Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

Well, that depends on whether you in fact -are- an idiot, or merely
unfortunate. If "much hotter than usual" means "death instead of mild
pain", then McD has some culpability.


How much culpability does McDonalds have if the coffee is "not at all hotter
than usual"?

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

The standard is a reasonable person, not a paranoid person. Should I
treat a baby bottle as if it were filled with poison (because it =could=
be?)


Another bad analogy. A reasonable person does not expect a baby bottle to
be filled with poison. A reasonable person expects coffee to be served at
180 degrees or higher.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Jose" wrote in message
t...

Well, that depends on whether you in fact -are- an idiot, or merely
unfortunate. If "much hotter than usual" means "death instead of
mild pain", then McD has some culpability.


How much culpability does McDonalds have if the coffee is "not at all
hotter than usual"?

Changing that variable doesn't appear to affect culpability in this case.
Here's why I think that:

It appears that if you sell a product that any reasonable seller would know
(or learned) causes great bodily harm in common circumstances (such as
easily spilled drinks) and did nothing to improve the product's safety,
then it appears that the U.S. legal system says you (the seller) share some
culpability. In other words, it appears the courts apply a "reasonable
person" standard to both sides of a dispute. They seem to have found that
it was not reasonable for McD to continue to follow the "National Coffee
Association" advice in light of hundreds of other previous complaints. By
the time of this incident McD should have known there was a safety issue
and could correct the problem by lowering the serving temperature. That's
the way I read the decision.

Getting back to aviation: there does not appear to be any evidence that a
failure of the SR22 caused the crash in question.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Jose" wrote in message
t...
Well, that depends on whether you in fact -are- an idiot, or merely
unfortunate. If "much hotter than usual" means "death instead of mild
pain", then McD has some culpability.


How much culpability does McDonalds have if the coffee is "not at all hotter
than usual"?



And what is usual?

Matt

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

How much culpability does McDonalds have if the coffee is "not at all
hotter
than usual"?

And what is usual?

How long does it take to establish something as "usual"?

--
Bob Noel
(gave up lookingn for a particular sig the lawyer will)

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

Fine, that's just a matter of degree. I've never seen an advertisemnt for
"scalding hot" coffee either. There are degrees of temperature.


That would be superfluous, as "hot coffee" is properly served at
temperatures which can scald.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

Yes. But I would not assume that the burns would be so severe that I
would be in the hospital six months later.



Why not?

How much culpability does McDonalds have if the coffee is "not at all hotter
than usual"?

IMHO, nearly none. Close enough to none to warrant tossing the case
out. But in that case...

1: Either coffee would normally served at a temperature which would
cause extensive third degree burns if spilled, and people would normally
(and justifiably) treat it with much more respect than they do presently, or

2: Coffee would be served at McDonalds at the cooler temperature that
most people are in fact accustomed to, and the injuries sustained by the
plaintiff would not have been sufficient or unexpected enough for her to
bring suit in the first place.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

A reasonable person expects coffee to be served at
180 degrees or higher.

That is where we disagree with each other, where you disagree with the
jury, and where it appears you disagree with many (most?) posters here.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:46:52 GMT, Jose
wrote:

A reasonable person expects coffee to be served at
180 degrees or higher.

That is where we disagree with each other, where you disagree with the
jury, and where it appears you disagree with many (most?) posters here.
I agree with him.

When I purchase coffee I expect it to be *hot*. Hot enough that I can
carry it to the care, get under way and not have to worry about the
stuff being cold before it's half gone. I also expect to find it hot
enough that I have to treat it cautiously until if comes down to
drinking temperature.

Yes, I also disagree with the Jury. I would not have found in favor
of some one who did not know how to handle coffee.

OTOH I quite drinking coffee over 6 years ago.
the stuff isn't good for you.


Jose
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com