There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.

We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.

Think someone will sue Krups?

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
Joseph Gwinn wrote:

There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.

We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.

Think someone will sue Krups?

Joe Gwinn

Do they have as much money as McDonalds?

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article ,
Nick Hull wrote:

In article ,
Joseph Gwinn wrote:

There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.

We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.

Think someone will sue Krups?

Joe Gwinn

Do they have as much money as McDonalds?

More or less.

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
Nick Hull wrote:

In article ,
Joseph Gwinn wrote:

There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.

We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.

Think someone will sue Krups?

Joe Gwinn

Do they have as much money as McDonalds?

More or less.

What counts is the public perception of wealth; people see McDonalds
everywhere (even though most are not corporate owned) but who has seen a
Krups sign?

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.

We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.

Think someone will sue Krups?

Joe Gwinn


I doubt anyone will sue.

However, will you, now knowing the coffee is hot enough to quickly
scald, serve your grandmother a fresh, full, covered styrofoam cup?
When she's used to cooler coffee? Especially when you know the top of
the cup sticks? As she's getting into a car? And not warn her?

Only an asshole would do such a thing, right?

Is it different if it's not YOUR grandmother?

Is this understandable by the average, prudent person?

dennis
in nca

On 15 Jan 2006 16:03:36 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "rigger"
quickly quoth:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.

We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.

Think someone will sue Krups?

Joe Gwinn


I doubt anyone will sue.

However, will you, now knowing the coffee is hot enough to quickly
scald, serve your grandmother a fresh, full, covered styrofoam cup?
When she's used to cooler coffee? Especially when you know the top of
the cup sticks? As she's getting into a car? And not warn her?

Uh, yeah. We have all seen the HOT warning on every cup. I figure
she's been around enough to know that coffee is hot enough to burn
her. She's been brewing it for OVER 60 YEARS NOW, riggy. We've
-all- been burned by hot coffee before and we're cautious.


Only an asshole would do such a thing, right?

If so, the majority of us are assholes.


Is it different if it's not YOUR grandmother?

No. Why should it be? It's common sense.


Is this understandable by the average, prudent person?

Hey, if some scatterbrained old biddy came into the room and
clearly didn't have any sense of presense, we'd ALL have given
her extra care instructions. But that evidently didn't happen.
She ****ed up multiple times, first by trying that, second by
not reacting at all to the spill (like pulling the hot cloth
off her body parts. Sweatpants DO have a lot of room in them,
they DO come down quickly, and blowing on hot cloth cools it
very rapidly. She evidently did none of that. C'est la vie.

NEXT!


----------------------------------------------
Never attempt to traverse a chasm in two leaps
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design
================================================== =========

Larry Jaques wrote:
On 15 Jan 2006 16:03:36 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "rigger"
quickly quoth:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.

We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.

Think someone will sue Krups?

Joe Gwinn


I doubt anyone will sue.

However, will you, now knowing the coffee is hot enough to quickly
scald, serve your grandmother a fresh, full, covered styrofoam cup?
When she's used to cooler coffee? Especially when you know the top of
the cup sticks? As she's getting into a car? And not warn her?

Uh, yeah. We have all seen the HOT warning on every cup. I figure
she's been around enough to know that coffee is hot enough to burn
her. She's been brewing it for OVER 60 YEARS NOW, riggy. We've
-all- been burned by hot coffee before and we're cautious.


Only an asshole would do such a thing, right?

If so, the majority of us are assholes.


Is it different if it's not YOUR grandmother?

No. Why should it be? It's common sense.


Is this understandable by the average, prudent person?

Hey, if some scatterbrained old biddy came into the room and
clearly didn't have any sense of presense, we'd ALL have given
her extra care instructions. But that evidently didn't happen.
She ****ed up multiple times, first by trying that, second by
not reacting at all to the spill (like pulling the hot cloth
off her body parts. Sweatpants DO have a lot of room in them,
they DO come down quickly, and blowing on hot cloth cools it
very rapidly. She evidently did none of that. C'est la vie.

NEXT!


----------------------------------------------
Never attempt to traverse a chasm in two leaps
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design
================================================== =========

Hey, if some scatterbrained old biddy came into the room and
clearly didn't have any sense of presense, we'd ALL have given
her extra care instructions. But that evidently didn't happen.
She ****ed up multiple times, first by trying that, second by
not reacting at all to the spill (like pulling the hot cloth
off her body parts. Sweatpants DO have a lot of room in them,
they DO come down quickly, and blowing on hot cloth cools it
very rapidly. She evidently did none of that. C'est la vie.

NEXT!

Ok Larry, how about an experiment? You wait until you get to your mid
70s and instruct someone to, unexpectedly, throw some scalding coffee
onto your lap. Then we see how well you do. Perhaps in the (usually)
very cramped back seat of the car?

No, just kidding.

How about this? Is this what you mean??? Death and distruction to
anyone too old, too infirm, not intelligent enough, or with
disabilities that slow them down. Let them burn. Who needs them if
they can't take care of themselfs. Let them stay home, out of our way.
Why make allowances on things like crossing time at intersections? If
they can't keep-up let them suffer. Take back all of the handicaped
parking. HORRAY for poor old McDonalds.

Is this what you had in your mind? Or perhaps something closer to
Soylant Green.

dennis
in nca

On 16 Jan 2006 08:36:42 -0800, "rigger" wrote:


================================================== =========

Hey, if some scatterbrained old biddy came into the room and
clearly didn't have any sense of presense, we'd ALL have given
her extra care instructions. But that evidently didn't happen.
She ****ed up multiple times, first by trying that, second by
not reacting at all to the spill (like pulling the hot cloth
off her body parts. Sweatpants DO have a lot of room in them,
they DO come down quickly, and blowing on hot cloth cools it
very rapidly. She evidently did none of that. C'est la vie.

NEXT!

Ok Larry, how about an experiment? You wait until you get to your mid
70s and instruct someone to, unexpectedly, throw some scalding coffee
onto your lap. Then we see how well you do. Perhaps in the (usually)
very cramped back seat of the car?

No, just kidding.

How about this? Is this what you mean??? Death and distruction to
anyone too old, too infirm, not intelligent enough, or with
disabilities that slow them down. Let them burn. Who needs them if
they can't take care of themselfs. Let them stay home, out of our way.
Why make allowances on things like crossing time at intersections? If
they can't keep-up let them suffer. Take back all of the handicaped
parking. HORRAY for poor old McDonalds.

Is this what you had in your mind? Or perhaps something closer to
Soylant Green.

dennis
in nca


Possibly more along the lines of:- So, she spilled the hot coffee and scalded
herself? So what! Accidents happen and this was an accident. It doesn't need a
lawyer to sort it out.


Mark Rand
RTFM

I personally don't want coffee that is less than 180. It just isn't coffee
if it's anything less.

When I purchase a new coffee maker, I will test the temp. and return it for
a different brand if it isn't 180. So far Mr. Coffee has been returned and I
don't remember the make of another. Right now I'm using a Proctor Sylex and
it is the best in temp and ease of operation for the programmable
clock/timer. BTW, I got it at a Thrift Store for a couple bucks, just needed
a pot which I found on the next shelf for another couple bucks. And sure
enough, the gal at the counter offered to exchange it if it didn't get hot
enough.

Can't complain and now I'm spoiled by a $5 bargain..

Steve

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.

We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.

Think someone will sue Krups?

Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:36:41 -0800, "Steve" wrote:

I personally don't want coffee that is less than 180. It just isn't coffee
if it's anything less.

The US Navy (which buys, roasts, and grinds its own beans) says hold
coffee at 160 degF. The oils in coffee breakdown rapidly above that
temp. I've had Navy coffee- it's great.

-Carl

If your referring to coffee in the enlisted crews Mess, I have to
respectfully disagree.

I did 23 years in the US Navy and 10 of that was as an enlisted man,
suffering with that horrible mess deck coffee. The best thing about moving
to the Chiefs Mess and eventually to the Ward Room was the much improved
coffee.

I believe their problem was that steam was used to provide the heat and once
it was brewed, the steam jacket around the pot continued at too high a temp.
It always tasted like it had been scorched, similar to leaving a coffee pot
on the burner all day (old days).

I don't know what the actual temp of Auxiliary Steam is but I know the Navy
cooks use it to heat water to boiling temp in the kettles. It could be that
coffee temp is going much higher than 160 degrees. Or even the 180 that I
prefer.

However, I could always find a good cup of coffee in the private messes and
work shops. Same coffee grounds but made in a one gallon or so percolator
pot.

Or if you work real hard and are an officer or a chief, you might get coffee
in one of these messes that is brewed in smaller pots on a hot plate. The
same type as in a restaurant.

Sorry Carl, I just can't agree. It's been 29 years since I retired and I
still have the nasty taste in my mouth and coffee stains on my teeth.

--
My experience and opinion, FWIW

Steve
CWO2 US Navy (retired)


"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:36:41 -0800, "Steve" wrote:

I personally don't want coffee that is less than 180. It just isn't coffee
if it's anything less.

The US Navy (which buys, roasts, and grinds its own beans) says hold
coffee at 160 degF. The oils in coffee breakdown rapidly above that
temp. I've had Navy coffee- it's great.

-Carl

Things may have changed since then. 29 years ago percolators were
more common than drip pots.

Steve wrote:

Sorry Carl, I just can't agree. It's been 29 years since I retired and I
still have the nasty taste in my mouth and coffee stains on my teeth.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:27:46 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:
There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.
We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.
Think someone will sue Krups?
Joe Gwinn
=============
If Krupps implies that the coffee is ready to drink as it comes
out of their machine and people were getting scalded or worse
every day, sure. People are aware that the coffee is too hot to
drink as it comes out of the maker. People are not aware that
the coffee is scalding and too hot to drink, when it is sold to
them in a cup as a ready to go drink. Why did the scalding
problem go away after McD's got their chops busted? If you sell
food that is apparently ready to eat/drink, it had better be
ready to eat/drink, especially after you have injured literally
hundreds of people.

Uncle George

Coffe is ready to drink at 180 degrees F. Maybe not ready for taking
big gulps, but coffee is something to be sipped and savored. Certainly
it is not something intended to be dumped in your crotch. Cold coffee
is not something that I like. I never was a great fan of McD's, but
now their coffee too cold to enjoy.


Dan

On 15 Jan 2006 19:45:31 -0800, the renowned "
wrote:

Coffe is ready to drink at 180 degrees F. Maybe not ready for taking
big gulps, but coffee is something to be sipped and savored. Certainly
it is not something intended to be dumped in your crotch. Cold coffee
is not something that I like. I never was a great fan of McD's, but
now their coffee too cold to enjoy.


Dan

I drink coffee (usually bought) and hot tea (usually made). I just
measured a cup of tea after making it and removing the bag, in the
cup. 202°F on my digital thermocouple meter.

As to coffee, I expect to be able to buy it 1/2 hour before gametime,
take it to a hockey arena and still have it at a drinkable temperature
at least through the first period. Or for it to stay hot through
reading the Sunday newspaper. Lukewarm food and drink should be
limited to infants and others who are unable to take care of
themselves.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Maybe not ready for taking
big gulps, but coffee is something to be sipped and savored.

My point exactly. I love to just "Sip and Savor". It the coffee is at a
lower temp. I seem to gulp it down and never seem to enjoy it.

Steve

wrote:

Coffe is ready to drink at 180 degrees F. Maybe not ready for taking
big gulps, but coffee is something to be sipped and savored. Certainly
it is not something intended to be dumped in your crotch. Cold coffee
is not something that I like. I never was a great fan of McD's, but
now their coffee too cold to enjoy.

When was the last time you had coffee at a McDonalds? Their coffee is
difficult to "enjoy" but the temperature has little to do with it. The
main problem is that the Bunn-O-Matic gets cleaned when it's so gross that
the boss can't stand to look at it anymore. And they haven't modified the
Bunn-O-Matic to add ice to the coffee after making to bring the temperature
down--it's still served at the same temperature as the coffee made with
every other Bunn-O-Matic in the known universe, which temperature is mostly
controlled by the QC weenies at Bunn.

Dan

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

In article ,
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:27:46 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:
There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.
We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.
Think someone will sue Krups?
Joe Gwinn
=============
If Krupps implies that the coffee is ready to drink as it comes
out of their machine and people were getting scalded or worse
every day, sure. People are aware that the coffee is too hot to
drink as it comes out of the maker.

Krups implies that coffee comes out, but makes no mention of when to
drink it. One assumes that Krups thinks that the rest is obvious;
coffee has been widely consumed in Europe since the 1600s, although it
was known at least since 1000 AD in the Arabic world.

Actually, if it came out any cooler, the coffemaker wouldn't make very
good coffee, and back it would go. You simply cannot brew coffee at 135
degrees F.

And tea needs to be even hotter, just under boiling, at least 20 degrees
hotter than for coffee. The rule has always been that the water had to
be "boilin mad" before pouring onto the tea leaves.


People are not aware that
the coffee is scalding and too hot to drink, when it is sold to
them in a cup as a ready to go drink. Why did the scalding
problem go away after McD's got their chops busted?

Because they were forced to lower it to 135 degrees F, if I recall.
That's pretty cool, so even the careless are safe.

I would have improved the coffee cups if I did anything.


If you sell
food that is apparently ready to eat/drink, it had better be
ready to eat/drink, especially after you have injured literally
hundreds of people.

It's 700 claims over ten years, or 70 per year [Lawyers]. McDonalds
serves a billion cups of coffee per year, so the incidence is not large:
10^2/10^9= 10^-7, or one every ten million cups of coffee.

For comparison, an average of 82 people per year are killed by lightning
[CDC].

In other words, the adult entire population is being treated like
children because one in ten million is childish.


By the same token, no civilian should be permitted to possess or use
metalworking equipment -- after all, people have been maimed or even
killed by such equipment, and the incidence is orders of magnitude
higher than one in ten million metalworkers.


Joe Gwinn



Refs:

[Lawyers] http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

[CDC]
http://aepo-xdv-www.epo.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0052833/m0052833.asp

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/coffee/history.htm

Joseph Gwinn pointed out:

It's 700 claims over ten years, or 70 per year [Lawyers]. McDonalds
serves a billion cups of coffee per year, so the incidence is not
large:
10^2/10^9= 10^-7, or one every ten million cups of coffee.

For comparison, an average of 82 people per year are killed by lightning
[CDC].

In other words, the adult entire population is being treated like
children because one in ten million is childish.

So then you would agree with the Ford Motor Company in their original
accessment of the Pinto "situation" right? No need to improve safety
as long as the people (and families) being burned up were a "small"
number and it wouldn't have a big negative affect on finances. No need
to actually "WARN" anyone their car (whether full of children?) had
defects. The wonderful executives at Ford wouldn't want anyone to feel
they were being "childish", right?

By the same token, no civilian should be permitted to possess or use
metalworking equipment -- after all, people have been maimed or even
killed by such equipment, and the incidence is orders of magnitude
higher than one in ten million metalworkers.

Do you *really* think this is the same as putting the average citizen
(man, woman, child, handicapped, etc.) in harms way?

Perhaps a better analogy?

dennis
in nca

On 16 Jan 2006 08:53:42 -0800, "rigger" wrote:

By the same token, no civilian should be permitted to possess or use
metalworking equipment -- after all, people have been maimed or even
killed by such equipment, and the incidence is orders of magnitude
higher than one in ten million metalworkers.

Geez, don't give 'em any ideas espcially in nca!

To feed the fire, I often make WMD's with my metalworking equipment.
(Widgets of Muddled Design)

On 16 Jan 2006 08:53:42 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "rigger"
quickly quoth:

So then you would agree with the Ford Motor Company in their original
accessment of the Pinto "situation" right? No need to improve safety
as long as the people (and families) being burned up were a "small"
number and it wouldn't have a big negative affect on finances. No need
to actually "WARN" anyone their car (whether full of children?) had
defects. The wonderful executives at Ford wouldn't want anyone to feel
they were being "childish", right?

Show me a car manufacturer who states that their cars are safe under
any and all (seen and unforseen) conditions and I'll give you that
one. But I doubt you'll find one.


By the same token, no civilian should be permitted to possess or use
metalworking equipment -- after all, people have been maimed or even
killed by such equipment, and the incidence is orders of magnitude
higher than one in ten million metalworkers.

Do you *really* think this is the same as putting the average citizen
(man, woman, child, handicapped, etc.) in harms way?

Nobody put people in harm's way, Dennis. IMHO, what happens to a car
during or after a collision is up to fate.

You Liberals want to make everything which happens in life to be safe
and you want to use OUR money to do it. I disagree and feel that what
you promote is not right, just, or fair. Tell you what, let's make 2
different sets of rules. Those of you who want everything safe and
cozy can have it for yourselves and YOU pay for it.

The rest of us will _party_on_, living much happier (though possibly
shorter) lives. We'd much rather be living happy daily lives vs. being
cocooned in banal shells devoid of any interesting happenings, thanks.
BTW, not too many of you Libs will be able to afford your ideal life
without all of our hard-earned money. So sorry.

P.S: With those attitudes, you should move from aol to webtv.

This sig's for you:

--
"I'm sick and tired of having to rearrange my life
because of what the STUPIDEST people *might* do or
how they *might* react."
-- Bill Maher

Larry Jaques's evaluation follows:

snip
Show me a car manufacturer who states that their cars are safe under
any and all (seen and unforseen) conditions and I'll give you that
one. But I doubt you'll find one.

So you think that way, huh? How about a ladder manufacturer whose
ladders fail to support the average person & fail when you're at the
top because it was CHEAPER to manufacturer? How about if they KNEW
this would happen, from time to time. Is this the type of
manufacturer/person YOU are? I didn't think so. If you DID make an
honest mistake would you try to compensate a person hurt by your
intensional or unintensional oversite? I hope so and I think this is
what most here would do. Why should it be different for Ford or anyone
else, for that matter? Please try, at least mentally if not online, to
answer all the questions.

Nobody put people in harm's way, Dennis. IMHO, what happens to a car
during or after a collision is up to fate.

Unless it's the manufacturer of the Ford Pinto (and some others). I
suggest you do some research first before making such statements.

You Liberals want to make everything which happens in life to be safe
and you want to use OUR money to do it. I disagree and feel that what
you promote is not right, just, or fair. Tell you what, let's make 2
different sets of rules. Those of you who want everything safe and
cozy can have it for yourselves and YOU pay for it.

Liberal??? Because I care about people? Show me your NRA card and
I'll show you mine.
A seperate set of rules? Why don't you just move somewhere else? I'm
sure some
other countries (I'm assuming you're in the US) share your views more
closely.

The rest of us will _party_on_, living much happier (though possibly
shorter) lives

Speak for yourself. Go skydiving more. That's OK. But don't inflict
your attitude on others.
The important thing is peoples lives, not your money and fun.

We'd much rather be living happy daily lives vs. being
cocooned in banal shells devoid of any interesting happenings........

snip

"Interesting happenings", huh.....hmmm. I understand, when ancient
Chinese would curse an enemy, they would say "May your children grow-up
in interesting times" because they knew "interesting times" meant
troubled times. Perhaps your idea of interesting means "fiery crash of
car full of people"? This the kind of thing you like?

snip snip snip

P.S: With those attitudes, you should move from aol to webtv.

My aol has been free for many years, soon to change. But tell me,
would the color of my skin make any difference to you? Start thinking
for yourself.

Larry, it works like this: Look around you. See there are
unscrupulous people who would like to part you from your money
regardless of the consequences to you or anyone else. Some of these
people may even be sociopath's (look it up) who care NOTHING about
human pain, misery or life as long as they get theirs (I KNOW that's
not you, right?). There are laws which protect people against
sociopath's or perhaps you think people should only have protection in
case of direct physical attack and no other? Perhaps you're one people
should be cautious purchasing from or contracting with? No, your hand
is your bond? I like that but there are those who take advantage of
this. Not convinced? Look around some more.

If you thought you'd been wronged by a large company you'd do nothing?
Or, like John Wayne, would you go punch them in their corporate mouth?
Not enough money for legal fees? Too bad; unless there are laws to
protect you against this type of business practice. Even on this
newsgroup people have mentioned being taken advantage of by others.
However this is NOT the Wild West or even a video game; these are real
people.

Although I like your sig perhaps you'll like this one better?

"There's a sucker born every minute". P.T. Barnum (I think). You
like? If you think this suits you better feel free to add it after
your signature.

dennis
in nca

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:17:56 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

You Liberals


Gunner..wiping Mt. Dew off the monitor....


"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

In article . com,
"rigger" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn pointed out:


In other words, the adult entire population is being treated like
children because one in ten million is childish.

So then you would agree with the Ford Motor Company in their original
accessment of the Pinto "situation" right? No need to improve safety
as long as the people (and families) being burned up were a "small"
number and it wouldn't have a big negative affect on finances. No need
to actually "WARN" anyone their car (whether full of children?) had
defects. The wonderful executives at Ford wouldn't want anyone to feel
they were being "childish", right?

All accidents that hurt or kill people are horrible, even if the person
happens to be line for a Darwin Award.

You wouldn't happen to have an authoritative source for the relative
incidence? This is the key - there is only so much time and money in
the world, and we should look for the biggest pile of bodies and start
there, not with trivial risks. Why? Because if we spend the time and
energy on trivia, we won't ever quite get around to real risks, and the
total number of significant accidents will be far higher than need be.


By the same token, no civilian should be permitted to possess or use
metalworking equipment -- after all, people have been maimed or even
killed by such equipment, and the incidence is orders of magnitude
higher than one in ten million metalworkers.

Do you *really* think this is the same as putting the average citizen
(man, woman, child, handicapped, etc.) in harms way?

Sure. Any damn fool can buy machine tools. All it takes is money, and
nobody makes them prove that they have taken a bunch of safety courses
and passed some license tests and gotten a pretty bit of parchment.
Unlike Stationary Engineers (steam plants) and Professional and/or Civil
Engineers (construction). Etc.

If someone buys more machine than they can handle and manages to hurt
themself, they are likely to sue alleging that the tool is unreasonably
dangerous, and/or that in all those the pages of warnings in the manual,
there was nothing that *exactly* fit the specifics.

Jurys tend to feel sorry for the poor slob, and often find for the
plaintiff because the defendent is seen as a big rich company that can
clearly spare the money, even if the plaintiff is clearly an idiot.

If this happened only rarely, it wouldn't have much of a general effect.
But what's happening is that companies across the board are stopping
making things deemed too dangerous for the average citizen, or selling
only to industry, because a sympathetic jury doesn't really care about
the facts or the law.

At my company, we have precisely such a training and exam system,
because too many factory people were getting themselves chopped up, and
these are mostly full time employees with experience. Suits weren't the
issue, because Workman's Compensation applies, but still the injury rate
was too high, so everybody in the company was sent in for mandatory
safety training.

Joe Gwinn

You wouldn't happen to have an authoritative source for the relative
incidence? This is the key - there is only so much time and money in
the world, and we should look for the biggest pile of bodies and start
there, not with trivial risks. Why? Because if we spend the time and
energy on trivia, we won't ever quite get around to real risks, and the

total number of significant accidents will be far higher than need be.

If you're interested go look up the information. But, using your
logic, we shouldn't have prisons because each inmates actions only
affect a few, right; why waste the money, right? Or maybe you can see
the slippery slope that puts little kids back in the coal mines. Or
can you?

Sure. Any damn fool can buy machine tools.

At my company, we have precisely such a training and exam system,
because too many factory people were getting themselves chopped up, and

these are mostly full time employees with experience. Suits weren't
the
issue, because Workman's Compensation applies, but still the injury
rate
was too high, so everybody in the company was sent in for mandatory
safety training.

So are you saying this was a good or bad thing as it seems your
company/government was taking the place of your parents. Are there
fewer "factory people....... getting themselves chopped up"? I hope
so; even if they felt demeaned somehow.

dennis
in nca

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:25:01 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:



Sure. Any damn fool can buy machine tools. All it takes is money, and
nobody makes them prove that they have taken a bunch of safety courses
and passed some license tests and gotten a pretty bit of parchment.
Unlike Stationary Engineers (steam plants) and Professional and/or Civil
Engineers (construction). Etc.

So I should have to take a course and get a license to buy a
chainsaw? Thanks a lot!

If someone buys more machine than they can handle and manages to hurt
themself, they are likely to sue alleging that the tool is unreasonably
dangerous, and/or that in all those the pages of warnings in the manual,
there was nothing that *exactly* fit the specifics.

Jurys tend to feel sorry for the poor slob, and often find for the
plaintiff because the defendent is seen as a big rich company that can
clearly spare the money, even if the plaintiff is clearly an idiot.

If this happened only rarely, it wouldn't have much of a general effect.
But what's happening is that companies across the board are stopping
making things deemed too dangerous for the average citizen, or selling
only to industry, because a sympathetic jury doesn't really care about
the facts or the law.

That's been going on for years. A person smart enough to use stuff
safely is also smart enough to figure out a (legal) way to buy it at
a fair to good price. One method I use is to appear in person to
make the purchase. They seem to quickly become comfortable that I
know what I'm doing well enough to use the product responsibly.
They ask friendly helpful questions. I do my homework if any is
indicated. If I don't know an answer, I'm honest about that: "tell
me more about that, please!" That in itself indicates a responsible
attitude. If I really didn't have a clue, I wouldn't blame them for
throwing me out; I'd do the same if I were they.

I've been buying stuff for years from "industry only" distributors.
I bought a device just last week that three dealers told me were only
available to licensed ... uh...users. Fooey. I don't need a
license to apply it for my own use, and there's no way I'd install one
for somone else without having applicable liability insurance -- which
is part of why a "licensed user" would mark it up significantly.

I can assure you that the cost of that litigious crap is already
built into the prices. I've read that half the cost of a ladder is
for legal contingency. I know -- but won't quote sources -- that
the cost-to-distributors of a propane valve nearly identical to a
similar n.g. valve is significantly higher. Guess why?

Welding suppliers now charge haz mat fees on nearly everything,
including oxygen. (I wonder if hospitals get charged hazmat on oxy?)

At my company, we have precisely such a training and exam system,
because too many factory people were getting themselves chopped up, and
these are mostly full time employees with experience. Suits weren't the
issue, because Workman's Compensation applies, but still the injury rate
was too high, so everybody in the company was sent in for mandatory
safety training.

Responsible management and a good idea. Better management would have
done that before people were getting hurt.

snip
It's 700 claims over ten years, or 70 per year [Lawyers]. McDonalds
serves a billion cups of coffee per year, so the incidence is not large:
10^2/10^9= 10^-7, or one every ten million cups of coffee.
snip
That's not 700 injuries, that's 700 claims, i.e. the people were
p****d off enough and injured enough to sue, and who the lawyers,
who were most likely working on a contingency basis, thought had
a "slam dunk" case. The actual number of injuries is much
[although how much is unknown] higher.

It is one thing to have A problem rise up and "bite you in the
a**." It is quite another when you knowingly allow YOUR problem
to bite one person after another in the a**. This is like
keeping a dog you know is vicious and prone to biting, because he
had done it several times before, in your home where you are
running a day care center. Think pit bulls.

Uncle George

In article ,
F. George McDuffee wrote:

snip
It's 700 claims over ten years, or 70 per year [Lawyers]. McDonalds
serves a billion cups of coffee per year, so the incidence is not large:
10^2/10^9= 10^-7, or one every ten million cups of coffee.
snip
That's not 700 injuries, that's 700 claims, i.e. the people were
p****d off enough and injured enough to sue, and who the lawyers,
who were most likely working on a contingency basis, thought had
a "slam dunk" case. The actual number of injuries is much
[although how much is unknown] higher.

Even if it's a factor of ten higher (the usual rule of thumb), it's
still one per million cups.


It is one thing to have A problem rise up and "bite you in the
a**." It is quite another when you knowingly allow YOUR problem
to bite one person after another in the a**. This is like
keeping a dog you know is vicious and prone to biting, because he
had done it several times before, in your home where you are
running a day care center. Think pit bulls.

Hmm. This isn't the example I would have chosen if I were you. The
problem rate with Pit Bulls is *far* higher than one in ten million, and
(unlike coffee cups) Pit Bulls actively go for the kill. So far, there
have been no reports of a coffee cup slipping the leash and mauling some
passing innocent.

Joe Gwinn

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:44:39 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
Joseph Gwinn quickly quoth:

In article ,
F. George McDuffee wrote:

snip
It's 700 claims over ten years, or 70 per year [Lawyers]. McDonalds
serves a billion cups of coffee per year, so the incidence is not large:
10^2/10^9= 10^-7, or one every ten million cups of coffee.
snip
That's not 700 injuries, that's 700 claims, i.e. the people were
p****d off enough and injured enough to sue, and who the lawyers,
who were most likely working on a contingency basis, thought had
a "slam dunk" case. The actual number of injuries is much
[although how much is unknown] higher.

Even if it's a factor of ten higher (the usual rule of thumb), it's
still one per million cups.

Consider the rate of accidents in the USA: 106,000 -deaths- in 2002.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/uni...verview_UI.htm

I think coffee is damned bit safer, guys. Don't you?


--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
================================================== ==========

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:27:46 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:
There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.
We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.
Think someone will sue Krups?
Joe Gwinn
=============
If Krupps implies that the coffee is ready to drink as it comes
out of their machine and people were getting scalded or worse
every day, sure. People are aware that the coffee is too hot to
drink as it comes out of the maker.

Krups implies that coffee comes out, but makes no mention of when to
drink it. One assumes that Krups thinks that the rest is obvious;
coffee has been widely consumed in Europe since the 1600s, although it
was known at least since 1000 AD in the Arabic world.

Actually, if it came out any cooler, the coffemaker wouldn't make very
good coffee, and back it would go. You simply cannot brew coffee at 135
degrees F.

And tea needs to be even hotter, just under boiling, at least 20 degrees
hotter than for coffee. The rule has always been that the water had to
be "boilin mad" before pouring onto the tea leaves.


People are not aware that
the coffee is scalding and too hot to drink, when it is sold to
them in a cup as a ready to go drink. Why did the scalding
problem go away after McD's got their chops busted?

Because they were forced to lower it to 135 degrees F, if I recall.
That's pretty cool, so even the careless are safe.

Will cause third degree burns in 15 seconds of exposure. They didn't lower
the temperature, they put up lots and lots of warning signs and their legal
defense team presumably gathered some statistics and put some real experts
on retainer. Eventually ANSI wrote a spec.

I would have improved the coffee cups if I did anything.

The cup manufacturer got sued a while back. The judge threw it out of court
before it went to trial, like he _should_ have done with the Stupid Old
Bat.



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

F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:27:46 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:
There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.
We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.
Think someone will sue Krups?
Joe Gwinn
=============
If Krupps implies that the coffee is ready to drink as it comes
out of their machine and people were getting scalded or worse
every day, sure. People are aware that the coffee is too hot to
drink as it comes out of the maker. People are not aware that
the coffee is scalding and too hot to drink, when it is sold to
them in a cup as a ready to go drink. Why did the scalding
problem go away after McD's got their chops busted?

Because ever newspaper and TV news show in the country reported "stupid old
bat burns self with coffee" and the two other people in the world who
hadn't figured out for themselves that coffee is hot and hot things burn
you got the message?

Hint--McDonalds still serves coffee at exactly the same tempeature--the
temperature which the plaintiff claimed to have been set in the coffee
machine is in the middle of the range that the ANSI coffee machine spec
calls for. They did put up "warning, coffee is hot" signs all over the
place, instead of just on the lid where the stupid old bat should have read
it.

If you sell
food that is apparently ready to eat/drink, it had better be
ready to eat/drink, especially after you have injured literally
hundreds of people.

Who said that they had "injured literally hundreds of people"? They had had
700 complaints out of the God knows how many million cups of coffee they've
sold. All of those complaints were not of injuries. What's remarkable to
me is that they had so _few_ complaints.

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

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:27:46 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.

We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.

Think someone will sue Krups?

Joe Gwinn

You probably don't serve it in styrofoam cups -- at least I hope you
don't. Just pouring it into a non-preheated mug will chill it well
below 180. You probably also don't use snap-top lids.

I make tea in the microwave for that reason. The water in my mug is
boiling when I take it out of the nuke and drop in the tea infuser --
which has very little thermal mass.

Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:27:46 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.

We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.

Think someone will sue Krups?

Joe Gwinn


You probably don't serve it in styrofoam cups -- at least I hope you
don't. Just pouring it into a non-preheated mug will chill it well
below 180. You probably also don't use snap-top lids.

I make tea in the microwave for that reason. The water in my mug is
boiling when I take it out of the nuke and drop in the tea infuser --
which has very little thermal mass.


Well, ok for tea, I suppose, but I really dislike microwaved coffee...

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:20:32 GMT, the renowned Richard Lamb
wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:27:46 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.

We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.

Think someone will sue Krups?

Joe Gwinn


You probably don't serve it in styrofoam cups -- at least I hope you
don't. Just pouring it into a non-preheated mug will chill it well
below 180. You probably also don't use snap-top lids.

I make tea in the microwave for that reason. The water in my mug is
boiling when I take it out of the nuke and drop in the tea infuser --
which has very little thermal mass.


Well, ok for tea, I suppose, but I really dislike microwaved coffee...

I don't think it's okay for tea, but I don't use an infuser. Bags seem
to froth up all over the place because of the air in the water. The
kettle (a 'Kenmore Elite' Euro-style type, but with our inferior 120V
power it takes longer to heat) boils the air out so you get nice still
tea with no froth. Instant coffee froths up too.

Wifey got suckered into buying this automated coffee thingie which
takes little cartridges for espresso, hot chocoloate, tea etc. Reads a
bar code and prepares the beverage accordingly. The inkjet printer
principle brought to coffeemakers. 8-(


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

In article t,
Richard Lamb wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:27:46 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


There were a number of postings on the tort suit McDonalds lost because
their coffee was too hot, at 180 degrees F, scalding a woman who tried
to hold the cup between her legs in the car.

We just got a brand new Krups coffeemaker, and I got curious, and
measured the coffee temperature. It's 180 degrees F, just like the
coffee books recommend.

Think someone will sue Krups?

Joe Gwinn


You probably don't serve it in styrofoam cups -- at least I hope you
don't. Just pouring it into a non-preheated mug will chill it well
below 180. You probably also don't use snap-top lids.

Right. No styrofoam at home. I'll have to measure the temp just after
pouring, for curiosity.

At work, we have paper cups, and these are too hot to carry. So, I
double-cup them if I will carry coffee in hand. If I'm staying in the
cafeteria I put some ice in the cup before pouring, and carry it on the
tray, so it'll be right for immediate consumption.

As I said before, if I did anything, it would be to improve the cups.

Or give people their choice. This is the key issue. Do we deprive a
hundred million people because one in ten million cannot handle such a
choice?


I make tea in the microwave for that reason. The water in my mug is
boiling when I take it out of the nuke and drop in the tea infuser --
which has very little thermal mass.

Well, ok for tea, I suppose, but I really dislike microwaved coffee...

My wife, the tea drinker, doesn't like microwave-heated water for tea
either. She boils the water in a teakettle on the stove.

And I know at least one exiled Englishman that has a real 220-volt
teakettle, for which he had a special UK 220 volt outlet installed in
the kitchen. I recall that they work something like three times faster
than 110 volts.

Joe Gwinn

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:58:52 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


And I know at least one exiled Englishman that has a real 220-volt
teakettle, for which he had a special UK 220 volt outlet installed in
the kitchen. I recall that they work something like three times faster
than 110 volts.

Joe Gwinn

I'm not an exiled Brit, but I do have one of those kettles: T-Fal
Vitesse Gold. The UK outlet is right next to the 220 volt air
compressor. At 2750 -3000 watts it's probably not three times as fast
as a 1500 watt 110-volt kettle, but it's still pretty quick. If I
start it before grinding the coffee and loading the filter, it's
boiling when I'm ready to pour.

I use it for making "good" afternoon coffee with a Melitta filter --
"good" as differentiated from the morning "utility" coffee that is
made in a Krups coffeemaker.

In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:58:52 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


And I know at least one exiled Englishman that has a real 220-volt
teakettle, for which he had a special UK 220 volt outlet installed in
the kitchen. I recall that they work something like three times faster
than 110 volts.

I'm not an exiled Brit, but I do have one of those kettles: T-Fal
Vitesse Gold. The UK outlet is right next to the 220 volt air
compressor. At 2750 -3000 watts it's probably not three times as fast
as a 1500 watt 110-volt kettle, but it's still pretty quick. If I
start it before grinding the coffee and loading the filter, it's
boiling when I'm ready to pour.

So, how do you explain the UK outlet and kettle?


I use it for making "good" afternoon coffee with a Melitta filter --
"good" as differentiated from the morning "utility" coffee that is
made in a Krups coffeemaker.

I'll have to try this (but with a teakettle on the stove). The
difference has to be the water temperature.

Joe Gwinn