Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Jeff Morris wrote:

Actually Jim, keeping the coffee at 185 degrees burns it and produces

inferior

coffee. It was far too hot to be consumed, and thus Mac was negligent.

Actually, Jeff, in case you hadn't noticed, most people who buy hot
coffee actually expect it to be hot. It's often served somewhat hotter
than they normally drink it. - In fact, part of the enjoyment of
drinking a cup of hot coffee is the conversation occuring as you wait
for it to cool off a little to permit you to drink it. You take small
sips of it initially, while it's still too hot to gulp down, and then
you take longer sips as it gradually cools down. Most people, including
me, would object to coffee served lukewarm such that we have to gulp it
down immediately before it gets cold. That's why they call it a "coffee
break," Jeff.

In any event, most people recognize that you need to check out the
coffee by sipping it before you gulp it down, or before you try to jerk
the top off while holding it above your lap.

Jim



This

could explain why they lost the case.

So why did you get the basic facts of the wrong, Jim? I guess you don't

like to

get confused my them.


I got the basic fact right, Jeff. (I didn't mention the fact that
MacDonals served their coffee hot, since most people would naturally
assume that coffee IS going to be hot, unless you ask for iced coffee.)


That wasn't "hot" coffee, it was "scalding" coffee, completely undrinkable and
dangerous to handle. "Unsuited for the purpose" is the term lawyers use, I
think.




The basic fact, once again, are that this stupid bitch put the cup of
coffee between her legs while she was preoccupied with something else in
the vehicle (whether or not she was driving is really of no consequence
to the story.) As I understood it, she was busy applying her makeup
while supporting the cup of coffee in her crotch.


When coffee is served in a flimsy cup to someone seating in a car, one must
consider the possibility it could get spilled.



The BASIC FACTS are that she got a hot shot lawyer who enraged the jury
with inflammatory pictures of her burns, and got a punitive judgment
against MacDonalds that was based on their emotional reaction to the
pictures, and not on any rational consideration of whether MacDonalds,
or the lady, was negligent. - This was confirmed when the award was
substantially reduced on appeal.


Reduced somewhat, but still a substantial penalty.


The BASIC FACTS are that judgments of this kind, and the defensive
measures resulting from the threat of them, are a major drag on our
economy for both small and large business, and in particular, a major
reason our medical costs are the highest in the world. The end result of
lawsuits like this is a continued tax on all of us due to the added
costs to business, and where they relate to medical issues, a major
factor in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical
insurance, which are rising to levels beyond what many people can
afford. It's also a major factor in the precarious status of Medicare,
care for the indigent, etc., Costs to businesses add to unemployment and
underemployment in many sectors of our economy.

But I suppose that we got one positive result out of the MacDonalds
suit. - We can now get lukewarm coffee from MacDonalds that we can
safely hold between our legs while we ride in our car. - Does that give
you some nice warm fuzzies Jeff?


Actually, I never buy coffee from a takeout, because I find that its too hot to
drink and by the time it cools a bit to be drinkable, I've probably spilled it!
When I first heard about this case, I thought the woman was crazy, but the more
I found out about it the clearer it seemed that Micky D's was negligent.