"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote

How about you respond as the defendant to these.

6. In discovery, it was disclosd that McD had over 700 previous claims
by people burned in a ten year period just before this incident,
including 3rd degree burns. This establishd McD's prior knowledge of
the extent and nature of the hazard.

7. McD also said that it it intentionally held th temp between 180
and 190 F. When

11. McD admitted that it knew that any food substance served at or
above 140 F is a burn hazard, and that at the temp they served it, it
was not fit for human consumption.

12. They also admitted that they knew burns would occur, but had
decided to keep the temp at 185 anyway.

15. McD told the jury that customers buy coffee on their way to work,
intending to drink it there. However, their own research was brought
out that showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.

And knowing all of that, and even if the cup had a warning on it that said
the coffee was at 195 deg F, I believe that the plaintiff would still have
put the cup between her legs and gotten the very same result.

BDS