On 3/9/2010 9:33 PM, Kevin wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:39:43 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Mar 9, 12:26 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:02:46 -0500, "J. Clarke"

wrote:
That ship sailed when the Stupid Old Bat successfully sued McDonalds for
spilling coffee in her lap.

McDonalds was serving their coffee at a much higher temperture than
the industry standard.

This is a lie that has been handed down for ages. The coffee was
served at a customary serving temperature (180F). Dunkin' Donuts
served coffee at *exactly* the same temperature (their spec was 180F
+/- 3F) at the time.

You're right in that it wasn't a standard.

ANSI CM-1.

I studied this case in
college and it's been a while so the details were fuzzy. McDonald's
coffee was 185 +/- 5 degrees.

As it should be.

I forget the exact numbers we used but
we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
length of time it took to get there. If you were at the high end 190
it was much worse than the low end of 180. If you used the lower
temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
degree burns instead of third degree burns.

Tell it to ANSI, SCAA, and every other authority on the brewing of coffee.

While you'd expect to get a minor burn from
spilling hot coffee on yourself in this case it was a certainty that
she would receive severe burns and would not have if they followed the
standard.

BS. You don't want burns, don't put a cup of coffee between your
legs.

Most people wouldn't expect to receive third degree burns requiring
skin grafts and years of treatment to recover.

Then most people are idiots.

People blamed her not
removing the pants as the source of the problem but the analysis
showed that there was nothing she could have done about it. The jury
did find her partially to blame, though I do think most of the blame
rested on her.

Of course there was. She could have not held the cup between her legs.

The point is that this case is always trotted out as the worst example
but it's not as cut and dry as it is presented.

Yes, it is, until the lawyers get involved.

I have a hard time
believing there's as good of a story to back up the fellow that wants
the safety feature from a $3000 saw on his $100 Ryobi.

The lawyers will make one up and cherry pick their data to support their
argument, just like the ones in the McDonalds case.