zadoc wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:16:41 -0800, Stuart Grey
wrote:

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.

Yeah. Who would have thought that hot coffee was... hot.

Idiots.

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.

No one in my family was either stupid enough to burn themselves that
way, nor would they have blamed someone else for their own stupidity and
plundered the hell out of them with the aid of a legal pirate.

If the local franchisee hadn't been stupid enough to serve coffee at a
dangerous temperature, then the victim wouldn't have been awarded
damages.

...Or do you think that retailers should be able to provide any
hazardous product they like?

Here they probably would have been fined under the Trade Practices Act
in addition to the civil lawsuit.

They served it at the temperature called for by the relevant international
technical standards and by the recommended practices of the SCAA and the
NCA. If you think that that temperature is excessive I suggest you take
the matter up with those organizations.

All of the coffee makers in my kitchen put coffee in the cup at a
temperature higher than you would allow, Starbucks does, Dunkin Donuts
does, Burger King does, I'm sorry, but your argument falls flat to anyone
who knows anything at all about coffee.


Cheers,



--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)