On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 04:25:34 GMT, Ross Herbert
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:01:55 -0500, gothika
wrote:

|On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 08:46:42 +1000, Franc Zabkar
wrote:
|
|
|I agree with you in principle, it's just a matter of balance. For
|example, there has to be some middle ground between the Ford Pinto
|case on the one hand, and the McDonalds Hot Coffee incident on the
|other.
|FYI the McDonald's incident WAS a justified case.
|The woman was skalded by coffee that was FAR too hot.
|Look at the case files, the thermostat on the coffee maker was turned
|all the way up by a disgruntled employee. This was a deliberate act.
|Would you then say that an employer isn't responsible for the actions
|of their employees?(This wouldn't happen if corporate America wasn't
|such a bunch of bottom line cheap asses, trying to get their labor for
|nothing.)
|I don't know where you're getting your figures but the numbers of so
|called "frivilous" law suits that even got on the dockett, much, less
|reached a favorable verdict for the plantiff have declined drastically
|since Reagan and Bush senior changed the laws back in the 80's.
|Sounds to me your obsessing, and worst doing so on faliscious data.
|


Personally, I always BOIL my water before making coffee. This is even
more important when making tea because it tastes terrible made with
luke warm water. I wonder if the woman who was scolded would have
complained that her coffee was cold had not the accident occurred?

What federal or state regulation is there which says that McDonalds
must heat their water to LESS than 100 deg C? I would be very irate if
they made my hot drink with other than boiling water. The
responsibility should be on the person taking and using the hot cup of
whatever the drink NOT to spill it on themselves. Complete and utter
lunacy to blame McDonalds for heating the water past a certain
temperature I think. Perhaps the McDonalds attendant should have
spelled out the fact that the coffee was hot and that the person
should take care not to scold herself, although in my opinion, this
fact should be completely obvious to even an idiot. There is just too
much of blaming others when simple precautions are all that are
necessary to prevent such stupid accidents. The cost of protecting
people from their own stupidity has become a burden on society and
especially for those of us who "look before we leap" and rarely have
accidents which can be avoided by taking simple precautions.

You're missing the point completely, plus you obviously know nothing
about the construction or function of the standard Bunn commercial
coffee maker.
The employee deliberately set out to cause injury by setting the
coffee thermostat to high. So WHY would you warn any customer in
advance if that was your intent in the first place?
The cup was styrofoam as anyone with even a rudimentary education in
the properties of insulating materials would know didn't passivate any
appreciable amount of heat from the scalding hot coffee to the hand
that held it.
Her first indication that it was hot enough to cause injury would have
been when she tried her first sip.
Anyone care to postulate what her physical reaction to that would have
been?
Perhaps either a physical spasm resulting in either slinging the cap
away or dropping it in her lap?
The commercial coffee makers I've worked around during my years in
food service could be set hot enough to sear liquid.
This was inpart a deliberate design to allow for shorter brew times
and to offset deterioration in the heating element with age.
Secondly the warming plate has a independent setting which can be set
high as well, thereby keeping the coffee as hot as desired. In fact
skalding hot.
To wit, the heat used to brew the coffee is independent of that used
to keep it warm.
If you have a disgruntled employee who wishes to cause harm then the
coffee maker is the ideal instrument.
As for state/federal regulations. There ARE such already in place.
What's complete and utter lunacy is your facile, topical reasoning.