Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

... and made money that way. Most prefer to drive 80 mph, but the speed
limit is 55. If it becomes UPS policy to drive 80 to beat the
competition, because that's what their customers want, then does "it's a
highway, you expect people to drive fast" gain traction at the site of the
crash?


No. Care to attempt a proper analogy?



McDonalds took a risk on behalf of some customers to please other
customers. They made money on this. They are therefore responsible for
the consequences.


The product was properly prepared, the container didn't fail, why is
McDonalds responsible for the actions of a customer?

Should GM be held responsible if someone drives a Chevy off a cliff?

Care to attempt a proper analogy?

Care to state what you believe is wrong with the one I made? No analogy
is perfect, nor is it proof, but this one is adequate to illustrate the
point.

The product was properly prepared...

The contention is that the product was =not= properly prepared. I think
I agree.

Should GM be held responsible if someone drives a Chevy off a cliff?

Maybe. If the case is that somebody rents a Chevette from Avis, and
when he drives it off the lot, he zooms out into traffic, crashing into
six cars before finally coming to a stop, upside down and on fire, and
further investigation shows that Avis replaced the Chevette's engine
with a 400 HP muscle car motor and a hair trigger accelerator because
their customers "liked to go fast", it could reasonably be argued that
the response of the rented vehicle did not match the expectations of a
reasonable person.

"It's a car. Press on the accelerator, it goes. Duh"

Well, no. It's "too hot".

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.

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

Care to state what you believe is wrong with the one I made? No analogy
is perfect, nor is it proof, but this one is adequate to illustrate the
point.


A proper analogy compares similar situations. Your analogy compares
dissimilar situations.



The contention is that the product was =not= properly prepared. I think I
agree.


Yes, the contention is McDonalds coffee was unusually hot at 180 degrees.
The National Coffee Association advises coffee be brewed between 195-205
degrees for "optimal extraction" and then consumed immediately. If it's not
consumed immediately, the coffee should be maintained at 180-185 degrees.
Other major national coffee vendors such as Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts,
Burger King, and Wendys serve their coffee at similar or higher temperatures
than McDonalds. Household coffee makers reach similar temperatures. My
own coffee maker produces coffee in a thermal carafe, no hot plate. Half an
hour after brewing began I poured a cup and checked the temperature with a
meat thermometer. It was just a needle width below 180 degrees.

I think I disagree with the contention.



Maybe. If the case is that somebody rents a Chevette from Avis, and when
he drives it off the lot, he zooms out into traffic, crashing into six
cars before finally coming to a stop, upside down and on fire, and further
investigation shows that Avis replaced the Chevette's engine with a 400 HP
muscle car motor and a hair trigger accelerator because their customers
"liked to go fast", it could reasonably be argued that the response of the
rented vehicle did not match the expectations of a reasonable person.

"It's a car. Press on the accelerator, it goes. Duh"


Another bad analogy. The McDonalds coffee case did not involve any product
failure, no lawfully mandated or reasonably accepted standard was exceeded



Well, no. It's "too hot".


Says who?

A proper analogy compares similar situations. Your analogy compares
dissimilar situations.

This is not a useful statement.

A proper analogy compares similar but =non-identical= situations. To
the extent that situations are not identical, they are dissimilar. What
part of the dissimilarity invalidates the analogy?

Yes, the contention is McDonalds coffee was unusually hot at 180 degrees.
The National Coffee Association advises coffee be brewed between 195-205
degrees for "optimal extraction" and then consumed immediately. If it's not
consumed immediately, the coffee should be maintained at 180-185 degrees.
Other major national coffee vendors such as Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts,
Burger King, and Wendys serve their coffee at similar or higher temperatures
than McDonalds. Household coffee makers reach similar temperatures. My
own coffee maker produces coffee in a thermal carafe, no hot plate. Half an
hour after brewing began I poured a cup and checked the temperature with a
meat thermometer. It was just a needle width below 180 degrees.

I think I disagree with the contention.

I don't do coffee, so I'll take your word for it. The court's
contention (IIRC) is that coffee is typically =served= at 140 degrees.
What is the temperature of your coffee when you begin to drink it? What
about when you are at the bottom of the cup?

Another bad analogy. The McDonalds coffee case did not involve any product
failure, no lawfully mandated or reasonably accepted standard was exceeded

My car case did not involve a product failure either - it was a failure
of the driver to properly drive a properly modified car. It looked like
a chevette, but it was a properly made muscle car, which demands more
attention than a chevette driver might initially give it.

As to the exceeding of "reasonable standards", as above, we disagree on
whether the standards were reasonable.

If I'm at a hotel, step into a hot shower and get pelted with 180 degree
water, someone's going to hear about it.

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.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

If I'm at a hotel, step into a hot shower and get pelted with 180 degree
water, someone's going to hear about it.

And that someone will likely (and should) ignore your complaint if you didn't
bother to check the water temp BEFORE stepping in.

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

Jose wrote:

If I'm at a hotel, step into a hot shower and get pelted with 180 degree
water, someone's going to hear about it.

Hopefully your mother will hear about it so she can slap you for being
so stupid as to step into water before you've tested the temperature.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Jose wrote:

If I'm at a hotel, step into a hot shower and get pelted with 180
degree water, someone's going to hear about it.

Hopefully your mother will hear about it so she can slap you for being
so stupid as to step into water before you've tested the temperature.

I've stayed at a lot of hotels and I can categorically state that after
you've set and tested the temperature to a comfortable level and then
stepped into the shower the temperature is likely to change. And change
again. And yet again.

Hopefully your mother will hear about your ignorance of typical hotel
plumbing so she can slap you for posting such ignorance on the Internet.

In the future don't post such nonsense about hotel plumbing - please!

Hopefully your mother will hear about it so she can slap you for being so stupid as to step into water before you've tested the temperature.

The act of testing the temperature (sticking your arm in) will produce
burns if the water is that hot.

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.

Jose schrieb:

The act of testing the temperature (sticking your arm in) will produce
burns if the water is that hot.

If the shower is that hot, you can *see* it.

Gee, it seems you know as much about real life as MX knows about
aviation. Time to shut down your life sim and to take a short look at
the world outside.

Stefan

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Yes, the contention is McDonalds coffee was unusually hot at 180
degrees. The National Coffee Association advises coffee be brewed
between 195-205 degrees for "optimal extraction" and then consumed
immediately.

As you can see in the chart in the next link, second and third degree
burns will almost immediately result if coffee is ingested in that
temperature range:

http://www.accuratebuilding.com/serv...ing_graph.html

(Meat measured at those temperatures is considered "well done".)

If it's not consumed immediately, the coffee should be
maintained at 180-185 degrees. Other major national coffee vendors
such as Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Burger King, and Wendys serve their
coffee at similar or higher temperatures than McDonalds. Household
coffee makers reach similar temperatures.

No, that is not correct. Typical temperatures from household coffee
makers appears to range from 140 to 165 degrees F. "Coffee from a drip
coffee maker is usually 160 to 165 degrees Farenheit and after milk or
cream is added it is consumed at 145 degrees Farenheit." (Quoted from
http://www.surferchef.com/ ) The temperature asserted at the trial for
typical temperatures were in the 140 F range.

And as you can see from the graph in the previous link, anything above
140 F risks burning the mouth.

My own coffee maker
produces coffee in a thermal carafe, no hot plate. Half an hour after
brewing began I poured a cup and checked the temperature with a meat
thermometer. It was just a needle width below 180 degrees.

I think I disagree with the contention.

Look, the jury noted the facts, including multiple other injuries and
complaints regarding the temperature of McDonalds' coffee and concluded
that it was above that which they considered a reasonable expectation.
To continue to argue their decision is to essentially contend that
either _you_ are a proper example of a "reasonable person" and _they_
are not or that you are in possession of facts that they were not.

Another bad analogy. The McDonalds coffee case did not involve any
product failure, no lawfully mandated or reasonably accepted standard
was exceeded

They lost the case. They violated their end of a contract, which is
selling a drinkable and reasonably safe cup of coffee.