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. 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.


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

My recollection is that she had to have multiple skin grafts.
Macboy is quite an attorney!

Maybe she shouldn't carry hot coffee between her legs. Ever think of
that, Jonathan?

And maybe she should have realized that the coffee was hot when she held
it in her hands, prior to putting it betweeen her legs.

Jim

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. 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.)
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.

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.

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?

Jim


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:


My recollection is that she had to have multiple skin grafts.
Macboy is quite an attorney!


Maybe she shouldn't carry hot coffee between her legs. Ever think of
that, Jonathan?

And maybe she should have realized that the coffee was hot when she held
it in her hands, prior to putting it betweeen her legs.

Jim

Wow. What a humanitarian. She was old and feeble, she was
severely burned by a company that new full well there was a
problem, but you call her a stupid bitch. Of course, this is the
same guy who shills for Macs and was stupid enough to actually
buy one.

I think we got the basic facts about you right.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"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.
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.)
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.

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.

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?

Jim


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:


My recollection is that she had to have multiple skin grafts.
Macboy is quite an attorney!


Maybe she shouldn't carry hot coffee between her legs. Ever think of
that, Jonathan?

And maybe she should have realized that the coffee was hot when she held
it in her hands, prior to putting it betweeen her legs.

Jim

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Wow. What a humanitarian. She was old and feeble, she was
severely burned by a company that new full well there was a
problem, but you call her a stupid bitch. Of course, this is the
same guy who shills for Macs and was stupid enough to actually
buy one.

I think we got the basic facts about you right.

Well, at least you can now buy luckwarm coffee from MacDonalds. You can
hold it between your legs and at the same time fix your hair, do your
nails, or whatever makes you happy. Right Johathan?

Jim

Why do you keep claiming she was putting on makeup? The facts were presented:
she was trying to take the cover off to add milk and sugar.

You keep misrepresenting the facts, long after you were corrected. Why is that
Jim? Does truth have little meaning for you?




"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Wow. What a humanitarian. She was old and feeble, she was
severely burned by a company that new full well there was a
problem, but you call her a stupid bitch. Of course, this is the
same guy who shills for Macs and was stupid enough to actually
buy one.

I think we got the basic facts about you right.

Well, at least you can now buy luckwarm coffee from MacDonalds. You can
hold it between your legs and at the same time fix your hair, do your
nails, or whatever makes you happy. Right Johathan?

Jim

Jeff Morris wrote:
Why do you keep claiming she was putting on makeup? The facts were presented:
she was trying to take the cover off to add milk and sugar.

You keep misrepresenting the facts, long after you were corrected. Why is that
Jim? Does truth have little meaning for you?


Actually, although I had heard reports that she was putting on makeup, I
was dead wrong. - Apparently she wasn't putting on makeup. Instead, she
was trying to force the top off the cup, and having difficulty doing so.
What she should have done, of course, was wait until she could hold the
cup securely somewhere other han over her lap, and THEN try to get the
top off. In other words, if she was having trouble getting the top off a
cup of coffee held over her lap in a car, she should have realized that
she shouldn't continue forcing the top off, in the car. t

But I wasn't wrong with respect to the underlying issue, which is that
entire country is suffering from the exorbitant law suit recoveries
obtained by such hot shot lawyers.

I got the basic fact right, Jeff. 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, should pay for their
was negligence. - This was confirmed when the award was substantially
reduced on appeal.

The 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. Where they relate to medical issues, they are a major factor
in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical insurance,
to levels beyond those that many people can afford. In other words,
Jeff, because of tort recoveries such as that one (ignoring who was at
fault, and what both parties SHOULD have done) punitive tort recoveries
are a major reason that millions of American citizens can't get or can't
afford meaningful health care. It's also a major factor in the
precarious status of Medicare, lack of care for the indigent, etc.,
Additionally, related 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 in our laps while we sit in our car. - Does that give you
some nice warm fuzzies Jeff?

Jim


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:


My recollection is that she had to have multiple skin grafts.
Macboy is quite an attorney!

"Jim Cate" wrote


The 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. Where they relate to medical issues, they are a major factor
in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical insurance,
to levels beyond those that many people can afford. In other words,
Jeff, because of tort recoveries such as that one (ignoring who was at
fault, and what both parties SHOULD have done) punitive tort recoveries
are a major reason that millions of American citizens can't get or can't
afford meaningful health care. It's also a major factor in the
precarious status of Medicare, lack of care for the indigent, etc.,
Additionally, related costs to businesses add to unemployment and
underemployment in many sectors of our economy.

Jim's right, just as boats like the Mac26XM raise insurance for the rest of
us real sailors. it ain't fair!

SV

Sorry Jim, but I don't "shop" at McDs, and I don't buy Macs
(edible - barely - or those that resemble sailboats).

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Wow. What a humanitarian. She was old and feeble, she was
severely burned by a company that new full well there was a
problem, but you call her a stupid bitch. Of course, this is the
same guy who shills for Macs and was stupid enough to actually
buy one.

I think we got the basic facts about you right.

Well, at least you can now buy luckwarm coffee from MacDonalds. You can
hold it between your legs and at the same time fix your hair, do your
nails, or whatever makes you happy. Right Johathan?

Jim

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Sorry Jim, but I don't "shop" at McDs, and I don't buy Macs
(edible - barely - or those that resemble sailboats).


You maynot shop at MacDonalds, or buy Macs. But have you, or will you,
ever have to go to a hospital, Johathan? If so, unless you are one of
the lucky ones (like me) who has adequate health insurance from your
employer, there is a high probability that you will be billed for a
very, very large amount of money. So large that it may mess up your
whole life.

Jim

"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.
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.