"Cliff" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 20:12:52 -0000, "tg"
wrote:

oh wow you're just too ****ing cool for any of us here aren't you zodac?

The educational system downunder, compared to the one in the US
(which allows little wingers to escape), seems quite good.

the educational system in Oz is very good (or at least it was when I was schooling there). However a person (like zodac) who is an
attention whore and an endless supply of hot gas should not be mistaken for an educated one.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:25:07 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

His government is working on that for him.

He's probably still mad about seatbelts & stuff ...
--
Cliff

"zadoc" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 12:49:25 -0700, Russ Kepler
wrote:

snip
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Australia can be a pretty hazardous
country.

especially with a ****ing jerk like you on the ground there.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:42:47 GMT, zadoc wrote:

If you two ever got this far in your educational system to provide
such answers, you may recognize some of your answers in the
earlier post "Make Believe Democracy" sent a few minutes ago.

Where did you post that?
--
Cliff

"Guido" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:16:41 -0800, Stuart Grey
wrote:

rigger wrote:

No one in my family was either stupid enough to burn themselves that
way, nor would they have blamed someone else for their own stupidity and
plundered the hell out of them with the aid of a legal pirate.

Are you sure?

That it happened in a drive thru compounds the injury as McDonald's
ought to have been aware that the manipulation of a coffee container
in a vehicle is more likely to cause a spillage then in other
situations. IOW McDonald's could anticipate the risk.

what utter bull****.
If I give you a cup of hot coffee and then you decide to put it in your lap and drive off then I'm not going to take any blame if
you spill it while you're driving. The slightest thought that I should be responsible is insanity.

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:48:06 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:42:47 GMT, zadoc wrote:

If you two ever got this far in your educational system to provide
such answers, you may recognize some of your answers in the
earlier post "Make Believe Democracy" sent a few minutes ago.

Where did you post that?

Fixed it G.
--
Cliff

"zadoc" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:57:02 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 23:59:41 -0000, "tg"
wrote:

(snips)

Had I been on the jury, they definitely would have been held liable.


God it's people like you that make my skull feel like it's turning inside
out. You're the epitomy of the irresponsible brat. It's
always always always gotta be someone elses fault.

If I had been on the jury, I would have awarded attorneys'
fees to McDonald's. Of course, I doubt I will ever be on
such a jury.

Her error, her clumsiness, her fault, her problem.

That I definitely don't agree with.

Hint -
don't spill your coffee in your lap. Don't we all already
know that???

Yes, but we aren't female or her age, and accidents can happen to
anyone.

Am sure that many of us have spilled liquids in our lap at one time or
another. However, we don't expect restaurant coffee to require time
in hospital. Or at least I wouldn't.

However, everyone has their own point of view. Cases such as this one
may annoy you. I am annoyed when juries reward damages to criminals.

Cheers,






Next you'll want warning labels on bricks at Home Depot. One will warn you
that bricks are heavy. One will warn you that bricks are hard. One will
warn you bricks are inedible. Another will warn you that bricks conspire
with gravity.

So here's a good question for you. Why can't you be sued for getting cut
with a sharp knife? The lawyer who defended me in a product liability case
says that no lawsuits are brought for knife injuries. Why?

Gary H. Lucas

"zadoc" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 12:39:51 -0800, Koz
wrote:

[Snip. See original.]

sorry to pop in at the middle of a pecker contest here but 1) the
coffee was unusually hot....as in way hotter than would be expected when
ordering "hot" coffee, and 2) The penalty to McDonald's was the
equivalent of one days profits from coffee sales for that particular
district.

It was not out of line to judge that there is such a thing as coffee
that is served "too" hot, as the cups soften and are more likely to seal
poorly at the high end of the liquid water spectrum. Although most of
us would tend not to put the cup between our thighs, the proximal cause
of the damage was the excessive heat of the coffee as well as poor lid
sealing due to that heat. The judgement was not out of line either as
it didn't highly penalize the offender but was enough to give a warning
that care should be taken with a potentially dangerous item.

Good points!

Just for the record, I'm a bleeding liberal nutcase that believes the
court systems should have an idiot clause...if the cause of an injury
was related specifically to your own idiocy, then there is no blame
assigned to other party...no 60% your fault/40% their fault ruling.

You shouldn't benefit from your own stupidity.

Unfortunately, many people do tend to do stupid things. However,
Australia, like most advanced countries, has a universal medical care
system.

This is one reason why Australian laws place a bit more emphasis on
safety than US laws. Seat belts have been compulsory for years, as
are motorcycle helmets for motorcyclists, bump caps for bicycle
riders, horse riders, and, I think, even skateboard riders. We also
have random breath testing, compulsory annual vehicle inspections,
compulsory third party insurance.

New houses, or rewired old houses, have to have earth fault detectors
protecting stoves, outlets, etc. All outlets are 3 pin, active,
neutral and earth. Any if someone gets between the hot wires and
earth ["ground"] the system trips out in a fraction of a second
preventing electrocution.

Of course, standard household voltage here is 240 volt 50 Hz, not 120
volt 50 Hz as in the U.S.

The same requirement applies to mandatory smoke detectors. These are
mains operated with battery backup.

Most people are pretty happy with all of the above. All are far
cheaper than maintaining a nuclear arsenal which will probably never
be used. Hopefully, anyway.

Cheers,

Motorcycle helmets are REALLY bad! Thousands of good deserving people die
every year while waiting for organs ruined by a donor wearing a helmet.

Gary H. Lucas

"Jeff McCann" wrote in message
.. .
Big snip
Jeff

When the little old lady put a pot on for coffee or tea at home, what was
the temperature when she poured? Did she know it was hot enough when the
whistle sounded, or did she stick her finger in and decide it was hot enough
that she couldn't hold her finger in there for long (about 135 degrees)?
Does anybody besides me get sick of hearing about poor poor me when you got
poor because you insisted someone should take all you earn and give it to
stupid people?

No reply needed, I'm done with this thread.

Gary H. Lucas

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:51:16 GMT, zadoc wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:06:14 GMT, Sue wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 07:05:56 GMT, zadoc wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 04:29:47 GMT, Sue wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 03:13:13 GMT, zadoc wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:57:02 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 23:59:41 -0000, "tg"
wrote:

(snips)

Had I been on the jury, they definitely would have been held liable.


God it's people like you that make my skull feel like it's turning inside out. You're the epitomy of the irresponsible brat. It's
always always always gotta be someone elses fault.

If I had been on the jury, I would have awarded attorneys'
fees to McDonald's. Of course, I doubt I will ever be on
such a jury.

Her error, her clumsiness, her fault, her problem.

That I definitely don't agree with.

Hint -
don't spill your coffee in your lap. Don't we all already
know that???

Yes, but we aren't female

Harumph!!! A sexist are you?

Sue
Is there any male who isn't, to a degree at least?

I wouldn't know.

Perhaps you haven't been paying enough attention? :-)


Or are you one of those American women who think there is no
difference between male and female other than the obvious anatomical
differences.

Nope.


Perhaps no significant differences in intelligence and ability to
learn facts, but there are lots of emotional differences. IMHO,
anyway. :-)

As I read your post - this part:

Hint -
don't spill your coffee in your lap. Don't we all already
know that???

Yes, but we aren't female

you impugned the intelligence of women in that they/we may not know
that it isn't a good idea to spill coffee in one's lap. This has
nothing to do with emotionalism.

True. I should just have mentioned the victims age, which probably
was a factor.

You did include age, but you said "but we aren't female or her age".
Please note the "or". IMO you just shouldn't have put in anything
about her being female. Shame on ya.


Yes, there are emotional differences, but I believe that the poster to
whom you responded meant "all" not just men. I'm not going to get
into an argument about intelligence issues (math, science and so
forth), but, c'mon, this is spilled coffee. I'll bet even your wife
knows not to spill coffee in her lap. Ask her. )
Sue

We all know better, but accidents do happen.

OK. That's better. "We *all* know better...." Thank you.
Sue

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:08:28 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 20:12:52 -0000, "tg"
wrote:

oh wow you're just too ****ing cool for any of us here aren't you zodac?

The educational system downunder, compared to the one in the US
(which allows little wingers to escape), seems quite good.

Zadoc has admitted being raised in the US. Presumably he also went to
school here. How far, I don't know. However, that was back in the
day (so to speak).
Sue

"Jeff McCann" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Wanna bet this political
campaign cost a lot more than what McDonald's actually paid to their
victim? But judging by current public attitudes, I'll bet they
consider it money well spent.

Jeff

You make a very good case, Jeff. It's clear that many of us have gotten the
story as someone wanted it told, and that it played right into our
prejudices -- myself included.

As you relate the details, I wonder if the PR version would have been so
successful if it had happened after the Web and Google had made it so easy
to double-check the facts. Myths have been taking a beating since those
things came along (many more myths are generated, of course, but they're
much more vulnerable to simple, honest checking than they used to be).

Anyway, thanks for the info.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Jeff McCann" wrote in message
.. .

snip

As you relate the details, I wonder if the PR version would have been
so successful if it had happened after the Web and Google had made it
so easy to double-check the facts.

I'm not taking a swipe here at Bush Ed, not that I wouldn't, but the
internet hasn't done much to root out the twisted versions of reality coming
out of political campaigns - at least not to any real effect.
Volume, or quantity if you will, still seems able to trump quality.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

Jeff McCann wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
...
[
The 2005 Stella Awards

It's time once again to review the winners of the Annual "Stella
Awards." The Stella Awards are named after 81 year-old Stella Liebeck
who
spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's (in
NM). That
case inspired the Stella awards for the most frivolous, ridiculous,
successful lawsuits in the United States.

The Myth of Stella Liebeck and the McDonald's Coffee "Frivolous" Lawsuit

It is a basic principle of our law that everybody has a right to his or
her day in Court, despite extensive efforts by corporate and other
wealthy and powerful interests to slam the courthouse door in the face
of the little guy. But every time you hear about a so-called frivolous
lawsuit, please remember that the plaintiff won only because a jury of
ordinary citizens all agreed that they should.

As for McDonald's, they employ Ph.D food scientists to research their
product line. There is a well-established industry standard for coffee
temperature, and McDonald's knew it. That is about 135 degrees, the
temperature at which your home, office, or typical restaurant coffee
maker produces coffee.

Actually, one "well established standard" is ANSI/AHAM CM-1-2005 and it
calls for a temperature of 170-205F. Don't believe me? Go over to the
ANSI site and pay the 20 bucks and download it yourself. You will find
that the SCAA calls for 197.5 or above for the brewing temperature.

This temperature is recognized as safe in that
it is unlikely to produce serious injury.

It also is unlikely to produce drinkable coffee.

Many people have spilled that
type of "hot" coffee on themselves one time or another. It hurts, you
say Ow!, then blot it up and go on with your life. It might be a little
painful, but you haven't been really hurt or damaged, and you certainly
have no business suing anybody over it.

But McDonald's, who buys tons of coffee, learned from their experts that
they could squeeze a few more pennies of profit out of their coffee
beans, and keep their product available for sale a few minutes longer if
they modified their equipment to make coffee that was much hotter than
the familiar and safe industry standard of about 135 degrees.

In 1998 Bunn-O-Matic was sued on a similar issue and it was demonstrated
that their machines are typically set to a holding temperature of
approximately 180F. If you will when you are out and about make a survey
of coffee machines in restaurants other than coffee speciality houses you
will find that the majority of restaurants, including McDonalds, use
Bunn-O-Matic machines.

The Bunn-O-Matic suit was thrown out as frivolous and never went to trial.

It seems unlikely in the extreme to me that McDonalds would take apart all
of their Bunn-O-Matics to increase the holding temperature by 5 degrees and
it would have made little difference regardless.

The
problem with this is that the new, more profitable setting of about 185
degrees produced a product that could and did cause serious injury, not
only to their customers, but to their own employees, mostly young kids,
a fact they chose to ignore.

Looks like it's right smack dab in the middle of the range specified by the
standard to me.

McDonalds' own quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees.

180-190. Hmm. More than 170, less than 205, with 10-15 degree margin on
either side. Looks like they nailed the spec to _me_.

He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Good for McD.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.


According to the American Burn Association at 133F water will cause a third
degree burn in 15 seconds. At 140F it takes 5 seconds. At 148F it takes 2
seconds. At 155F it takes 1 second.

Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if the victim's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid
would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

In someone's opinion. If it had been cold enough it would have frozen her
instead. So what?

During
discovery, McDonalds was forced to produce documents showing more than
700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some
claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to the
victim's. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent
and nature of this hazard.

700 claims, and only one successful suit? That tells you more about the
validity of the suit than about McDonalds policies. And that is out of how
many cups sold?

As for the victim, she was a 79 year old woman.

Which means that she had enough life experience to understand that coffee is
hot. She should have been old enough to remember percolators, which
require _boiling_ water for their operation.

She was not driving the
car; she was a passenger in her grandson's car. The car was completely
stopped at the time of the accident. When the lid popped off that
elderly lady's coffee, did she immediately call her lawyer with dollar
signs dancing in her head? Nope. She went to the burn ward with
third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body, including her inner
thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She underwent
skin grafting and endured debridement, perhaps the most painful of
medical procedures. All she asked was for McDonald's to pay a measly
$20,000. But they turned her down flat.

Why should they pay for her stupidity?

She did eventually get a
judgment for her actual damages. But did McDonalds actually pay the
$2,700,000 (equal to about 2 days of McDonald's coffee sales) in
punitive damages that a jury of ordinary citizens thought they should
pay, based on the evidence presented in court? Nope. McDonald's got
the judge to substantially reduce that amount, down to only $480,000,
even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and
willful.

Good for them.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.

Your point being?

So the victim was effectively "gagged," but that didn't stop the
professional PR machines and paid big business lobbyists from portraying
McDonald's Corp.

How was the alleged victim "gagged"? If she won the lawsuit and then
settled that suggests that her own lawyers told her to take a lesser amount
and shut up rather than continue legal proceedings that would likely have
gotten thrown out of the appeals court.

and others as the victims of "frivolous lawsuits," as
the ones needing the protection of the legislature with "tort reform"
laws against "rapacious trial attorneys." Wanna bet this political
campaign cost a lot more than what McDonald's actually paid to their
victim? But judging by current public attitudes, I'll bet they
consider it money well spent.

If some incompetent old bat can't eat food without hurting herself, that's
_her_ problem.

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

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 02:36:56 GMT, zadoc wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:28:43 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:03:35 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
wrote:

(snip)
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3

Then sues MacDonalds to make them pay for the consequences of their stupidity.

McDonalds for serving coffee at a dangerous temperature? I suspect
that after this case franchisees will take a bit more care. Their
parent company may not back them next time.

Therefore an adverse judgment might deprive them of not on their
business but their home and their savings, especially if they cannot
get adequate insurance.

O.K., I will admit that some lawsuits aren't justified, but some are.
Consider the following scenario: We all know that many parents cannot
or will not control their bratty children. Child "A" doesn't like his
milkshake so he flings it all over the floor in front of the entrance.

Before the owner of the franchise or his appointed supervisor can
manage to get someone to clean it up, an elderly customer on crutches
enters, slips on it, strikes his or her head and dies.

So who is responsible? Child "A" is the proximate cause, but he
cannot be arrested or sued. His parents can be, though, as they
didn't restrain the little animal, or immediately inform management
and personally volunteer to clean up the mess before any other
customer suffers or dies from their negligence.

And what do you do about a monkey? I believe it was recently at the
Fresno Zoo that a monkey threw a banana (or something else slippery)
out of his cage. Before the zoo keepers could get it cleaned up a
woman slipped on it and hurt herself. I don't remember what the
extent of the damage was. Anyway, she's suing the zoo.
Sue

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
[
The 2005 Stella Awards

It's time once again to review the winners of the Annual "Stella
Awards." The Stella Awards are named after 81 year-old Stella Liebeck
who
spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's (in
NM). That
case inspired the Stella awards for the most frivolous, ridiculous,
successful lawsuits in the United States.

The Myth of Stella Liebeck and the McDonald's Coffee "Frivolous" Lawsuit

It is a basic principle of our law that everybody has a right to his or
her day in Court, despite extensive efforts by corporate and other
wealthy and powerful interests to slam the courthouse door in the face
of the little guy. But every time you hear about a so-called frivolous
lawsuit, please remember that the plaintiff won only because a jury of
ordinary citizens all agreed that they should.

As for McDonald's, they employ Ph.D food scientists to research their
product line. There is a well-established industry standard for coffee
temperature, and McDonald's knew it. That is about 135 degrees, the
temperature at which your home, office, or typical restaurant coffee
maker produces coffee. This temperature is recognized as safe in that
it is unlikely to produce serious injury. Many people have spilled that
type of "hot" coffee on themselves one time or another. It hurts, you
say Ow!, then blot it up and go on with your life. It might be a little
painful, but you haven't been really hurt or damaged, and you certainly
have no business suing anybody over it.

But McDonald's, who buys tons of coffee, learned from their experts that
they could squeeze a few more pennies of profit out of their coffee
beans, and keep their product available for sale a few minutes longer if
they modified their equipment to make coffee that was much hotter than
the familiar and safe industry standard of about 135 degrees. The
problem with this is that the new, more profitable setting of about 185
degrees produced a product that could and did cause serious injury, not
only to their customers, but to their own employees, mostly young kids,
a fact they chose to ignore.

McDonalds' own quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if the victim's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid
would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn. During
discovery, McDonalds was forced to produce documents showing more than
700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some
claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to the
victim's. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent
and nature of this hazard.

As for the victim, she was a 79 year old woman. She was not driving the
car; she was a passenger in her grandson's car. The car was completely
stopped at the time of the accident. When the lid popped off that
elderly lady's coffee, did she immediately call her lawyer with dollar
signs dancing in her head? Nope. She went to the burn ward with
third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body, including her inner
thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She underwent
skin grafting and endured debridement, perhaps the most painful of
medical procedures. All she asked was for McDonald's to pay a measly
$20,000. But they turned her down flat. She did eventually get a
judgment for her actual damages. But did McDonalds actually pay the
$2,700,000 (equal to about 2 days of McDonald's coffee sales) in
punitive damages that a jury of ordinary citizens thought they should
pay, based on the evidence presented in court? Nope. McDonald's got
the judge to substantially reduce that amount, down to only $480,000,
even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and
willful.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
So the victim was effectively "gagged," but that didn't stop the
professional PR machines and paid big business lobbyists from portraying
McDonald's Corp. and others as the victims of "frivolous lawsuits," as
the ones needing the protection of the legislature with "tort reform"
laws against "rapacious trial attorneys." Wanna bet this political
campaign cost a lot more than what McDonald's actually paid to their
victim? But judging by current public attitudes, I'll bet they
consider it money well spent.

Jeff

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
. com...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Jeff McCann" wrote in message
.. .

snip

As you relate the details, I wonder if the PR version would have been
so successful if it had happened after the Web and Google had made it
so easy to double-check the facts.

I'm not taking a swipe here at Bush Ed, not that I wouldn't, but the
internet hasn't done much to root out the twisted versions of reality
coming
out of political campaigns - at least not to any real effect.
Volume, or quantity if you will, still seems able to trump quality.

That may be true, but presidential politics is so much more complex than
this case that it's possible to obscure facts and twist reality rather
easily. In fact, that's how people like Karl Rove, as well as pundits on the
other side, make their living.

But Jeff was able to get a fairly comprehensive story into a few paragraphs
in this case. The arguments against it either have to ignore that fairly
small set of facts, or they have to be based on some overriding attitudes.
Either way, it's easy to expose the whole case, if you make even a small
effort.

What struck me is that I heard this story back when it happened, and the
information I got came from third parties, and through a soda straw of
communication. I wasn't into double-checking facts in those days except for
my professional writing. Those were the impressions I carried with me about
the case in all the years since. Checking facts in those days was too much
work for everyday use. Now it's easy.

--
Ed Huntress

"Sue" wrote in message
...

And what do you do about a monkey? I believe it was recently at the
Fresno Zoo that a monkey threw a banana (or something else slippery)
out of his cage. Before the zoo keepers could get it cleaned up a
woman slipped on it and hurt herself. I don't remember what the
extent of the damage was. Anyway, she's suing the zoo.
Sue

We can get miffed about cases like this forever, but many people
misunderstand the basis of much of tort law in the US. We used to think only
in terms of negligence and fault. Now you have to consider the principle of
strict liability.

And, before you snort it away, it would be a good idea to read some cases
that have been decided on that basis. It's a double-edged sword, but few
people, having read illuminating cases, would do away with it. Well, maybe
some of the curmudgeons here. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Jeff McCann" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Wanna bet this political
campaign cost a lot more than what McDonald's actually paid to their
victim? But judging by current public attitudes, I'll bet they
consider it money well spent.

Jeff

You make a very good case, Jeff. It's clear that many of us have gotten
the story as someone wanted it told, and that it played right into our
prejudices -- myself included.

As you relate the details, I wonder if the PR version would have been so
successful if it had happened after the Web and Google had made it so easy
to double-check the facts. Myths have been taking a beating since those
things came along (many more myths are generated, of course, but they're
much more vulnerable to simple, honest checking than they used to be).

Anyway, thanks for the info.

Actually his relation of the details is pretty much the party line on that
and has little to do with the realities of coffee making. First time I saw
those arguments I said something about an "espresso machine" and the guy
who was expounding his expertise about coffee came back with "I never buy
coffee out of those machines", which to my way of thinking pretty much blew
his credibility as a coffee expert.

Just for the record my Gaggia espresso machine puts 172 in the cup, my Bodum
vac pot puts 195 in the carafe and 190 in the cup, and my Cuisinart drip
machine puts 179 in the carafe and 168 in the cup. The Cuisinart is
generally regarded by coffee aficionados as running a bit on the cool side
for a drip machine, the Gaggia is a very highly regarded espresso machine,
and the Bodum is an "enthusiast" machine in some regards despite the low
price. _All_ of them significantly exceed the 135F that the plaintiff's
lawyers claimed was some kind of "industry standard" and put coffee in the
cup in the range recommended by the ANSI standard. I tried some 138F water
(didn't feel like diddling it to 135 exactly) just to see what it felt like
and it was still perceptibly hot but in any but a vacuum insulated cup it
wouldn't be for long.


--
Ed Huntress

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

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
. com...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Jeff McCann" wrote in message
.. .

snip

What struck me is that I heard this story back when it happened, and
the information I got came from third parties, and through a soda
straw of communication. I wasn't into double-checking facts in those
days except for my professional writing. Those were the impressions I
carried with me about the case in all the years since. Checking facts
in those days was too much work for everyday use. Now it's easy.

I think I heard about this about the way you did and came away with the same
impression. I am just less certain that given todays events there is really
much erosion of the ability to get "your" story out if you want to. Jeff's
report wasn't avaliable befor trial in such detail. Apparently no one
bothered to interview grandma or they would have known of the facts that
were in evidence at trial. Absent an interview the internet wouldn't have
done much beyond allow McD's to pay a couple of shills to get their version
out to cyberspace.
I'm not being contrary just to argue. I just don't think truth has been
served especially or agressively by the great electronic information Santa
Claus. It cuts both ways and agressive offense as an advocate is as
effective today as ever.

The net can be a useful tool. I was sitting on a jury last year in a capital
murder case in LA. As it turned out the Inglewood PD used the web site of
the gang involved to get their line up photos. LOL! The cops didn't have a
photo of the perps to use so they went to the gangs own web site and
downloaded them. I laughed out loud in open court when the detective on the
stand recounted that part of the investigation. The judge "admonished" me
and I think the defense motioned my dismissal but his honor couldn't
completely supress his own grin while he was adressing us and in the end I
voted to fry the *******.



--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:59:59 GMT, zadoc wrote:

(snip)

Otherwise, he just gets buried and his remains are consumed by lower
forms of life such as insects, bacteria, etc.

Unwarranted assumption there. No reason to assume that the insects, bacteria,
etc. are lower forms of life. Some of those motorcycle riders who choose to ride
without helmets would have difficulty proving that they rank above insects,
bacteria OR even etc. on any scale ranking forms of life.


Or perhaps a hungry rat
will burrow down to his coffin, and at least he will make a fellow
mammal happy!

It might be the first time he did that.

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 19:20:56 -0800, "Jeff McCann" wrote:

(snip)
The Myth of Stella Liebeck and the McDonald's Coffee "Frivolous" Lawsuit

It is a basic principle of our law that everybody has a right to his or
her day in Court, despite extensive efforts by corporate and other
wealthy and powerful interests to slam the courthouse door in the face
of the little guy. But every time you hear about a so-called frivolous
lawsuit, please remember that the plaintiff won only because a jury of
ordinary citizens all agreed that they should.

As for McDonald's, they employ Ph.D food scientists to research their
product line. There is a well-established industry standard for coffee
temperature, and McDonald's knew it. That is about 135 degrees,

A "standard" of "about 135 degrees? That precise, eh?

the
temperature at which your home, office, or typical restaurant coffee
maker produces coffee.

That's strange. My home coffeemaker produces steam when it makes coffee, so it
must be a bit hotter than 135 degrees.

This temperature is recognized as safe in that
it is unlikely to produce serious injury. Many people have spilled that
type of "hot" coffee on themselves one time or another. It hurts, you
say Ow!, then blot it up and go on with your life. It might be a little
painful, but you haven't been really hurt or damaged, and you certainly
have no business suing anybody over it.

Actually, I spilled a pot of coffee on my hand once and suffered second degree
burns. I didn't sue anybody because the thought never entered my mind to blame
anybody else for my clumsiness. Imagine that. :/

But McDonald's, who buys tons of coffee, learned from their experts that
they could squeeze a few more pennies of profit out of their coffee
beans, and keep their product available for sale a few minutes longer if
they modified their equipment to make coffee that was much hotter than
the familiar and safe industry standard of about 135 degrees. The
problem with this is that the new, more profitable setting of about 185
degrees produced a product that could and did cause serious injury, not
only to their customers, but to their own employees, mostly young kids,
a fact they chose to ignore.

But McDonalds' hot coffee wasn't the ONLY factor which caused stupid Stella
Liebeck's injury. Stupid Stella Liebeck contributed to her own injury by getting
into a moving vehicle and putting a cup of hot coffee between her legs. I'd
assign her at least 95% responsibility for this "accident" happening.

McDonalds' own quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if the victim's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid
would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn. During
discovery, McDonalds was forced to produce documents showing more than
700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some
claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to the
victim's. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent
and nature of this hazard.

As for the victim, she was a 79 year old woman. She was not driving the
car; she was a passenger in her grandson's car. The car was completely
stopped at the time of the accident. When the lid popped off that
elderly lady's coffee, did she immediately call her lawyer with dollar
signs dancing in her head? Nope. She went to the burn ward with
third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body, including her inner
thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She underwent
skin grafting and endured debridement, perhaps the most painful of
medical procedures. All she asked was for McDonald's to pay a measly
$20,000. But they turned her down flat.

As they should have.

She did eventually get a
judgment for her actual damages. But did McDonalds actually pay the
$2,700,000 (equal to about 2 days of McDonald's coffee sales) in
punitive damages that a jury of ordinary citizens thought they should
pay, based on the evidence presented in court? Nope. McDonald's got
the judge to substantially reduce that amount, down to only $480,000,
even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and
willful.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
So the victim was effectively "gagged," but that didn't stop the
professional PR machines and paid big business lobbyists from portraying
McDonald's Corp. and others as the victims of "frivolous lawsuits," as
the ones needing the protection of the legislature with "tort reform"
laws against "rapacious trial attorneys." Wanna bet this political
campaign cost a lot more than what McDonald's actually paid to their
victim?

Relevance? Does the cost of the PR campaign have any significance here compared
to the money they actually paid her(or her money-grubbing family)? BTW, she was
NOT their victim. She was a victim of her own stupidity.

But judging by current public attitudes, I'll bet they
consider it money well spent.

I don't care for McDonalds. Never liked the food, and have even passed up free
meals there. I do like personal accountability, though, and really hated to hear
"poor" old Stella Liebeck when she got on the news and said she never wanted to
sue McDonalds, but her family made her do it. If a 79-year-old is too spineless
to stand up to her family, she should just sit there and let herself get burned
by hot coffee. :/

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 19:20:56 -0800, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

product line. There is a well-established industry standard for coffee
temperature, and McDonald's knew it. That is about 135 degrees, the
temperature at which your home, office, or typical restaurant coffee
maker produces coffee.

while it is correct that there *is* an industry standard and that
mcdonalds knew it, it is factually incorrect that the standard is
"about 135 degrees" and factually incorrect that this is the
temperature at which coffee is produced and/or held in either home or
commercial coffee brewing equipment.



they modified their equipment to make coffee that was much hotter than
the familiar and safe industry standard of about 135 degrees.

this is factually incorrect.



hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

the cups are not Styrofoam. further, the burn data on mouth and
throat is pretty sparse, mainly gathered from emergency room patients
who've suffered some sort of accident, or who *gulped* scalding
liquids. it seems that getting test subjects who will allow their
mouths and throats to be scalded for research are few and far between
(unlike exposed skin research).

*****millions***** of people every day, around the world, routinely
consume beverages which are well above the burn threshold without
incident or accident. given the plaintiff's case in liebeck, one
would think this virtually impossible, and yet, people *do* consume
scalding liquids, and research has shown that they *prefer* scalding
liquids (beverages at 140F are rejected as "cold").

how is this possible? easy: sipping & saliva.


it is an interesting topic, and more complex than most people think.


--barry "in the coffee biz"

On 2 Jan 2006 20:04:51 -0800, "rigger" wrote:

Read my lips: McDonalds.......Was......Neglegent.......Period.


no.... they.... weren't.


they were poorly defended.


NO ONE has won a spill/burn suit *based on temperature* since the
McD's suit.

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 22:21:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
(snip)
But Jeff was able to get a fairly comprehensive story into a few paragraphs
in this case.

Fairly biased, too, with a bit of a slant in favor of Stella Liebeck. He also
totally ignored the press conference Liebeck held in which she tried to defend
her behavior when people challenged her for filing the lawsuit in the first
place. Seems she might have been feeling a bit guilty about filing it since she
was raised in a time when people were brought up to take responsibility for
their actions. The only defense she could come up with was the whine "Well I
didn't want to file the lawsuit, but my family made me do it!". If she isn't old
enough to make up her mind by the time she's 79, when will she be old enough?

The arguments against it either have to ignore that fairly
small set of facts, or they have to be based on some overriding attitudes.
Either way, it's easy to expose the whole case, if you make even a small
effort.

I think some of the truth has been exposed fairly well.

What struck me is that I heard this story back when it happened, and the
information I got came from third parties, and through a soda straw of
communication. I wasn't into double-checking facts in those days except for
my professional writing. Those were the impressions I carried with me about
the case in all the years since. Checking facts in those days was too much
work for everyday use. Now it's easy.

I still think Bill Engvall has the right idea. Stella Liebeck should have been
awarded a sign after that trial. She should have been forced to wear it around
everywhere she went so nobody would have given her a cup of hot coffee, a sharp
knife, a sharp pencil, a piece of bubblegum, or anything else with which she
might have been able to injure herself or anyone else.
Oh yeah, her sign would have said "I'm STUPID!".

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
. com...

I'm not being contrary just to argue. I just don't think truth has been
served especially or agressively by the great electronic information Santa
Claus. It cuts both ways and agressive offense as an advocate is as
effective today as ever.

Yes, but we can find out much more now if we're so inclined. We just have to
develop better bull**** detectors. I think we're in the process of doing
that as we speak.

The judge "admonished" me
and I think the defense motioned my dismissal but his honor couldn't
completely supress his own grin while he was adressing us and in the end I
voted to fry the *******.

Hang 'em high. Arrogance combined with stupidity should double the
punishment. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

What struck me is that I heard this story back when it happened, and the
information I got came from third parties, and through a soda straw of
communication. I wasn't into double-checking facts in those days except for
my professional writing. Those were the impressions I carried with me about
the case in all the years since. Checking facts in those days was too much
work for everyday use. Now it's easy.

Why don't you stick a thermometer in the output of your coffee maker and
test the primary part of the story here - that McDonalds is selling
coffee at a dangerous temperature? A local reporter here in Albuquerque
(the infamous McDonalds is a city block from me) did exactly that and
found nothing particularly unusual about the coffee temperature at
McDonalds. Not surprising - you can't heat water in an open container
above the boiling point.

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 22:21:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
(snip)
But Jeff was able to get a fairly comprehensive story into a few
paragraphs
in this case.

Fairly biased, too, with a bit of a slant in favor of Stella Liebeck.

OK, but my point is not that Jeff has the last word. It's that he HAS a
word, including details we (or I, anyway) didn't hear at the time.

Now, if someone really wants to, they can get the whole picture. The
question that would be important to me is what did McDonald's know about the
danger and what did they do about it.

Personal responsibility is a value that we generally hold very high in this
country, and I share the attitude. But show me a gang of corporate clods who
try to cover up dangers *they know about* in their products or services, for
the sake of profitability, and I turn around pretty quick and start biting.

I'm not judging the case here, nor am I interested in trying to do so. But
now I have a better idea of what I'd want to look into if I cared enough to
have an opinion.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , The Watcher
wrote:


That's strange. My home coffeemaker produces steam when it makes coffee, so it
must be a bit hotter than 135 degrees.

And my _breath_ produces visible vapor when I step outside on a cold
day.

There's a big difference between the "steam" from "steaming coffee" and
actual steam, as in 100 C/212 F water.

My coffee maker "steams" when no boiling is going on. So does my
espresso machine.

McDonald's was sellling what used to be sold as "piping hot coffee,"
what many coffee drinkers want. Some even blow on their coffee to cool
it enough to stop lip and tongue burns.

But because of this ditzy bint's lawsuit and her shyter lawyers,
McDonald's has now "dumbed down" its coffee to just barely above room
temperature levels.

Disgraceful the way the Constitution has been ****ted on by shysters
and minorities and turned into toilet paper.


--Tim May

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 12:49:25 -0700, Russ Kepler
wrote:

I've never understood how the plaintiff's lawyers got away with the
"unnaturally hot" line. You make coffee with boiling water. Water
boils about 200 degF here in Albuquerque (about a mile up) and there's
some cooling in the process, but the output temperature is pretty
constant, and I don't know anyone who puts the fresh coffee away to cool
before serving it.

The same applies to the "50 degrees hotter than normal" lines.


mcd's had an embarrassingly poor defense, which failed to refute most
of the erroneous claims put forth by plaintiff's counsel.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
. com...

I'm not being contrary just to argue. I just don't think truth has
been served especially or agressively by the great electronic
information Santa Claus. It cuts both ways and agressive offense as
an advocate is as effective today as ever.

Yes, but we can find out much more now if we're so inclined. We just
have to develop better bull**** detectors. I think we're in the
process of doing that as we speak.

The judge "admonished" me
and I think the defense motioned my dismissal but his honor couldn't
completely supress his own grin while he was adressing us and in the
end I voted to fry the *******.

Hang 'em high. Arrogance combined with stupidity should double the
punishment. d8-)

No kidding.
I got held up late one evening at an ATM machine. Guy had a knife. He cut me
once before I voted in that case and it's only because I was slower then
than in my younger days that he drew blood. Never bring a knife to a gun
fight. Got it back too.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

zadoc wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:28:43 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:


On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:03:35 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
wrote:

(snip)

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3

Then sues MacDonalds to make them pay for the consequences of their stupidity.


McDonalds for serving coffee at a dangerous temperature? I suspect
that after this case franchisees will take a bit more care. Their
parent company may not back them next time.

Therefore an adverse judgment might deprive them of not on their
business but their home and their savings, especially if they cannot
get adequate insurance.

O.K., I will admit that some lawsuits aren't justified, but some are.
Consider the following scenario: We all know that many parents cannot
or will not control their bratty children. Child "A" doesn't like his
milkshake so he flings it all over the floor in front of the entrance.

Before the owner of the franchise or his appointed supervisor can
manage to get someone to clean it up, an elderly customer on crutches
enters, slips on it, strikes his or her head and dies.

So who is responsible? Child "A" is the proximate cause, but he
cannot be arrested or sued. His parents can be, though, as they
didn't restrain the little animal, or immediately inform management
and personally volunteer to clean up the mess before any other
customer suffers or dies from their negligence.

Were they negligent? I would argue that they were in that they didn't
keep there damned kid under control. And if they cannot do this, they
shouldn't bring him or her into a public place.

Anymore than they should bring a savage dog or a pet crocodile.
....But if they choose to do so, then they should be fully legally
responsible for any damage that he/she/it causes to others.

Children or retarded individuals seldom have full legal
responsibility, whatever their chronological age.

So, for the sake of argument, lets assume that the Smith family has a
retarded or psychotic son or daughter. They are allowed into a
takeaway restaurant. Their 15 year old psychotic kid believes that a
4 year old at the next table is "looking" at him or her. So they leap
on the four year old and rip out their throat with their teeth.

The four year old dies in a fountain of blood.

So who can be charged? Not the 15 year old, as he/she has "diminished
legal responsibility" as he didn't know the effects of what he/she was
doing.

His or her parents? Maybe, as they shouldn't have brought him in the
restaurant unless they could guarantee to keep him/her "under
control".

The murdering kid isn't legally responsible. Perhaps they are for
bringing him or her to a public place when they couldn't exercise
adequate control over him/her. So perhaps the parents are
responsible?

Or is the franchisee responsible? Or the parent corporation?

There must be an answer somewhere. Can any "legal eagle" provide it?

The attorneys will sue everyone, but go after the deepest pockets first.

Cheers,








--
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3

"Russ Kepler" wrote in message
...

Why don't you stick a thermometer in the output of your coffee maker and
test the primary part of the story here - that McDonalds is selling
coffee at a dangerous temperature?

Ok, but not tonight. But I consider my coffee maker to be a little cold and
I only use it when I'm in a hurry. Normally I boil water on the stove and
pour it immediately through a coffee-filled cone filter. It ain't gourmet,
but that gives me a much better flavor and fragrance than any coffee maker
I've tried.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:05:25 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Now, if someone really wants to, they can get the whole picture. The
question that would be important to me is what did McDonald's know about the
danger and what did they do about it.


i recommend you read this:

http://www.scaa.org/shop/product_det...ductid=R200300


mcdonalds brewing/holding procedures were not out of line with
industry standards.

"Tim May" wrote in message
...

But because of this ditzy bint's lawsuit and her shyter lawyers,
McDonald's has now "dumbed down" its coffee to just barely above room
temperature levels.

Disgraceful the way the Constitution has been ****ted on by shysters
and minorities and turned into toilet paper.

Here we go...I knew it wouldn't take much longer. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 12:39:51 -0800, Koz
wrote:

sorry to pop in at the middle of a pecker contest here but 1) the
coffee was unusually hot....as in way hotter than would be expected when
ordering "hot" coffee,

no, it wasn't. this was an assertion which mcd's foolishly did not
contest (even though it is untrue).

"Barry Jarrett" wrote in message
...

mcd's had an embarrassingly poor defense, which failed to refute most
of the erroneous claims put forth by plaintiff's counsel.

Well, Jesus, here's a corporation that sells ninety gazillion hamburgers and
they don't have good lawyers? They ought to be fined $100 million for sheer
stupidity, then. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 01:30:34 GMT, zadoc wrote:

Sorry, but serving coffee hot enough to cause scalding of tissue is
totally irresponsible, and there is absolutely no justification for
such a dangerous practice.



"consumer preference"

"Tim May" wrote in message
...

As you indicate, Sanyo is way down on the list. As the Sanyo.com site
itself says, combining the Tijuana plant with the Arkansas plant yields
only 3 million t.v. sets annually. Way down on the list.

snip

FWIW, zadoc commented on the sizes of the corporation, with nothing I saw
concerning the size of the plants -- which is the claim that Wal-Mart was
making.

The corporation he was talking about didn't exist a few years ago. Those
figures I quoted came from David Glass, Wal-Mart's CEO until 2000. They were
related to Thomas Friedman in an interview for his new book, _The World Is
Flat_.

Although the book was published in 2005, Glass, as I look at it now, must
have been talking about some time before 2000.

Or, Friedman or Glass got it wrong. But you can't tell from the production
volume of current plants, nor does it have much to do with the corporations'
relative size.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:03:35 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
wrote:


We all know better, but accidents do happen. If the coffee hadn't
been served too hot, the damage wouldn't have been so severe.

SO?
If she had ordered a Coke instead, there would havebeen no damage.

She might have gotten frostbite of the snatch. That stuff DOES have
ice in it ya know.

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,