tg wrote:

"zadoc" wrote in message ...


On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 23:59:41 -0000, "tg"
wrote:



"zadoc" wrote in message news

On 2 Jan 2006 09:01:00 -0800, "rigger" wrote:



(sic) he had control of the coffee before she burned herself.


A concealed danger she was unaware of, although McDonald's was VERY
aware and gave no warnings. This must be the evidence of negligence
the jury found.

If you see all the facts in the correct time frame and context the jury
decision seems like common sense.

Just be happy it wasn't YOUR mother or grandmother that was burned.

dennis
in nca


I totally agree. All products should be safe for consumer use, and
the only possible excuse I can see for serving coffee at a dangerous
temperature is that customers wouldn't have to reheat it if taking it
home.

However, almost everyone has a microwave today, so I see little if any
justification for serving coffee at a temperature likely to cause
injury.

Had I been on the jury, they definitely would have been held liable.


God it's people like you that make my skull feel like it's turning inside out. You're the epitomy of the irresponsible brat. It's
always always always gotta be someone elses fault.



Sorry, but serving coffee hot enough to cause scalding of tissue is
totally irresponsible, and there is absolutely no justification for
such a dangerous practice.



bull****.
coffee is a well known HOT beverage. Did you get that word? 'hot'? as in not cold. As in having been heated, you ****ing idiot.
Being careful and responsible around heated liquids is all part of being an adult, and judging by your inclination to always blame
someone else, an adult frame of thinking is something you haven't matured to yet.





sorry to pop in at the middle of a pecker contest here but 1) the
coffee was unusually hot....as in way hotter than would be expected when
ordering "hot" coffee, and 2) The penalty to McDonald's was the
equivalent of one days profits from coffee sales for that particular
district.

It was not out of line to judge that there is such a thing as coffee
that is served "too" hot, as the cups soften and are more likely to seal
poorly at the high end of the liquid water spectrum. Although most of
us would tend not to put the cup between our thighs, the proximal cause
of the damage was the excessive heat of the coffee as well as poor lid
sealing due to that heat. The judgement was not out of line either as
it didn't highly penalize the offender but was enough to give a warning
that care should be taken with a potentially dangerous item.

Just for the record, I'm a bleeding liberal nutcase that believes the
court systems should have an idiot clause...if the cause of an injury
was related specifically to your own idiocy, then there is no blame
assigned to other party...no 60% your fault/40% their fault ruling.

You shouldn't benefit from your own stupidity.

There are much better examples of people getting awards for their own
stupidity than the McDonald's case. That case has just been exploited
and distorted more than most on right-wing talk shows so people tend to
gravitate toward it as an example. Focus on the really stupid cases
like the guy who set a ladder on a manure pile and was awarded because
the instructions didn't say not to set it on unstable manure and similar
if you really want to show that courts can get out of hand. Examples
are all over on the web with references to the court testimony.


Koz