On Jul 2, 12:20*pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Chris Friesen wrote:
CC wrote:

Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
screw someone for their mistakes.
That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee
is hot, deal with it".

The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to
her skin. *McD's keeps their coffee at 185 degrees, while most other
places keep theirs at 140 or so. *At 155 or less, the coffee would
have been cool enough to avoid causing a serious burn. *At the higher
temperature, it caused third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body,
bad enough that she needed skin grafts. *Initially she tried to
settle out of court for $20000, but McD's refused.

On the other hand, McDonanlds has served 10 billion cups of coffee and she
is one of very few that had a problem. Typically that proportion suggests
the problem lies with the user not the provider.

You could turn the argument around and say that all other coffee
providers serve it at a lower temperature, so the fact that McD's is the
exception shows that they may be doing something unexpected.

Except that it wasn't true. Dunkin' Donuts, for one, had a corporate
standard, backed up by spot inspections and franchisee fines, of 180F
(+/- 3F) coffee. People *want* hot coffee.

On Jul 2, 12:30*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Chris Friesen wrote:
CC wrote:

Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
screw someone for their mistakes.

That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee
is hot, deal with it".

The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to
her skin. *McD's keeps their coffee at 185 degrees, while most other
places keep theirs at 140 or so. *At 155 or less, the coffee would
have been cool enough to avoid causing a serious burn. *At the higher
temperature, it caused third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body,
bad enough that she needed skin grafts. *Initially she tried to
settle out of court for $20000, but McD's refused.

No, the case _is_ that coffee is hot, deal with it.

The ANSI standard for coffee makers requires that the holding temperature be
not less than 170F, and between 170 and 205F. *Most engineers would split
the difference and design to hold at 187.5, allowing the largest possible
margins in both directions.

Similar lawsuits brought against McDonalds in the UK have failed. *A lawsuit
brought against Bunn-O-Matic on similar grounds failed. * *As for "most
other places keeping theirs at 140 or so", that would, I guess, be most
other places besides Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, Wendys, and Burger King, all
of which require similar holding temperatures and all of which have been
sued on similar grounds.

"Similar grounds"? Very punny.

Chris Friesen wrote:
CC wrote:

Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
screw someone for their mistakes.

That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee is
hot, deal with it".

The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to her
skin. ...
....

Which wouldn't have happened if she hadn't done something _really_,
_really_ stupid to start with...

She made a mistake in judgment of what do do w/ a full hot cup of coffee
and as unfortunate as the consequences were, it was really nobody else's
fault but her own.

--

dpb wrote:
Chris Friesen wrote:
CC wrote:

Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
screw someone for their mistakes.

That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee is
hot, deal with it".

The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to her
skin. ...
...

Which wouldn't have happened if she hadn't done something _really_,
_really_ stupid to start with...

Going to McD for coffee?
;-)

Last time (about 15 years ago) I had one of their coffees it was really bad.
--
Froz...

FrozenNorth wrote:
dpb wrote:
....
Which wouldn't have happened if she hadn't done something _really_,
_really_ stupid to start with...

Going to McD for coffee?
;-)

LOL...

Last time (about 15 years ago) I had one of their coffees it was really
bad.

I don't know; w/ the geezer coffee it's the routine road stop; I don't
think it's bad at all (as compared to most the other drive-in places,
anyway) and it is consistent. I rarely, if ever, get anything else,
though, altho even there some of the recent "healthy fare" is at least
edible...used to be I like the fries; never liked any of McD burger
fare, but even them any more don't seem as they once were...

--

J. Clarke wrote:
Chris Friesen wrote:

On the other hand, McDonanlds has served 10 billion cups of coffee
and she is one of very few that had a problem. Typically that
proportion suggests the problem lies with the user not the provider.

You could turn the argument around and say that all other coffee
providers serve it at a lower temperature, so the fact that McD's is
the exception shows that they may be doing something unexpected.

If in fact all other coffee providers served it at the lower temperature.
Starbucks doesn't. Dunkin Donuts, whose coffee is generally quite well
regarded, doesn't. Burger King and Wendys don't. Further, percolators and
drip coffee machines and espresso machines and most of the other kinds of
device that one would use at home to make coffee don't.

There's a difference between brewing temperature and serving
temperature. Coffee should be brewed at 205, but served at no more than
160 (and 140 is better).

Espresso machines would be a bad comparison, because the coffee cools
off so quickly after coming of the machine.

You make a good point about some of the other fast-food places serving
coffee almost as hot...arguably they would be at fault as well.

I think the best solution would be to serve the coffee somewhat colder,
but use a cup that insulates better so it doesn't cool off as fast.
Personally I drink my coffee in an insulated mug and it keeps its
temperature for hours.

Chris

Chris Friesen wrote:

There's a difference between brewing temperature and serving
temperature. Coffee should be brewed at 205, but served at no more
than 160 (and 140 is better).


United States Navy Cookbook - 1945

Instructions:
Water, freshly drawn, cold---6-1/4 gal.
Coffee, regular Navy grind3 lbs.3-3/4 qt.

Method:

Pour water into hot water boiler. Heat to boiling temperature.

1. Fill jacket of coffee urn with water 3/4 full as indicated on the gauge
glass. Maintain temperature of this water at 185° F to 190° F.

2.Rinse urn bag with clear, cold water. Place in position in empty urn, in
which coffee is to be made, making sure that both the urn bag and urn ring
are correct size.
\
3. Place coffee in urn bag.

4. Draw off boiling water, 1 gallon at a time. Pour slowly in a curricular
motion over coffee in bag. Keep covered between pouring of each gallon of
water to keep heat and aroma in the coffee brew.

5. Repour 4 gallons brewed coffee over coffee grounds.

6. Remove urn bag and coffee grounds, immediately after all the brewed
coffee has dripped through.

7.Draw off 1 gallon brewed coffee. Repour into urn to insure uniform
strength throughout the brew.

8.Hold finished coffee at temperature of 185° F to 190° F until served.

-----------
Here's a table of coffee temperatures according to various experts. The
serving temperature ranges from 83°C to 98°C (190°F to 208°F)

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/DianaGendler.shtml









Espresso machines would be a bad comparison, because the coffee cools
off so quickly after coming of the machine.

You make a good point about some of the other fast-food places serving
coffee almost as hot...arguably they would be at fault as well.

I think the best solution would be to serve the coffee somewhat
colder, but use a cup that insulates better so it doesn't cool off as
fast. Personally I drink my coffee in an insulated mug and it keeps
its temperature for hours.

Chris

Chris Friesen wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Chris Friesen wrote:

On the other hand, McDonanlds has served 10 billion cups of coffee
and she is one of very few that had a problem. Typically that
proportion suggests the problem lies with the user not the
provider.

You could turn the argument around and say that all other coffee
providers serve it at a lower temperature, so the fact that McD's is
the exception shows that they may be doing something unexpected.

If in fact all other coffee providers served it at the lower
temperature. Starbucks doesn't. Dunkin Donuts, whose coffee is
generally quite well regarded, doesn't. Burger King and Wendys
don't. Further, percolators and drip coffee machines and espresso
machines and most of the other kinds of device that one would use at
home to make coffee don't.

There's a difference between brewing temperature and serving
temperature. Coffee should be brewed at 205, but served at no more
than 160 (and 140 is better).

Espresso machines would be a bad comparison, because the coffee cools
off so quickly after coming of the machine.

You make a good point about some of the other fast-food places serving
coffee almost as hot...arguably they would be at fault as well.

When did Starbucks become a "fast food place" and how is it that you know
more about coffee than they do?

I think the best solution would be to serve the coffee somewhat
colder, but use a cup that insulates better so it doesn't cool off as
fast. Personally I drink my coffee in an insulated mug and it keeps
its temperature for hours.

Please identify one brand or type of coffee machine in common use that
chills the coffee to 140 degrees immediately upon completion of brewing.

Also please identify one generally accepted industry standard that supports
your assertion that the ideal serving temperature is 140 degrees.

Chris Friesen wrote:
....
There's a difference between brewing temperature and serving
temperature. Coffee should be brewed at 205, but served at no more than
160 (and 140 is better).

That's not what the professionals say...

"Ideal holding temperatu 175ºF to 185ºF (80ºC to 85ºC)
Most all the volatile aromatics in coffee have boiling points well
below that of water and continue to evaporate from the surface until
pressure in the serving container reaches equilibrium. A closed
container can slow the process of evaporation."

"Ideal serving temperatu 155ºF to 175ºF (70ºC to 80ºC)
Many of the volatile aromatics in coffee have boiling points above
150ºF (65ºC). They simply are not perceived when coffee is served at
lower temperatures."

http://bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html

I think the best solution would be to serve the coffee somewhat colder,
but use a cup that insulates better so it doesn't cool off as fast.
....

The best solution would be for folks to not set hot coffee between their
legs in a moving automobile--or take the responsibility of the
consequences of their actions if the choose to do so.

--

dpb wrote:
FrozenNorth wrote:
dpb wrote:
...
Which wouldn't have happened if she hadn't done something _really_,
_really_ stupid to start with...

Going to McD for coffee?
;-)

LOL...

Last time (about 15 years ago) I had one of their coffees it was
really bad.

I don't know; w/ the geezer coffee it's the routine road stop; I don't
think it's bad at all (as compared to most the other drive-in places,
anyway) and it is consistent. I rarely, if ever, get anything else,
though, altho even there some of the recent "healthy fare" is at least
edible...used to be I like the fries; never liked any of McD burger
fare, but even them any more don't seem as they once were...

They've been working hard to improve their coffee--it's pretty close to
Dunkin Dognuts standard and arguably better than Starbucks of late.

HeyBub wrote:
Here's a table of coffee temperatures according to various experts. The
serving temperature ranges from 83°C to 98°C (190°F to 208°F)

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/DianaGendler.shtml

Most of the items in that chart (as well as the text below it) refer to
the brew temperature, not the serving temperature.

According to this study
(http://ift.confex.com/ift/99annual/t...racts/3583.htm) a
serving temperature between 140 and 160 was preferred over both warmer
and cooler coffee.

Chris

J. Clarke wrote:
dpb wrote:
....
I don't know; w/ the geezer coffee it's the routine road stop; I don't
think it's bad at all (as compared to most the other drive-in places,
anyway) and it is consistent. ...

They've been working hard to improve their coffee--it's pretty close to
Dunkin Dognuts standard and arguably better than Starbucks of late.

If you take cost into any level of consideration at all, it (MickeyD)
puts Starbucks to complete shame. SB never was worth anything at all
what they got for it and it does seem to have gone downhill in quality
from there but not, unfortunately, in price to match altho I understand
they're now under some pressure to retrench from the MD competition.

Been ages since been in a D-D; there just aren't any around here and
they're not convenient generally on travel stops...

No SB's around here within 200+ miles, either; not enough yuppies...

--

Somebody wrote:

I don't know; w/ the geezer coffee it's the routine road stop; I
don't
think it's bad at all (as compared to most the other drive-in
places,
anyway) and it is consistent.

If it's hot and black, less than 2 hours in the pot, I'll drink it.

If I'm on the road, give me a truck stop.

Lew

dpb wrote:
FrozenNorth wrote:
dpb wrote:
...
Which wouldn't have happened if she hadn't done something _really_,
_really_ stupid to start with...

Going to McD for coffee?
;-)

LOL...

Last time (about 15 years ago) I had one of their coffees it was
really bad.

I don't know; w/ the geezer coffee it's the routine road stop; I don't
think it's bad at all (as compared to most the other drive-in places,
anyway) and it is consistent. I rarely, if ever, get anything else,
though, altho even there some of the recent "healthy fare" is at least
edible...used to be I like the fries; never liked any of McD burger
fare, but even them any more don't seem as they once were...

--

I think one of the best simple hamburgers is the McD quarter pounder
with cheese.

Chris Friesen wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Here's a table of coffee temperatures according to various experts.
The serving temperature ranges from 83°C to 98°C (190°F to 208°F)

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/DianaGendler.shtml

Most of the items in that chart (as well as the text below it) refer
to the brew temperature, not the serving temperature.

According to this study
(http://ift.confex.com/ift/99annual/t...racts/3583.htm) a
serving temperature between 140 and 160 was preferred over both warmer
and cooler coffee.

So design a machine that works according to that model and make yourself
rich.

Keith Nuttle wrote:
dpb wrote:
FrozenNorth wrote:
dpb wrote:
...
Which wouldn't have happened if she hadn't done something _really_,
_really_ stupid to start with...

Going to McD for coffee?
;-)

LOL...

Last time (about 15 years ago) I had one of their coffees it was
really bad.

I don't know; w/ the geezer coffee it's the routine road stop; I
don't think it's bad at all (as compared to most the other drive-in
places, anyway) and it is consistent. I rarely, if ever, get
anything else, though, altho even there some of the recent "healthy
fare" is at least edible...used to be I like the fries; never liked
any of McD burger fare, but even them any more don't seem as they
once were...

--

I think one of the best simple hamburgers is the McD quarter pounder
with cheese.

While I like those, they're very light on the meat. If you're in New
England try Friendlys some time.

"J. Clarke" wrote:


If you're in New
England try Friendlys some time.

Part of Hershey Foods.

Also in the the MidWest as well as obviously PA.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
....
If I'm on the road, give me a truck stop.

I don't know, most of the truck stops ain't what used to be w/ the
advent of the biggies taking over so many of them as well...

Can't count on them being much good as used to, imo...

--

Keith Nuttle wrote:
I think one of the best simple hamburgers is the McD quarter pounder
with cheese.

Not bad, but I much prefer a Whopper or a Whataburger.

--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:


If you're in New
England try Friendlys some time.

Part of Hershey Foods.

From 1979-1988.

Also in the the MidWest as well as obviously PA.

And as far south as South Carolina, plus Florida. But they're not
ubiquitous like they are in New England where just about every town has one
and some have several.

HeyBub wrote:
Chris Friesen wrote:
CC wrote:

Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
screw someone for their mistakes.
That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee
is hot, deal with it".

The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to
her skin. McD's keeps their coffee at 185 degrees, while most other
places keep theirs at 140 or so. At 155 or less, the coffee would
have been cool enough to avoid causing a serious burn. At the higher
temperature, it caused third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body,
bad enough that she needed skin grafts. Initially she tried to
settle out of court for $20000, but McD's refused.


On the other hand, McDonanlds has served 10 billion cups of coffee and she
is one of very few that had a problem. Typically that proportion suggests
the problem lies with the user not the provider.

Same as Microsoft Windows.

It was all Bush's fault ...


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Chris Friesen wrote:
CC wrote:

Makes me think of the woman suing McD's because she spilled
hot coffee on herself, Seems it is getting so everyone wants to
screw someone for their mistakes.
That case has had a lot of press, but there's more to it than "coffee
is hot, deal with it".

The coffee was absorbed into the woman's sweatpants and held next to
her skin. McD's keeps their coffee at 185 degrees, while most other
places keep theirs at 140 or so. At 155 or less, the coffee would
have been cool enough to avoid causing a serious burn. At the higher
temperature, it caused third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body,
bad enough that she needed skin grafts. Initially she tried to
settle out of court for $20000, but McD's refused.


On the other hand, McDonanlds has served 10 billion cups of coffee and
she is one of very few that had a problem. Typically that proportion
suggests the problem lies with the user not the provider.

Same as Microsoft Windows.

It was all Bush's fault ...


M Jackson is still dead!

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:


If you're in New
England try Friendlys some time.

And as far south as South Carolina, plus Florida. But they're not
ubiquitous like they are in New England where just about every town has
one
and some have several.


I'm very fussy about my ice cream and Friendly's has a good pistachio. Lots
of nuts in it.

Chuck wrote:
M Jackson is still dead!

"Because I'm dead, I'm dead!'

--
If it ain't perfect, improve it...
But don't break it while you're fixin' it!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...


My first thoughts on any of these silly ass law suits for big money is
that everyone is on the take, the lawyers, the plaintiff, the defendant,
the judge, the insurance guys, all of them or most of them.

I recall reading a short article in the newspaper in the 70's where a guy
took his wife on an African Safari where she was stepped on by an
elephant. She sued her husband for $1 million (which was worth a bit in
the 70's) and she WON so his insurance company had to fork over the tax
free cash. The news article listed their names, the names of the
attorneys, and the names of the judge and I think the name of the
insurance agent that paid the claim. It seemed clear that everyone was in
cahoots far as I could tell, and I think the reason the reporter listed
all the names was to lead the reader to my conclusion, even though it
wasn't actually said.

I think your memory of that event might have faded some. Insurance agents
don't pay claims. Nothing else about the story sounds plausible given the
way insurance works, but I wouldn't go any further than to say something
doesn't sound right about it. For some reason - and I may be wrong, but I
thought a wife could not sue her husband for this kind of thing. Then there
is the matter of the insurance itself - what kind of policy was it (I
wonder...), and if they were married, it seems odd that she was not on the
policy as well, which would make it impossible for her to sue. That though,
is nothing more than a pondering sort of question.


--

-Mike-

J. Clarke wrote:

Oh, now you've done it. Watch--legions of people are going to be jumping in
here telling you that McDonalds should not have been selling "scalding hot
coffee" because all the other restaurants in the area were selling lukewarm
mud. It amazes me how many people think that that suit was justified.

Funny, I never once heard anyone say they thought that suit was
justified, not one person, not in real life, nor on TV, radio, no where?

Very strange.

My first thoughts on any of these silly ass law suits for big money is
that everyone is on the take, the lawyers, the plaintiff, the defendant,
the judge, the insurance guys, all of them or most of them.

I recall reading a short article in the newspaper in the 70's where a
guy took his wife on an African Safari where she was stepped on by an
elephant. She sued her husband for $1 million (which was worth a bit in
the 70's) and she WON so his insurance company had to fork over the tax
free cash. The news article listed their names, the names of the
attorneys, and the names of the judge and I think the name of the
insurance agent that paid the claim. It seemed clear that everyone was
in cahoots far as I could tell, and I think the reason the reporter
listed all the names was to lead the reader to my conclusion, even
though it wasn't actually said.

Anyway, anytime I hear of a silly law suit with huge payouts, I think of
this case, and I always suspect insurance fraud, or corporate fraud
where EVERYONE involved is ripping off the insurance company or the
company itself for some tax free income.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

dpb wrote:
Chris Friesen wrote:

I think the best solution would be to serve the coffee somewhat colder,
but use a cup that insulates better so it doesn't cool off as fast.

The best solution would be for folks to not set hot coffee between their
legs in a moving automobile--or take the responsibility of the
consequences of their actions if the choose to do so.

I think the best solution is to let government take over health care, so
when you burn your nuts off with hot coffee, they will be in Obama's
hands to make all better...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

J. Clarke wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:


If you're in New
England try Friendlys some time.
Part of Hershey Foods.

From 1979-1988.

Also in the the MidWest as well as obviously PA.

And as far south as South Carolina, plus Florida. But they're not
ubiquitous like they are in New England where just about every town has one
and some have several.

I live in Pittsburgh PA and never heard of Friendly's? Hershey is in
PA but according to their web site, the closest Friendlys to me is in
Ohio? Perhaps some woodworker should look into buying a franchise for
the Pgh area?

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

For some reason -
and I may be wrong, but I thought a wife could not sue her husband for
this kind of thing. Then there is the matter of the insurance itself
- what kind of policy was it (I wonder...), and if they were married,
it seems odd that she was not on the policy as well, which would make
it impossible for her to sue. That though, is nothing more than a
pondering sort of question.



It is possible to sue your spouse.

My cousin broke her back in a single car accident where her husband was
driving. The insurance company refused to pay and she successfully sued
her husband, which forced the insurance company to pay. By the way, she
is still married to him.

The same thing happenned to another friend. I don't recall the details,
but she successfully sued her husband as well. He was a lawyer and
actually did all the work. He had to get a partner in the law firm to
sign the paper work, but he (or his paralegal) did all the leg work.

Sometimes you have to sue your insurance company to get them to do the
right thing.

Jack Stein wrote:
: J. Clarke wrote:

: Oh, now you've done it. Watch--legions of people are going to be jumping in
: here telling you that McDonalds should not have been selling "scalding hot
: coffee" because all the other restaurants in the area were selling lukewarm
: mud. It amazes me how many people think that that suit was justified.

: Funny, I never once heard anyone say they thought that suit was
: justified, not one person, not in real life, nor on TV, radio, no where?

: Very strange.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

It's controversial, but some of the facts suggesting it wasn't
a completely frivolous suit were

a) she received third degree burns
b) she originally wanted just her med costs (which included skin grafts)
covered, and only after McD's refused did it go to trial.
c) The larger amount of money was punitive damages, which were
some percentage of McD's coffee profits (as I recall, one day's worth).
Punitive damages are often set as a function of the size of the company
found at fault (i.e. to be punitive to McD's, it has to be more than
a few thousand dollars, which was what she originally wanted them to pay).

If this had happened to my mother, I certainly would have found the
final judgment justified.

YMMV,


Andy Barss

Mike Marlow wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...

My first thoughts on any of these silly ass law suits for big money is
that everyone is on the take, the lawyers, the plaintiff, the defendant,
the judge, the insurance guys, all of them or most of them.

I recall reading a short article in the newspaper in the 70's where a guy
took his wife on an African Safari where she was stepped on by an
elephant. She sued her husband for $1 million (which was worth a bit in
the 70's) and she WON so his insurance company had to fork over the tax
free cash. The news article listed their names, the names of the
attorneys, and the names of the judge and I think the name of the
insurance agent that paid the claim. It seemed clear that everyone was in
cahoots far as I could tell, and I think the reason the reporter listed
all the names was to lead the reader to my conclusion, even though it
wasn't actually said.

I think your memory of that event might have faded some. Insurance agents
don't pay claims.

True enough, insurance company paid the claim.

Nothing else about the story sounds plausible given the
way insurance works, but I wouldn't go any further than to say something
doesn't sound right about it.

Hey, it was in the newspaper, how could anything not be right about it:-)

For some reason - and I may be wrong, but I
thought a wife could not sue her husband for this kind of thing. Then there
is the matter of the insurance itself - what kind of policy was it (I
wonder...), and if they were married, it seems odd that she was not on the
policy as well, which would make it impossible for her to sue. That though,
is nothing more than a pondering sort of question.


I'm not a lawyer, just what I recall was in the article, about 40 years
ago. Point is however, that since then, I have seen lots of silly law
suits and I'm always VERY suspicious of what is really going on behind
the scenes.

Another one more recent was a local radio guy was on every morning and
he did a lot of talking, a lot of sexually explicit humor. He used to
do all sorts of sexual banter with some chick, a program
director/manager or some such broad working at the station. She used to
participate in it with him, some funny stuff. One day, she decided to
sue the dumb ass for sexual harassment type of charges. Any how, it was
really stupid because she was on the radio occasionally with him,
seemingly going along with all the fun. Didn't matter of course, she
won a $600,000 settlement from the radio station. Now, in my mind, I
can see her and the radio guy spitting the cash ripped from the radio
station (insurance company?) It just didn't seem right, and even if
they weren't in cahoots, it still didn't seem right, and I can easily
see how crooked pricks, along with a crooked legal system, crooked
lawyers and so on could use the system, which is obviously broken, to
their advantage.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

Andrew Barss wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
: J. Clarke wrote:

: Oh, now you've done it. Watch--legions of people are going to be jumping in
: here telling you that McDonalds should not have been selling "scalding hot
: coffee" because all the other restaurants in the area were selling lukewarm
: mud. It amazes me how many people think that that suit was justified.

: Funny, I never once heard anyone say they thought that suit was
: justified, not one person, not in real life, nor on TV, radio, no where?

: Very strange.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

It's controversial,

My point is it is NOT very controversial and I haven't noticed "legions
of people complaining about McDonalds selling hot coffee. About
everyone seems to think it was stupid. So many people thought it was
stupid, there must be a hundred comedy skits related to it. Seinfeld
had at least 3 shows related to it I think. The article you posted up
there notes that ABC news calls it, and I quote, “the poster child of
excessive lawsuits.”

but some of the facts suggesting it wasn't
a completely frivolous suit were

a) she received third degree burns

No one I know doubted she got 3rd degree burns. The issue was she did
it herself, and sued McDonalds for HER stupidity.

b) she originally wanted just her med costs (which included skin grafts)
covered, and only after McD's refused did it go to trial.

Makes no difference, she was the dumb ass that put a paper cup of hot
coffee between her legs and managed to burn herself.

c) The larger amount of money was punitive damages, which were
some percentage of McD's coffee profits (as I recall, one day's worth).

Doesn't matter, McDonalds didn't pour the coffee on her, seems most
people think she was entitled to nothing. You seem to think McDonalds,
being a successful company, entitles her to money.

Punitive damages are often set as a function of the size of the company
found at fault (i.e. to be punitive to McD's, it has to be more than
a few thousand dollars, which was what she originally wanted them to pay).

This makes it even more ridicules. Punishing McDonalds for selling hot
coffee is asinine, and thats why almost no one thinks it was justified,
and why comedians the world over made jokes about it, and why it is
known as the “the poster child of excessive lawsuits.” And why a zillion
hot coffee fans were ****ed off, fearing hot coffee would never be the
same. Also noted in the article you listed is the fact most judges
dismiss such cases before the get to jury. Now that is something I
could find amazing, I didn't think "most judges" were that intelligent,
considering most of them are lawyers!

If this had happened to my mother, I certainly would have found the
final judgment justified.

YMMV,

Well, that could just mean you are greedy, or really think personal
responsibility is just wrong, or dislike profitable companies, or some
combination of all three.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com