Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

Morgans wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote

Also, while you link does say, "The best temperature for brewing coffee is
between 195 F and 205 F." it doesn't say it should be served at that
temperature. If I cook a prime rib at 375 F I don't plan to serve it at
that temperature.

Exactly. NOBODY can drink coffee at 180 degrees. Few could drink it at
140.

Right. Most McDonalds are in towns or cities. I don't drive and drink
coffee when in high traffic and congested areas. Even where I live, in
a fairly rural area, most McDonalds are located such that I must drive
5-10 minutes before I'm in an area safe enough to drive my coffee while
driving. By then the coffee is easily sipped and soon after can be
gulped, and this is without adding cream or sugar which cool the coffee.
If I was served coffee at 120 degrees, it would be barely above body
temperature 10 minutes later and that would not make me a happy camper.

Matt

Its impossible to say how well a "private school only" system will
turn out in the long run. It may do just fine on average but it may
work poorly during bad economic times when several schools in a city
suddenly go out of business for example. It is impossible to run
control experiments to determine which system is the best on average
over an extended period of time.
Besides, I was just pointing out that it is possible to privatize
education completely unlike things like a missile defence system that
cannot be privatized at all. Whether it is desirable is hard to tell
even though I would be inclined to say it is.

On Dec 3, 4:26 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:
"kontiki" wrote in message

...

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

Umm.." girish" said, "Low income families could then be given coupons
paid for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools."

And you said, "Bingo! That is exactly how it should work."

Read his post in its entirety.

I have. It's not out of context all all. That one sentence is the key. His
"solution" relies on the schools putting pressure on the public schools.
It's foundation, in some places is called "vouchers". It gives lower income
people access to privat eschools, but is not a long-term solution to
anything else.

You are focusing on one sentence
which takes out its context. I don't like any government welfare
programs... or income taxes actually. But there ways to improve
the way things are done now with a goal toward phasing out and
completely eliminating the nanny state entirely at some future time.

That was the gist of his post... at least as I read it.

Any program that relies on taxpayer funded anything, at any phase, is not
going to do away with the nanny state. It is only going to stall and create
a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that will never disappear.

"Matt Whiting" wrote

Still nothing that makes Mickey D's liable in my opinion. As I posted
earlier, coffee is considered best brewed at about 200 degrees F and
"held" at 170 or above. It sounds like McDonald's was following sound
coffee brewing and serving practice.

Where do you find that serving at 170 degrees is standard practice?

Also, consider for a moment that the serving temperature of coffee in a sit
down resturant could safely be hotter than coffee served at a take out
window. That would certainly be wise, without a doubt.

Putting a cup of hot liquid between your legs is negligent and just asking
for trouble. I can see a 3 year-old not knowing this, but a 79 year-old
is without excuse.

How many 79 year olds do you know that do not have much more mental age than
a 3 year old? I certainly know some.

I will not defend the fact that coffee between the legs is not wise, but
still, the punishment for making a bad decission such as that should not be
skin grafts.

I suspect that ordinary matches burn a lot more than 700 people in a
typical decade. I suspect that makers of matches have prior knowledge of
this hazard. Does this make a match manufacturer liable for every idiot
who burns themselves with a match?

I doubt that a match itself has ever caused a set of burns nearly as severe
as the case of the way too hot coffee.
--
Jim in NC

"Matt Whiting" wrote

I see a nearly precise connection. The seller of alcohol knows that
everyone who drinks it will be impaired to some degree.

Most people are still legal to drive if tey only consum 1 drink over a
period of 3o or 40 minutes. besides, the bartender does NOT know who is
going to drive, or do something where the imparement could cause harm.

The alcohol going out the door will impair the consumer every time,
anyone.

But an alcohol imparement will not cause any harm, if the consumer does not
drive, or walk out into traffic. The seller has no way of knowing ther is
any bad consequence possible.

The seller of coffer doesn't know that someone will do something stupid
like spill it on themselves.

But all it will take is one spill to do great harm. A spill is possible for
any person that walks out with coffee that hot.

The big point is that the seller of the coffee has in his power the ability
to make a safer product, and does not take the opportunity. There is some
responsibility because of that fact.
--
Jim in NC

"Jim Logajan" wrote

So heat a cup of water to 195 F and drink it. Then report back the
results.

DISCLAIMER: KIDS DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME. This experiment should only be
performed by masochists and those with reckless disregard for their own
safety. Also make sure your health insurance is paid up to date.

ROTFLMAO ! ! !

Thanks, I needed that!
--
Jim in NC

"Matt Whiting" wrote

If I was served coffee at 120 degrees, it would be barely above body
temperature 10 minutes later and that would not make me a happy camper.

They make little pull offs at every Mc D's so you could open your coffee
lid, and get it into your cup holder. Then you could start drinking it in
most any traffic.

If that does not do it, then you should get one of those little heating
elements that plug into your cigarette lighter to heat up your cup of
coffee.

Don't expect the rest of the world to give up their safety and needs to fit
your requirements.
--
Jim in NC

Criticizing the system based on the McDonald's case is a fallacy. The
reason it got so much attention is because it was an abberant result,
at least as far as the jury verdict. The judge reduced the damages
substantialy, which shows one of the safeguards that the system has.
They are not perfect, but they usually work. There will always be a
bad result every once in awhile; e.g., O.J.'s criminal trial and any
number of others. Can you name any human system that doesn't screw up
once in awhile? You need to realize that there are literally tens of
thousand verdicts or court decisions each year. In almost every case
at least half the participants feel that the outcome was wrong. The
fact that there seems to be some disagreement among the members of
this newsgroup shows that the answer is not always clear, even here.
Anyone care to guess which entities file the most lawsuits? (I don't
mean "lawyers", either. Ha, ha.)
As an aside, i once heard it said that the justice system is simply a
means to an end. i.e., to resolve a dispute. Nothing more, nothing
less. I often tell people that in law school, the one word I never
heard discussed by any professor, in any class or in any lawbook was
the word "fair." This shocks many people, but after all, what is
"fair"? The legal system has no answer to that question any more than
does any religion or anything else.

Morgans wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote

Still nothing that makes Mickey D's liable in my opinion. As I posted
earlier, coffee is considered best brewed at about 200 degrees F and
"held" at 170 or above. It sounds like McDonald's was following sound
coffee brewing and serving practice.

Where do you find that serving at 170 degrees is standard practice?

I posted a search string a couple of days ago that showed a slew of
references.


Also, consider for a moment that the serving temperature of coffee in a sit
down resturant could safely be hotter than coffee served at a take out
window. That would certainly be wise, without a doubt.

I disagree. In a sit-down restaurant, I'll be drinking right away and
having the coffee slightly cooler isn't a problem. At a drive-thru I
may be 10 minutes away from the first sip. I want it hot when I get to
drink it.


Putting a cup of hot liquid between your legs is negligent and just asking
for trouble. I can see a 3 year-old not knowing this, but a 79 year-old
is without excuse.

How many 79 year olds do you know that do not have much more mental age than
a 3 year old? I certainly know some.

Then the person in the car with them should not have bought the 79
year-old hot coffee if she wasn't competent to drink it.


I will not defend the fact that coffee between the legs is not wise, but
still, the punishment for making a bad decission such as that should not be
skin grafts.

It wasn't punishment. No one forced this one her. She brought it on
herself. Look up what punishment means.


I suspect that ordinary matches burn a lot more than 700 people in a
typical decade. I suspect that makers of matches have prior knowledge of
this hazard. Does this make a match manufacturer liable for every idiot
who burns themselves with a match?

I doubt that a match itself has ever caused a set of burns nearly as severe
as the case of the way too hot coffee.

Some of the worst burns I know of came from fires started by matches,
especially when gasoline is involved. Probably only butane cigarette
lighters have caused more.

Matt

Morgans wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote

I see a nearly precise connection. The seller of alcohol knows that
everyone who drinks it will be impaired to some degree.

Most people are still legal to drive if tey only consum 1 drink over a
period of 3o or 40 minutes. besides, the bartender does NOT know who is
going to drive, or do something where the imparement could cause harm.

Legality doesn't matter. They are still IMPAIRED.

McDonald's does NOT know who is going to put coffee between their legs
and then spill it.


The alcohol going out the door will impair the consumer every time,
anyone.

But an alcohol imparement will not cause any harm, if the consumer does not
drive, or walk out into traffic. The seller has no way of knowing ther is
any bad consequence possible.

Hot coffee won't cause any harm if you don't spill it on yourself.


The seller of coffer doesn't know that someone will do something stupid
like spill it on themselves.

But all it will take is one spill to do great harm. A spill is possible for
any person that walks out with coffee that hot.

And it takes only one drink to impair someone's judgment and motor
skills enough to have a serious accident and kill someone.


The big point is that the seller of the coffee has in his power the ability
to make a safer product, and does not take the opportunity. There is some
responsibility because of that fact.

As does the seller of alcoholic drinks. Think O-Douls. There is no
need to sell unsafe drinks that contain alcohol.

Matt

Morgans wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote

If I was served coffee at 120 degrees, it would be barely above body
temperature 10 minutes later and that would not make me a happy camper.

They make little pull offs at every Mc D's so you could open your coffee
lid, and get it into your cup holder. Then you could start drinking it in
most any traffic.

If that does not do it, then you should get one of those little heating
elements that plug into your cigarette lighter to heat up your cup of
coffee.

Don't expect the rest of the world to give up their safety and needs to fit
your requirements.

Don't expect me to give up my requirements because a small minority of
the world is too stupid to prepare and drink coffee.

Matt