Sewage flows down aisles of trans-Atlantic Continental Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Newark.

I saw members of the jury interviewed on this case and they said they
initially reacted just like you are here. What changed their mind was
the facts this other chap just laid out. McDonald's had, as was said,
hundreds of these cases where their overheated coffee had caused
hundreds of other cases and refused to either turn down the
temperature to a drinkable level or warn customers that it was
overheated and could cause severe injury. That's why the case went
the way it did.


On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:21:49 GMT, Alan S wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:43:38 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article
,
Alohacyberian wrote:

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, people will try it. Remember the
McDonalds hot coffee lady?

Who could forget her? She's the poster-child for the blame game and the
judiciary's creating "victims" out of acts of sublime stupidity. She was a
woman who had been drinking coffee for about 40 years, but, had not yet
discovered that hot coffee is hot and will burn if poured onto the skin.
And this intellectual blank cartridge also hadn't learned in four decades
that "take-out" cups are pliable and should not be squeezed, especially when
they're full of liquid. So this dunce puts a full take-out cup of hot
coffee between her legs in her car, squeezes the cup 'til the lid comes off
and spills hot coffee on her. So, who's fault is it? MacDonald's, of
course! Why? Well, they've got a lot of money and she didn't which
immediately qualified her in the eyes of American jurisprudence as a
"victim" who should be compensated for being so stupid. KM

you are neglecting a few key facts:

- stella liebeck, a 79 year old woman, purchased coffee and
accidentally spilled it, causing 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body,
requiring an 8 day hospital stay and had to undergo skin grafting.

- ms. liebeck initially asked for just her medical bills to be paid,
roughly $20,000, and mcdonalds offered $800.

- during discovery, it was found that mcdonalds had over 700 other
cases of customer burns from hot coffee, including small children and
infants, and some of which were caused by mcdonalds employees.

- mcdonalds served its coffee at 185 degrees, roughly 40 degrees hotter
than what is believed to be safe, and well aware that it was unsuitable
for human consumption at that temperature.

- mcdonalds admitted they never consulted anyone regarding what is a
safe temperature to serve food.

- doctors testified that at that temperature, 3rd degree burns would
occur within seconds.

- mcdonalds admitted that customers were unaware of the risk of injury,
they did not provide any warning to customers about the danger, they
had no explanation why they didn't warn customers of the danger, and
they had no intention of warning customers or reducing the temperature
to mitigate the danger.

- ms. liebeck's physican said it was one of the worst burn cases he had
ever seen.

- ms. liebeck repeatedly wanted to settle out of court, but mcdonalds
kept refusing, so it ultimately went to trial.

- ms. liebeck was awarded just $200k in compensatory damages, however,
she was also found to be 20% liable and the award was reduced to $160k.
mcdonalds was found to have engaged in willful, reckless and malicious
conduct, resulting in a $2.7 million award for punitive damages - just
two days of coffee sales for mcdonalds. this was later reduced to
$480k and both parties ultimately agreed to an undisclosed settlement,
believed to be about half that amount.

- after the verdict, mcdonalds reduced the temperature of the coffee to
158 degrees.

in summary, mcdonalds, by their own admission, knew of the potential
danger, had numerous other instances of burn victims, and they did
nothing at all to prevent it from happening.

I read that with mounting disbelief.

So, if I understand this correctly, in the USA every single
activity involving sale of products with any form of
associated danger must have such warnings. Regardless of the
fact that the products are common foodstuffs that the vast
majority of customers would have grown up with and have
learned of those common dangers from parents and guardians
as a natural part of growing up.

My parents served me tea and coffee steaming from the teapot
or coffeepot just below boiling point - with suitable
warnings to wait until it cooled if the milk and sugar
didn't cool it enough. At 79, one would suspect that this
lady may have come across a hot beverage at least once
before in her life.

Ludicrous.

What's next? Warnings to chew your burger before swallowing
in case of choking? Similar warnings in top restaurants to
remove the sparklers from your Bombe Alaska? Or warnings to
peel your prawns or shell your crab? Or something on every
dinner-knife "this object is sharp and may cause wounds if
handled carelessly".

Maybe a warning to step over the doorsill when entering,
after being warned to open the door before attempting to
enter?

Spare me from idiots, particularly those in legislature and
those on the bench. We have our own mob of judicial idiots,
but we haven't quite reached that level yet.

And you support this? Amazing.

The lady had an accident; unless the employee knocked the
cup over on her then the restaurant should have borne no
responsibility whatever. And believe me, I'm not usually a
supporter of the Golden Arches. Just of sanity.


Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/
latest: The Tropical North
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
latest: Jennifer's Story

You apparently don't understand the difference between coffee at 150
some degrees, which is hot by market standards, and 185 degrees which
causes virtually instant third degree burns. What is reasonable to
expect is what is market standards all over, not some coffee that is
approaching the boiling point


On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 05:56:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

NotABushSupporter wrote:
sharx35 wrote:


Once more, the law is an ass. Anyone with half a brain treats hot
beverages with DUE CARE AND ATTENTION.


Do you normally expect coffee to be scalding before you drink it?

Yes, I do, and if I was served coffee that was not hot then I would
complain about it.

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

sharx35 wrote:

"



Bull. ****ing. ****. Typical LIEbrawl DEMONrat.





Typically low IQ, moronic response by a right winger........

sharx35 wrote:





****ing cocksucking LIEbrawl DEMONrats--always trying to find someone ELSE
to blame for THEIR ****ing carelessness. Asshole. Cumwad.





Typical Bush republican, eh?

J. Clarke wrote:


Perhaps McDonalds should be required to administer an IQ test to anyone
attempting to purchase coffee and simply refuse to sell it to anyone
whose IQ is below room temperature.



But then sharx35 would have to give up coffee.

On 2007-06-23 00:11:27 -0400, "sharx35" said:

I can only wonder what ELSE she has put between her legs..... and had it
surprise her!!!

Fine for you, if you're a gerontophiliac.

On 2007-06-23 02:44:24 -0400, NotABushSupporter said:

A reasonable person would expect beverages to be drinkable at the time
of purchase. This wasn't the case and McDonalds knew of at least 700
injuries caused by their coffee.

If I'm the reasonable person (I know, lots of you think that's
unlikely), the coffee has to be REALLY HOT to be drinkable. I can
visualize someone less careful than I really doing a number on
him/herself with coffee that hot.

On 2007-06-23 03:26:32 -0400, "sharx35" said:


"NotABushSupporter" wrote in message
. ..
Alan S wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:43:38 -0700, nospam
wrote:


What's next? Warnings to chew your burger before swallowing
in case of choking?

A reasonable person would expect beverages to be drinkable at the time of
purchase. This wasn't the case and McDonalds knew of at least 700 injuries
caused by their coffee.


****ing cocksucking LIEbrawl DEMONrats--always trying to find someone ELSE
to blame for THEIR ****ing carelessness. Asshole. Cumwad.

I always like your logical, reasoned approach to all issues, ****x.

On 2007-06-23 06:36:38 -0400, (John Kulp) said:

You apparently don't understand the difference between coffee at 150
some degrees, which is hot by market standards, and 185 degrees which
causes virtually instant third degree burns.

I always thought third degree burns involved charring of the flesh. How
could that be caused by hot water?

On 2007-06-23 02:41:23 -0400, NotABushSupporter said:

McDonalds had been previously been informed of injuries because of the
coffee being too hot. The legal action made sure they did something
about the problem.

Don't try to talk reason to "****x" and the other right-wing idiots who
show up here. It's futile.