F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:27:46 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:
There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.
We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.
Think someone will sue Krups?
Joe Gwinn
=============
If Krupps implies that the coffee is ready to drink as it comes
out of their machine and people were getting scalded or worse
every day, sure. People are aware that the coffee is too hot to
drink as it comes out of the maker. People are not aware that
the coffee is scalding and too hot to drink, when it is sold to
them in a cup as a ready to go drink. Why did the scalding
problem go away after McD's got their chops busted?

Because ever newspaper and TV news show in the country reported "stupid old
bat burns self with coffee" and the two other people in the world who
hadn't figured out for themselves that coffee is hot and hot things burn
you got the message?

Hint--McDonalds still serves coffee at exactly the same tempeature--the
temperature which the plaintiff claimed to have been set in the coffee
machine is in the middle of the range that the ANSI coffee machine spec
calls for. They did put up "warning, coffee is hot" signs all over the
place, instead of just on the lid where the stupid old bat should have read
it.

If you sell
food that is apparently ready to eat/drink, it had better be
ready to eat/drink, especially after you have injured literally
hundreds of people.

Who said that they had "injured literally hundreds of people"? They had had
700 complaints out of the God knows how many million cups of coffee they've
sold. All of those complaints were not of injuries. What's remarkable to
me is that they had so _few_ complaints.

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