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

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.

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

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.

In article , Alan S
wrote:

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.

the issue was not that ms. liebeck had an accident (and in fact, she
was found partially liable), but rather that mcdonalds had a total
disregard for the health and safety of its patrons. mcdonalds *knew*
they were serving food that was unfit for human consumption and which
could cause severe injury and yet they did absolutely *nothing* about
it, even after 700 other people were injured.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
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.


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

"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.

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?

"NotABushSupporter" wrote in message
...
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?


I ASSUME that any hot beverage will be painfully hot until I find out
otherwise. Similarly, I assume that water is too shallow to dive in UNTIL I
check it out.

sharx35 wrote:

"NotABushSupporter" wrote in message
...

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?



I ASSUME that any hot beverage will be painfully hot until I find out
otherwise. Similarly, I assume that water is too shallow to dive in UNTIL I
check it out.


So, if the purchaser is not aware of anyone being hurt by the product
and the seller is aware of at least 700 instances of someone being hurt
by the product, you still find the purchaser to be solely at fault?
(Note, in the decision, 20 percent of the blame was place on the purchaser)

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)