wrote in message
...
On Dec 8, 11:15 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article -
september.org, says...



In article ocal,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Yeah, we all know the story.

Apparently you don't, you just think you do.

So there's more to the story than was in the trial transcript?

The jury knows the story.

So?

And that story, in sum, is not that the woman refused to accept
responsibility for her actions, but that McD's refused to accept
responsibility for theirs.

McD had committed no action for which they should "accept
responsibility".
#
# They certainly did. The basic facts:
#
# McDonald’s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its
# coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
#
# Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the
# worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;

Yes but normal sane people do not go around putting cups of hot coffee
between their legs in a car
There is no reason for Macdonals to be responsible for THAT STUPID ACTION
(Except in the minds of children - who are not responsible)

#
# The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-
# mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this
# risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on
# burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the
# specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

And who defined the Chairman of the Dept of Mech Eng. at the U of Texas as
an arbiter of what is acceptable or unacceptable harm ?

#
#McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns
# from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was
# brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to
# no avail;

And ?


Repeating yourself like a parrot just makes you a parrot