coffee for my parents in their restaurants in the 50's, not once. At home using everything from a Chemex pot to a Mr. coffee, not once. She had a 20% fault in the process. Puhleeze. Vulnerable defendant in these times of zero-consumer-risk lawsuits and a nice old lady who forgets that hot stuff burns. Puhleeze. Where's that whole business of being responsible for one's own actions. Stupid or otherwise. > Their own consultants told them to turn down the temperature > (from almost boiling) to 140F but they felt they would lose money if they > reduced the temperature to a normal 140F which is about what your home > coffee maker is set to. Sorry. You've loaded your description with all sorts of emotional and uninformed bullshit lifted directly from web sites that are utterly unbalanced in presentation. That "normal" you suggest is exactly *not* normal. I just went to the kitchen and made a pot of coffee in my Proctor-Silex drip machine. It registered 180° on my Polder tip-probe thermometer and on two quick-reads. I looked at a package of Folger's little individual cup coffee packets and it asks for the brewing water to be "near boiling." And you're choosing to ignore much too much about brewing coffee in the world at large. All those machines that let you fill the reservoir with water that later is pumped up and over ground coffee work at near boiling temperatures. They have to in order to get the water to flash over to steam to make it go uphill to the drip head. Percolators boil water to get it up to the top. Stick a thermometer into a cup of coffee at your closest Starbucks and tell me how hot it is. > It was a calculated risk that had already resulted > in hundreds of known burns. McDonalds also claimed that the reason they > served he coffee at such a high temperature was because people bought it to > drink when they got to a their destination - except that internal documents > showed that they knew most people drank it in the car. Therefore, they knew > that the coffee was dangerously hot, most people drank it in moving > vehicles, and that the lid would have to be removed to put in cream and > sugar. In another post to this subject, you said: >If the coffee was served at a normal 140F temperature, she wouldn't >have received 3rd degree burns. You've rather blindly accepted that 140°F as fact. Nope. It's just not so. >McDonalds knew that 750 other people had been burned. They also were >advised to reduce the temperature of the coffee. They were advised of many things, including the numbers of complaints from people who would complain about weak-tasting coffee is brewed/served at lower temperatures. >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? Since the 80's, virtually every car available in the US has had drink holders. Stella was sitting in the passenger seat. Additionally, the glovebox door is right in front of her to swing down and rest a hot cup of coffee on; I mean the car wasn't moving at the time, they said. >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're talking emotional shit. McD's didn't "jack up the heat." They use standard Bunn or comparable commercial coffee makers. They hit the door pre-set to industry standards. Most don't let users adjust the temperature settings beyond a small range because the machines wouldn't work as well at lower temps. >You say that the woman shouldn't have put the cup between her legs. I note you haven't said you though it was reasonable for her to have done so. >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. McD's served coffee exactly the same as virtually *EVERY* other restaurant, convenience store and ammo shop that sells coffee. The machines come with temps designed into them. >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.) In fact, >she only asked to be reimbursed for her costs. I would have been the >smart thing for them to just have paid the hospital bills and thrown >in a few dollars for pain and suffering. It would have been the thing that would make it go away. But *SHE* put the cup there. How does one get to be 79 years old and not know that fresh-brewed coffee is hot enough to burn? Has she never before had a cup of coffee? Did she never make it at home? Pastorio Not to prolong the discussion, but I will simply restate my point. If you know that 700 people have been burned by your product and you have not looking into the safety of your operation; you know that you are dispensing coffee in a flimsy cup to people in cars; and you know that the lid has to be removed to add the cream; and you choose to do nothing, then I think you are at fault. You have made a calculated decision to operate in such a way to maximum profits knowing that a certain number of people will sustain serious burns. You can't have it both ways. The net cost of your decision has to include the increased revenues and also the cost associated with the injuries resulting from your decision. While no one can completely eliminate danger, I think there is a moral obligation to reduce risks when possible. Assuming the woman should know better based on her life experiences is no different than my expectation that McDonalds should have known better from their actual experience. I think both parties are at fault. The woman for spilling the coffee, and McDonalds for dispensing coffee at such an elevated temperature that it caused sever burns. Never the less, had the coffee spilled on the woman at a table inside the restaurant, she would have been burned. The majority of the responsibility is McDonald's. I'm sure we will never agree on this. Funny thing though, when strangers are injured, then it all very clinical. When it is your wife or mother, then things look different. One of the leading proponents of torte reform to limit jury awards in personal injury cases is Rick Santorum, (R) Pennsylvania. However, his wife claims that a chiropractor injured her and the injuries prevented her from campaigning with her husband. They sued the chiropractor for $500,000 and won a judgment for $350,000. So for you, $250K is all you deserve for non-economic damages, but for him, $500K is about right. Some would say that any fool should have known better than to go to chiropractor in the first place. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Here's the mindset. Black teens.......threat.....kill them. | General Cooking | |||
| Trendy Formal Dresses for Teens | Recipes | |||
| teens in wet panties spunky knight shelbee myne lady marmalade moulinrouge | General Cooking | |||
| Healthy Snacks for Teens (2) Collection | Recipes (moderated) | |||
| The next EMERIL? TV chefs ignite teens' interest in cooking | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
