On Mar 9, 8:33*pm, Kevin wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:39:43 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Mar 9, 12:26 pm, Kevin 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. *I studied this case in
college and it's been a while so the details were fuzzy. *McDonald's
coffee was 185 +/- 5 degrees. *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.

Nonsense. The energy contained in a liquid is proportional to its
temperature (difference).

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. *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. *

Most people are bright enough not to put a cup of steaming coffee
between their legs. Most people are bright enough to blame themselves
when they do something stupid. Alas, this is changing in your prized
nanny state.

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. *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.

Yes, it is cut and dried. The lawyers lied, their expert witnesses
lied, the press lied (no surprise in any of this), and the defendant's
lawyers weren't bright enough to hire competent expert witnesses on
their own. ...so now you can't get a decent cup of coffee and you
want to take table saws away too. Take 'em all out and shoot 'em,
along with the rest of the leftists.