"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

Well, actually I don't think that's true. Or, if you prefer, "I
disagree." Although I have not researched the case deeply, I have done a
bit more reading than the headlines about it.

My take is this (and I'm making the numbers up because I don't remember
what they really were).

Normally, hot coffee is served at 160 degrees. That's what one expects.
At 160 degrees, a spill is painful, but not extremely injurious. The
claimant expected 160 degree coffee, and took the risk of a 160 degree
injury.

However, McDonalds served their coffee at 180 degrees. They made more
money that way (presumably because more customers bought it, since on a
commute, the coffee gets cold) At 180 degrees, a spill is extremely
injurious. (My own experiments with pool temperatures convince me that
one degree is very noticable, at least in that range - it is not much of a
stretch IMHO that twenty degrees when near boiling would make a big
difference)


McDonalds sought to satisfy their customers by serving coffee the way most
preferred it.



So, she reaonably thought she was risking only pain, but was really
risking serious injury, because of the way McDonalds served their product
at an unexpected temperature.

The newspapers take the attractive line that "coffee is hot, duh!". But
it's not that simple.

On the surface the case looked silly. But I believe it was legitimate.

On close examination it still looks silly.



A loser pays client might never have brought the case.


That's the beauty of loser pays.