On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:21:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

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-)


that was my feeling. mcd's should have filed a claim for "errors and
omissions".


btw, a few years after this case, the specialty coffee association of
america had a full-day seminar on burn/spill issues which was very
very interesting (mostly legal and scientific issues, but also
included some info on consumer preferences for HOT coffee). i'm
trying to get them to hold another such seminar with updated
information, as there was some research pending at the time of the
first seminar.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:08:38 GMT, "Gary H. Lucas"
wrote:

Next you'll want warning labels on bricks

"INFECTIOUS DISEASES IN BRICKS"

http://www.improbable.com/airchives/...icks-36-6.html

HTH
--
Cliff

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:24:09 GMT, "Gary H. Lucas"
wrote:

Thousands of good deserving people die
every year while waiting for organs ruined by a donor wearing a helmet.

Good point.
But too few are donors to begin with .... perhaps it should
be required to get a license ....
--
Cliff

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 04:34:35 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

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.

You are thinking of wingers again?
--
Cliff

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

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

But they allow wingers to have guns anyway.
How odd.
--
Cliff

In article , Cliff
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:24:09 GMT, "Gary H. Lucas"
wrote:

Thousands of good deserving people die
every year while waiting for organs ruined by a donor wearing a helmet.

Good point.
But too few are donors to begin with .... perhaps it should
be required to get a license ....


You ought to be flayed for this thought.

A drivers license is NOT a license to donate organs to others.

Get it?


--Tim May

In article , Cliff
wrote:

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

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

But they allow wingers to have guns anyway.
How odd.

I'm a felon, and yet I have assault rifles and handguns and explosives.

The Second Amendment is not trumped by either political party or legal
status, if one is not actually imprisoned. Until I am in prison, my
guns are mine.

I hope to kill a squad of "5150" or other narcs who raid my hill.

Thirty million Jews and liberals and neocon traitors need to be
converted to smoke and sent up the chimneys.


--Tim May

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 04:56:46 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

Oh yeah, her sign would have said "I'm STUPID!".

Their coffee really was too hot.

HTH
--
Cliff

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.

Personal responsibility is a value that we generally hold very high in this
country

And clearly McDonalds tried to evade it.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:14:06 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"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.

Different oils & things come out at different temps.
So we have different types of coffees and brewing methods too.
Measure the temperature of coffee in a restaurant sometime. Or out
of your own coffee machine.
I think it cools a lot as it gets to the cool pot ... except at
McDonalds...
--
Cliff

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

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

This is probably sort of key.
What it's brewed at *in the grounds* is one thing, it's
final temp in the pot quite another.
They kept it too hot in the pot.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:40:13 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

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.

Which ges into cold cups, except at McDonald's, right??
Where it goes into well-insulated styrofoam ...
--
Cliff

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:06:44 -0800, Tim May
wrote:

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

What does the Constitution say about coffee?
--
Cliff

In article , Cliff
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 04:56:46 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

Oh yeah, her sign would have said "I'm STUPID!".

Their coffee really was too hot.


Customers liked it. Most of them.

If you did not, don't buy it.

If you and you shyster lawyer allies try to force others to conform to
your desires in temperature, then of course you and they need killing.

--Tim May

In article , Cliff
wrote:

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.

Personal responsibility is a value that we generally hold very high in this
country

And clearly McDonalds tried to evade it.

I hope you and your family are killed.


--Tim May

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 02:35:03 -0500, Cliff wrote:

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

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

This is probably sort of key.
What it's brewed at *in the grounds* is one thing, it's
final temp in the pot quite another.
They kept it too hot in the pot.

no, they didn't.

brew temp is recommended at 195-205F.

recommended hold temp, off the top of my head, is about 185F.

serving temp will be a few degrees cooler, as coffee loses heat when
it is poured into a cup. my own testing has shown about a 10F drop
when pouring coffee through 4" of air into a polyfoam cup.

consumption temperature begins a few degrees down from there, and
coffee loses heat at about 1F per minute in an open cup. there is
obviously less heat loss with a lid, and greater heat loss when
cream/sugar is added and/or the coffee is stirred.

Barry Jarrett says:

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

no.... they.... weren't.
they were poorly defended.

Funny. YOU must be a super large law firm with the the Very Best
Record
in the World in defense of this kind of suit. I know this because I'm
certain
McDonalds had AT LEAST the second best. Or perhaps you have some
legal information no one else has?

dennis
in nca

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:05:28 -0800, Tim May
wrote:

In article , Cliff
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:24:09 GMT, "Gary H. Lucas"
wrote:

Thousands of good deserving people die
every year while waiting for organs ruined by a donor wearing a helmet.

Good point.
But too few are donors to begin with .... perhaps it should
be required to get a license ....


You ought to be flayed for this thought.

Helping others?

A drivers license is NOT a license to donate organs to others.

Why not? Drive safely ....

Get it?

http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook506.htm

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Don't be a brain donor.
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
But they allow wingers to have guns anyway.
How odd.
--
Cliff

Cliff, since you use that word as often as you do, may I offer the correct
spelling and a memory jog to help remember it? WHINGE. It has an H, as does
WHINE. Wings are for dipping in sauce; wine is for drinking. Whinge and
whine is what they do on the other side of the pond. I would be pleased to
not have to mentally correct it everytime I see it. ("Oh. He means
'whinger'.") Thanks.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:03:46 GMT, "Mike Young"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
But they allow wingers to have guns anyway.
How odd.

Cliff, since you use that word as often as you do, may I offer the correct
spelling and a memory jog to help remember it? WHINGE. It has an H, as does
WHINE. Wings are for dipping in sauce; wine is for drinking. Whinge and
whine is what they do on the other side of the pond. I would be pleased to
not have to mentally correct it everytime I see it. ("Oh. He means
'whinger'.") Thanks.

http://www.koalanet.com/australian-slang.html#W
--
Cliff

On 4 Jan 2006 00:38:15 -0800, "rigger" wrote:

Or perhaps you have some
legal information no one else has?

dennis
in nca

i have basic coffee information that, apparently, the mcd's defense
team never bothered to investigate. if they had, the "wildly
dangerous" temperature issue would have been rightfully rebutted.

i'd at least think that the lawyers would have noticed their morning
coffee was HOT, and that HOT coffee was the norm, not the exception.

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


snip cut-n-paste plagiarism

Jeff



Do you cook Jeff? Have a coffee maker? A meat thermometer? Would
you care to try what I just did and go brew yourself a pot?

It's okay, we'll wait.

Now, drop the thermometer into the pot of coffee and tell us what it
reads. I've just tested my Krups and my spare Mr. Coffee, both of
which were manufactured after Ms Liebeck became a victim [sic] of
McDonald's reckless attempt to squeeze a few more pennies of profit
out of their coffee [sic]. My Krups holds its coffee at 167° F and
Mr. Coffee at 174° F. I could test my French Press too, but it would
read over 190° F so I'll spare you the added embarrassment. So much
for your well-established industry standard [sic] when even
consumer-grade equipment, manufactured by companies already
hyper-cautious of litigation, exceeds your "standard".

Crap, if you're going to steal someone else's work and present it as
your own, at least steal from someone who has a passing familiarity
with the material they're trying to fob off as fact.

Oh, nice spin job presenting Ms Liebeck as having been "gagged" too.
If there was any gagging, Ms L. did it to herself, freely, willingly,
and (I suspect) enthusiastically, when she signed the settlement to
get her hands on the money.

TK

--
Cogito ergo bibo

Jeff McCann wrote:
"TDKozan" wrote in message
...

Crap, if you're going to steal someone else's work and present it as
your own, at least steal from someone who has a passing familiarity
with the material they're trying to fob off as fact.


Number one, I didn't "steal someone else's work." Accounts of the trial and
surrounding events are widely available, and are the source for the alleged
facts that were developed at trial. Number two, if you have a problem with
the trial record, try to confine yourself to that, instead of engaging in
smears of those who describe it. Number three, your amateur kitchen lab
experiments notwithstanding, I'm sure the trier of fact had plenty of
opportunity to hear from actual qualified experts on both sides, plus
rebuttals and arguments, and they were able to draw their own conclusions.
In fact, if a juror had played kitchen scientist, it would be juror
misconduct leading to a mistrial. I'm sure McDonald's did all they could to
disprove Liebeck's experts, but apparently could not do so.

Jeff



yawn

You stepped on your crank and got called on it. I don't agree with
much of your opinion but I've never had cause to disrespect you until
today. Personally, I've come to expect plagarism as the norm on the
'net since it's too much work for anyone to get off their fat ass and
actually do something original any more, but when you're caught, have
the grace to admit it.

Your dismissal of my "amateur kitchen lab experiments" is even more
laughable. If you're not going to let a fact get in the way of a good
story, at least label your writing as fantasy.

Facts. . . Couldn't you afford the $20 to follow through on John
Clarke's ANSI cite either? In case your newsfeed missed it, it's
ANSI/AHAM CM-1-2005 and it calls for a temperature of 170-205F.

That's the trouble with facts, they don't allow much wiggle room for
opinion.


TK

--
Cogito ergo bibo

TDKozan wrote:
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


snip cut-n-paste plagiarism

Jeff



Do you cook Jeff? Have a coffee maker? A meat thermometer? Would you
care to try what I just did and go brew yourself a pot?

It's okay, we'll wait.

Now, drop the thermometer into the pot of coffee and tell us what it
reads. I've just tested my Krups and my spare Mr. Coffee, both of
which were manufactured after Ms Liebeck became a victim [sic] of
McDonald's reckless attempt to squeeze a few more pennies of profit
out of their coffee [sic]. My Krups holds its coffee at 167° F and Mr.
Coffee at 174° F. I could test my French Press too, but it would read
over 190° F so I'll spare you the added embarrassment. So much for your
well-established industry standard [sic] when even consumer-grade
equipment, manufactured by companies already hyper-cautious of
litigation, exceeds your "standard".

Crap, if you're going to steal someone else's work and present it as
your own, at least steal from someone who has a passing familiarity
with the material they're trying to fob off as fact.

Oh, nice spin job presenting Ms Liebeck as having been "gagged" too.
If there was any gagging, Ms L. did it to herself, freely, willingly,
and (I suspect) enthusiastically, when she signed the settlement to
get her hands on the money.

TK


That is the stock and trade of a lawyer. They can only win cases when
they twist and miss represent the facts to such an extent that the poor
jury is so bamboozled that all they remember is the Crying of the
plaintive in court room when cued by their lawyer. Beside the Lawyer
tells the Jury that they must award big bucks, to hurt the MacDonald's
of the world the only way they can (through the pocket books). What
they don't tell you is the Lawyer got 40% of the money and the cost of
your big Mac went from $.99 to $1.29.

Of course Jeff didn't tell you of all the environmental law suits that
were brought against MacDonald's that forced them to change from
Styrofoam cups (highly insulative) to paper cups (don't hold heat well).

Now when you buy a cup of coffee at MacDonald's at their 135 degrees by
the time you get to your table it is cold. And cold coffee tastes like
****.


I think we need to pass a law that the legal profession can be a victim
of any crime except murder. When we get the right to put a bullet
through lawyers it will once again become an honorable profession
instead of a profession of fast buck artists,
Censorship and Gun Control are the political equivalent of binding and
gagging a victim before raping and mugging them.

Such acts are carried out by the same thugs, one with a law degree from
a state pen, the other a law degree from a university for the same sick
perverted purposes which are to remove you from your property, liberty
and dignity, and bend you to will of others.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:20:12 GMT, zadoc wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:49:22 GMT, Sue wrote:

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.

I apologize for mentioning the obvious differences between the male
and female sexes.

The obvious differences between males and females include the "fact"
that females don't know to not spill hot coffee in their laps? Hmmm.

However, God designed us that way. Apparently He
thought it would be nice?


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.

No problem. If you have any further problems in your understanding of
life as it is, please feel free to contact me. :-)

You've proved yourself to be a bad source of information and
understanding. But, thanks anyway.
Sue



Sue

Cheers,

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:31:51 GMT, zadoc wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:52:49 GMT, Sue wrote:

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

Before the culture descended into night, or at least twilight. :-)

If you want to understand this, I would suggest, for a start, that you
read _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_

Question: Why are many American females so pushy?
Answer: Because they wanted to be born male, life is so damned unfair,
and they will take it out on any male they meet as if he was
personally responsible.

I can only think of 5 times I wished I'd been a man. Four of those
involve giving birth. The fifth was on 2/21/69 when I'd like to have
punched some guy's lights out. However, had I been a man he wouldn't
have said what he did. )
I can think of one time I was definitely glad I wasn't a man. That
time spans the late 60's.
None of the above involved spilling hot coffee.
Sue


Question: Why are so many American females so unhappy.
Answer: See above.

Cheers,

rigger wrote:
tg offers:


It's always always always gotta be someone elses fault.


As opposed to NEVER anyone else's fault? You must lead a charmed life.
Wish I did.

dennis
in nca

It's someone else's fault when you're driving along, and a tree falls on
you because someone was cutting it down so it would fall in the street,
and they failed to block off the street.

When you go out of your way to buy coffee, and then pour it on your own
lap, that's your own fault.

Simple concept - no liberal can grasp it.

dazed and confuzzed wrote:
rigger wrote:

tg offers:


It's always always always gotta be someone elses fault.



As opposed to NEVER anyone else's fault? You must lead a charmed life.
Wish I did.

dennis
in nca

So if you run your car into a tree, it is the car manufacturers fault?

Moslty the car manufactures fault. If the guy who planted the tree has
more money, then it is his fault.

It's about money for lawyers, after all. It is not about any kind of
morality in the real world. It has nothing to do with the concept of
responsibility - more of a plunder concept.

Jeff McCann wrote:


"TDKozan" wrote in message
...
Jeff McCann wrote:
"TDKozan" wrote in message
...

Crap, if you're going to steal someone else's work and present it as
your own, at least steal from someone who has a passing familiarity
with the material they're trying to fob off as fact.


Number one, I didn't "steal someone else's work." Accounts of the
trial
and
surrounding events are widely available, and are the source for the
alleged
facts that were developed at trial. Number two, if you have a problem
with
the trial record, try to confine yourself to that, instead of engaging
in
smears of those who describe it. Number three, your amateur kitchen
lab experiments notwithstanding, I'm sure the trier of fact had plenty
of opportunity to hear from actual qualified experts on both sides,
plus rebuttals and arguments, and they were able to draw their own
conclusions.
In fact, if a juror had played kitchen scientist, it would be juror
misconduct leading to a mistrial. I'm sure McDonald's did all they
could to
disprove Liebeck's experts, but apparently could not do so.

Jeff



yawn

You stepped on your crank and got called on it. I don't agree with
much of your opinion but I've never had cause to disrespect you until
today.

Gee, I'm crushed.

I recognize your nom' de infobahn from posts on M.S., But I don't recall
anything in particular about any of your posts. So I don't really have a
clue who you are, what you think, or what your opinions are, and I have no
idea whether your opinion of me is something that should matter to me one
whit, or not. But, hey, thanks for sharing, and bonus points for
expressing your opinion like an adult.

Personally, I've come to expect plagarism as the norm on the
'net since it's too much work for anyone to get off their fat ass and
actually do something original any more, but when you're caught, have
the grace to admit it.

Still with the accusations of plagiarism, eh? I wrote what I posted some
years ago, actually. No, I wasn't council for Liebeck or McDonald's, nor
was I at the trial. I alsodidn't read the actual trial transcripts. So
what I wrote was probably gleaned from some "insider" legal references and
maybe some popular press accounts. I no longer recall specifically. In
any case, it was something I wrote to use in class on a lesson in critical
analysis of persuasive writing. Ergo, I was less interested in the facts
and minutiae of the trial than in using it as a legal case that most
everyone had heard about and formed an opinion on. I may have gotten bad
information, but that is not plagiarism. For example, I've learned that
putting "fluffy" the cat in the microwave to dry it off after a bath will
shortly kill the cat. But writing that that this is so doesn't constitute
plagiarism merely because I rely on what others have written on the
subject instead of conducting an experiment using my own cat and microwave
oven.

Your dismissal of my "amateur kitchen lab experiments" is even more
laughable. If you're not going to let a fact get in the way of a good
story, at least label your writing as fantasy.

I'd prefer to rely on the facts produced in open court, subject to
vigorous cross-examination, by qualified experts, rather than you in your
kitchen
with your meat thermometer. Sorry. I've learned that the "facts" can be
complex things, especially where humans are involved. The chain of
causation in the McDonald's case is likely rather complex. It isn't just
a
matter of sticking a thermometer in a pot of coffee. There's a good
reason
why jurors are instructed not to do this sort of thing. It is highly
likely
to be overly simplistic, absurdly reductionist and just plain wrong. Or
did you really expect that all the testimony from qualified experts with
years of learning and experience who doubtless studied and tested every
aspect of the matter should be disregarded because of whatever you think
you learned
in your kitchen? That seems like the arrogance of ignorance to me.

Moreover, whatever the facts are regarding the specific temperature of
coffee, that was only part of the trial. It was apparently a key part,
but
there were many other factors involved, surely. Maybe my sources were
wrong
about the temperature of the coffee. Personally, I don't know or really
care, because the one inescapable fact is McDonald's was judged negligent
in
it's conduct and therefore civilly liable. Additionally, I have seen no
credible accounts of the trial that demonstrate that Liebeck's claims were
"frivolous," which is, after all, what all the fuss is about. Even if she
had lost, that would not have been any evidence that her claim was
frivolous. We could pick apart this specific detail or that particular
allegation all day. But that ignores the heart of the matter. The
McDonald's case is the best known and most often cited example of a
"frivolous lawsuit," yet I have seen nothing thus far to support that
claim.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between a lawsuit that is
"frivolous" and therefore facially without any merit and improper to even
initiate, and one where the greater weight of credible evidence simply
lies on the other side, meaning that the sued party ought to prevail at
trial. Liebeck won at trial, thus her claims obviously had some merit, so
how did
this case become the poster child for "frivolous lawsuits"? I addressed
that central question in the last paragraph of my original post, and that
is the real issue here, not the reading on your meat thermometer, which
for all I know may be spot on.

It was "frivolous" for the simple reason that McD was serving coffee at the
temperatures recommended by coffee experts and included in international
standards and was found to have done wrong for following those standards
primarily on the basis of a comparison with other sellers of coffee who
were _not_ in compliance with those standards.

If you think it had merit you're entitled to your opinion, but please
forgive me if I (a) disagree with you and (b) believe that you and people
like you are strong arguments for tort reform. And yes, it will have a
"chilling effect". It's _supposed_ to do that.

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

"TDKozan" wrote in message
...
Crap, if you're going to steal someone else's work and present it as
your own, at least steal from someone who has a passing familiarity
with the material they're trying to fob off as fact.

Number one, I didn't "steal someone else's work." Accounts of the trial and
surrounding events are widely available, and are the source for the alleged
facts that were developed at trial. Number two, if you have a problem with
the trial record, try to confine yourself to that, instead of engaging in
smears of those who describe it. Number three, your amateur kitchen lab
experiments notwithstanding, I'm sure the trier of fact had plenty of
opportunity to hear from actual qualified experts on both sides, plus
rebuttals and arguments, and they were able to draw their own conclusions.
In fact, if a juror had played kitchen scientist, it would be juror
misconduct leading to a mistrial. I'm sure McDonald's did all they could to
disprove Liebeck's experts, but apparently could not do so.

Jeff

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 07:04:55 -0800, Pope Secola VI
wrote:


That is the stock and trade of a lawyer. They can only win cases when
they twist and miss represent the facts to such an extent that the poor
jury is so bamboozled that all they remember is the Crying of the
plaintive in court room when cued by their lawyer.

This must be the reason the Trial Lawyers were the single biggest
contributor to the Democratic Party,

Kindred spirits and techniques.

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,

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 08:18:03 -0800, "Jeff McCann" wrote:


"TDKozan" wrote in message
...
Crap, if you're going to steal someone else's work and present it as
your own, at least steal from someone who has a passing familiarity
with the material they're trying to fob off as fact.

Number one, I didn't "steal someone else's work." Accounts of the trial and
surrounding events are widely available, and are the source for the alleged
facts that were developed at trial. Number two, if you have a problem with
the trial record, try to confine yourself to that, instead of engaging in
smears of those who describe it. Number three, your amateur kitchen lab
experiments notwithstanding, I'm sure the trier of fact had plenty of
opportunity to hear from actual qualified experts on both sides, plus
rebuttals and arguments, and they were able to draw their own conclusions.
In fact, if a juror had played kitchen scientist, it would be juror
misconduct leading to a mistrial. I'm sure McDonald's did all they could to
disprove Liebeck's experts, but apparently could not do so.

Anyone with ANY familiarity with the American legal system knows it's not a
matter of disproving the experts. It's a matter of swaying the jury through ANY
means possible. Whatever goes(within the rules of the game and the judge will
allow).

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

(theoretical case, snipped)

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?

Your apparent problem is that you think every accident has
to garner a payment to the person suffering damages from
someone else. What happened to, "Well, sometimes ****
happens..."? Go home, tend to your wounds, hope it doesn't
happen again. Believe it or not, a lawyer, a lawsuit, and
damages are NOT the cure for every problem.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:19:53 GMT, zadoc wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 04:56:46 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

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?

Not really the point. She might have been a migrant to the US, and
conditioned to take **** from everyone.

Poor Stella Liebeck. Was there ANYTHING in the world(or her life) that she WAS
responsible for? Was there anything she had responsibility for? She was 79 years
old. If you have not learned the concept of personal responsibility by that age,
you will never learn it, and you have no business going around suing others for
not demonstrating it. :/

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.

Good point!

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!".

I, for one, disagree.

Do you carry insurance on house and/or contents. Do you have any
children?

Yeah, and I pay for that insurance. But, that insurance might not pay if I do
something stupid and CAUSE an accident. Imagine that. Personal responsibility.
What a concept. :/

Hell, even I could write a policy for you which would almost guarantee
that the company would never have to pay out anything, as you would
have violated one or more policy conditions.

I would suggest that if you dragged out your "home and contents"
policy (If you have one) then you would find a number of policy
exclusions.

And I would suggest that there SHOULD be a number of policy exclusions. Any
reasonable(mature) person would expect there to be some exclusions. I guess
that's the key word. Stella Liebeck was not a reasonable MATURE person. She
expected McDonalds to pay for the results of her stupidity, like a child expects
those around them to do.

"Cliff" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:05:28 -0800, Tim May
wrote:

In article , Cliff
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:24:09 GMT, "Gary H. Lucas"
wrote:

Thousands of good deserving people die
every year while waiting for organs ruined by a donor wearing a helmet.

Good point.
But too few are donors to begin with .... perhaps it should
be required to get a license ....


You ought to be flayed for this thought.

Helping others?

A drivers license is NOT a license to donate organs to others.

Why not? Drive safely ....

Get it?

http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook506.htm


http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/movies/coma.htm

John

BJ:
Or perhaps you have some
legal information no one else has?

dennis
in nca


i have basic coffee information that, apparently, the mcd's defense
team never bothered to investigate. if they had, the "wildly
dangerous" temperature issue would have been rightfully rebutted.
i'd at least think that the lawyers would have noticed their morning
coffee was HOT, and that HOT coffee was the norm, not the exception.

For the record please explain how YOUR law degree and YOUR years of
trial experience are superior when compared to the paltry Yale and
Harvard degrees and combined years of experience in restaurant related
law of the defence team. I'd especially like to hear how your Mommy
taught you about the difference between hot and cold.

Perhaps your years (more than 3?) watching court TV programs might even
qualify you for the Supreme Court? I think they could use some help
these days. You might just fit right in.

For anyone interested I just read they haven't yet torn down the CT
lady's house, turned over to the developers by the Supreme (we'll have
to change that name some day) Court.

dennis
in nca

Jeff McCann wrote:

snip

Still with the accusations of plagiarism, eh? I wrote what I posted some
years ago, actually.

Large portions your post was copied verbatum from Lectlaw and/or
Consumer Attorneys of California. Granted, you threw in your opinion
here and there as well but claiming it as your own is a stretch.
Unless you're the one who wrote the piece for CAC?

Oh well, that's not my point and it really doesn't matter.

snip


I'd prefer to rely on the facts produced in open court, subject to vigorous
cross-examination, by qualified experts, rather than you in your kitchen
with your meat thermometer. Sorry. I've learned that the "facts" can be
complex things, especially where humans are involved.

snip

And there, sir is the point I was hoping to reach and the point, I
feel, of the "Stella Awards". Facts and truth in the physical world
are usually quite simple things; it is only when they run headlong
against a legal system where "truth" and "fact" are whatever a
hand-picked pool of jurors can be convinced of that they become
complex. The point of today's recreational discussion is, court
findings notwithstanding, that McDonald's was conforming to
established standards with their coffee's temperature.

Granted that Ms Liebeck's case is an egregious exception and most
lawsuits do not torture reality to anywhere near this degree, but
you'd be more convincing if you didn't repeat easily debunked claims
about facts and standards, to say nothing of your bit of hyperbole
about the "victim" being "gagged".

Well, I've had my say and it's been fun typing with you. If nothing
else, this conversation demonstrates the reasoning behind the
annecdotes about lawyers being quick to exclude people with experience
in the matter being tried from their juries.

TK

--
Cogito ergo bibo

On 4 Jan 2006 09:06:33 -0800, "rigger" wrote:

For the record please explain how YOUR law degree and YOUR years of
trial experience are superior when compared to the paltry Yale and
Harvard degrees and combined years of experience in restaurant related
law of the defence team.

apparently, 17 years in the coffee business trumps yale and harvard
when it comes to "industry standards" regarding coffee brewing.

the temperature issue has NEVER been successfully used by a plaintiff
in a burn/spill suit since the mcd's case, because the coffee industry
realized that the mcd's defense screwed up on that issue and stepped
forward to offer up expert testimony on coffee issues. the author of
"the coffee brewing handbook" and executive director of the specialty
coffee association of america, ted lingle, has appeared as an expert
witness in subsequent cases, specifically addressing the chemical
justifications for the industry standard brew temperature of 195-205F
as well as the industry standard hold temp of approximately 185F (i
don't have the handbook handy, so i'm not going to quote an exact
number), and the relationship between brew, hold, and serve temp, as
well as providing information regarding consumer preferences for HOT
coffee. in every case where ted has testified, the erroneous
information from liebeck, routinely reintroduced by subsequent
plaintiffs, has been successfully rebutted. this thread is just
another instance of the misinformation entered into the record at the
liebeck trial has been construed as "accurate" just because it's in
the record.

if you'd like more information, i suggest you contact the SCAA:
www.scaa.org

"TDKozan" wrote in message
...
Jeff McCann wrote:
"TDKozan" wrote in message
...

Crap, if you're going to steal someone else's work and present it as
your own, at least steal from someone who has a passing familiarity
with the material they're trying to fob off as fact.


Number one, I didn't "steal someone else's work." Accounts of the trial
and
surrounding events are widely available, and are the source for the
alleged
facts that were developed at trial. Number two, if you have a problem
with
the trial record, try to confine yourself to that, instead of engaging
in
smears of those who describe it. Number three, your amateur kitchen lab
experiments notwithstanding, I'm sure the trier of fact had plenty of
opportunity to hear from actual qualified experts on both sides, plus
rebuttals and arguments, and they were able to draw their own
conclusions.
In fact, if a juror had played kitchen scientist, it would be juror
misconduct leading to a mistrial. I'm sure McDonald's did all they
could to
disprove Liebeck's experts, but apparently could not do so.

Jeff



yawn

You stepped on your crank and got called on it. I don't agree with
much of your opinion but I've never had cause to disrespect you until
today.

Gee, I'm crushed.

I recognize your nom' de infobahn from posts on M.S., But I don't recall
anything in particular about any of your posts. So I don't really have a
clue who you are, what you think, or what your opinions are, and I have no
idea whether your opinion of me is something that should matter to me one
whit, or not. But, hey, thanks for sharing, and bonus points for expressing
your opinion like an adult.

Personally, I've come to expect plagarism as the norm on the
'net since it's too much work for anyone to get off their fat ass and
actually do something original any more, but when you're caught, have
the grace to admit it.

Still with the accusations of plagiarism, eh? I wrote what I posted some
years ago, actually. No, I wasn't council for Liebeck or McDonald's, nor
was I at the trial. I alsodidn't read the actual trial transcripts. So
what I wrote was probably gleaned from some "insider" legal references and
maybe some popular press accounts. I no longer recall specifically. In any
case, it was something I wrote to use in class on a lesson in critical
analysis of persuasive writing. Ergo, I was less interested in the facts
and minutiae of the trial than in using it as a legal case that most
everyone had heard about and formed an opinion on. I may have gotten bad
information, but that is not plagiarism. For example, I've learned that
putting "fluffy" the cat in the microwave to dry it off after a bath will
shortly kill the cat. But writing that that this is so doesn't constitute
plagiarism merely because I rely on what others have written on the subject
instead of conducting an experiment using my own cat and microwave oven.

Your dismissal of my "amateur kitchen lab experiments" is even more
laughable. If you're not going to let a fact get in the way of a good
story, at least label your writing as fantasy.

I'd prefer to rely on the facts produced in open court, subject to vigorous
cross-examination, by qualified experts, rather than you in your kitchen
with your meat thermometer. Sorry. I've learned that the "facts" can be
complex things, especially where humans are involved. The chain of
causation in the McDonald's case is likely rather complex. It isn't just a
matter of sticking a thermometer in a pot of coffee. There's a good reason
why jurors are instructed not to do this sort of thing. It is highly likely
to be overly simplistic, absurdly reductionist and just plain wrong. Or did
you really expect that all the testimony from qualified experts with years
of learning and experience who doubtless studied and tested every aspect of
the matter should be disregarded because of whatever you think you learned
in your kitchen? That seems like the arrogance of ignorance to me.

Moreover, whatever the facts are regarding the specific temperature of
coffee, that was only part of the trial. It was apparently a key part, but
there were many other factors involved, surely. Maybe my sources were wrong
about the temperature of the coffee. Personally, I don't know or really
care, because the one inescapable fact is McDonald's was judged negligent in
it's conduct and therefore civilly liable. Additionally, I have seen no
credible accounts of the trial that demonstrate that Liebeck's claims were
"frivolous," which is, after all, what all the fuss is about. Even if she
had lost, that would not have been any evidence that her claim was
frivolous. We could pick apart this specific detail or that particular
allegation all day. But that ignores the heart of the matter. The
McDonald's case is the best known and most often cited example of a
"frivolous lawsuit," yet I have seen nothing thus far to support that claim.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between a lawsuit that is
"frivolous" and therefore facially without any merit and improper to even
initiate, and one where the greater weight of credible evidence simply lies
on the other side, meaning that the sued party ought to prevail at trial.
Liebeck won at trial, thus her claims obviously had some merit, so how did
this case become the poster child for "frivolous lawsuits"? I addressed
that central question in the last paragraph of my original post, and that is
the real issue here, not the reading on your meat thermometer, which for all
I know may be spot on.

Jeff

Barry Jarrett feels:

apparently, 17 years in the coffee business trumps yale and harvard
when it comes to "industry standards" regarding coffee brewing.
the temperature issue has NEVER been successfully used by a plaintiff
in a burn/spill suit since the mcd's case, because the coffee industry
realized that the mcd's defense screwed up on that issue and stepped
forward to offer up expert testimony on coffee issues. the author of
"the coffee brewing handbook" and executive director of the specialty
coffee association of america, ted lingle, has appeared as an expert
witness in subsequent cases, specifically addressing the chemical
justifications for the industry standard brew temperature of 195-205F
as well as the industry standard hold temp of approximately 185F (i
don't have the handbook handy, so i'm not going to quote an exact
number), and the relationship between brew, hold, and serve temp, as
well as providing information regarding consumer preferences for HOT
coffee. in every case where ted has testified, the erroneous
information from liebeck, routinely reintroduced by subsequent
plaintiffs, has been successfully rebutted. this thread is just
another instance of the misinformation entered into the record at the
liebeck trial has been construed as "accurate" just because it's in
the record.
if you'd like more information, i suggest you contact the SCAA:
www.scaa.org

LOL
How can I help but feel information from a self serving group of
restaurant sponcered attorneys might be slightly biased? Would you
have any cites from an independent source? I didn't think so. So I'll
offer something.

I'm old enough to have eaten at some of the very first McDonalds, as
I'm sure many of you are. When I bought coffee at McDonalds, at this
time, the coffee seemed average in terms of heat level. At some time
down the road I bought some coffee and, when I began drinking I
promptly burned my mouth; McDonalds had turned up the heat. No
warning, just the switch from hot coffee you could sip carefully to
coffee that burned your mouth if you tried. At THIS time McDonalds was
saying they increased the heat for the seniors who complained about
their coffee cooling too rapidly.
You can rant all you want but the following is indisputable:
McDonalds is a careful company well experienced in defending law suits.
A jury, who was present through all phases of the trial found in favor
of the plaintiff.
We're all pleased to be able to air our views on the internet but it
doesn't change any of the facts.
If it was a poor black man on trial I might believe he was railroaded.
For anyone to say this about McDonalds, I believe, is an attempt to
distort the facts, and a silly attempt as well.

dennis
in nca