Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

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!

"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.

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.

"Jim Logajan" wrote

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.

A jury can be wrong - consider the OJ case, or on the other side of the
coin, any number of prison inmates who are innocent of the crime they were
convicted of.

With that in mind, another possibility is that the jury felt bad for the
injured woman and decided to give her some of a large corporation's money,
figuring that the large corporation would hardly be affected. They made an
emotional decision rather than one based on fact, and it happens all the
time in personal injury cases (much to the delight of the plaintiffs'
lawyers).

BDS

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Jose wrote:


If tea is supposed to be served boiling, and coffee is supposed to be
served "very warm", then tea would be handled differently from coffee
by a reasonable person.

Tea is not served boiling, it is made with boiling water. Thats why the
proper way to make tea is with a teapot rather than a teabag in a cup of
boiling water. That is asking for trouble

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

"BDS" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote

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.

A jury can be wrong - consider the OJ case, or on the other side of
the coin, any number of prison inmates who are innocent of the crime
they were convicted of.

All true. But in this case the jury did find the woman was 20% responsible.
There are those who believe the woman was 100% responsible and those of us,
upon considering the published information, would have said she was less
than 100% responsible.

With that in mind, another possibility is that the jury felt bad for
the injured woman and decided to give her some of a large
corporation's money, figuring that the large corporation would hardly
be affected. They made an emotional decision rather than one based on
fact, and it happens all the time in personal injury cases (much to
the delight of the plaintiffs' lawyers).

The only problem I see with that possibility is that in looking at what has
been published and I was on the jury, then I would probably have said the
woman was no more than 50% responsible for her own injuries. I would have
come to that conclusion even had the entity serving the coffee been a sole
proprietor working out of a small corner shop (we have a lot of those up
here in the Pacific northwest!) In other words, I do not believe my own
opinion is influenced in the way you suggest. But I've been wrong before!
:-)

"skym" wrote in message
oups.com...

Merely that you switched from a response based on reason to onethat
was only an ad hominum attack. Not typical for you, from what I've
seen on these bbs. In my occupation ("trial lawyer") that type of
response is characteristic of the other guy/gal's deficit of logic,
hence he/she has yielded (perhaps unintentionally) the logical point.
It is a sign of a defeated wit.


An ad hominum attack? Did you mean ad hominem? Care to explain your
reasoning? If you are truly a trial lawyer you know very well illegitimate
cases sometimes win in court.



Let me ask you this; perhaps it is more enlightening: How do you
define the word "legitimate" in your original response?


I took Jose's use of it to mean "valid", I followed suit in my response to
his message.



OK. I had not noticed that comment was from you earlier, and asked
only as an afterthought. I have no strong philosophical dispute with
"loser pays" but I am generally against it based on my experience as a
litigator for over 30 years. The problem is that identified by Jose,
i.e. it really gives a huge, unfair advantage to large corporations or
well heeled clients over the little guy. Having litigated hundreds of
cases in my career, I can tell you that the well heeled clients can,
and do, overlitigate cases in an effort to wear down the other side.
Making them responsible for their own litigation expenses, win or
lose, helps keep the cost and efficiency more managable than it
otherwise would be.


As it stands now the losing side pays the costs of both sides, even when
they're right.



How would you like to litigate what you believe
to be legitimate tax case against Uncle Sam, knowing that they can
bury you financially if the particular judge you get thinks you're
wrong? Which brings us to the other problem with loser pays:
Not all cases are black and white, In fact, extremely few are. Both
sides frequently have good positions, based in good faith, on an
honest difference of opinion or knowledge of the facts. The "loser"
may have been 49.999% right. Is it correct to make them pay the other
side's legal costs for pursuing a claim or defense that is based on a
good faith belief, where the winner will only be decided by how a
majority of some particular 12 people may decide? Again, should
Parker-Hannifin or McDonalds have paid the plaintiffs' attorney fees
and expenses because they put up a good faith defense to claims that
they (and I gather, a majority of the writers on these bbs) believe
were not meritorious claims? Now there would be a motivation for the
defendants to rollover and pay the so-called "legal extortion"!


I don't see a problem there. If the loser is 49.999% right they should pay
50.001 of the winner's legal costs.

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

While I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, it is not a blanket
cover-all. Yes, she did something stupid, and if the coffee were at a
normal temperature should not be compensated at all. It was her stupidity
that would have burned her (somewhat). But if the coffee is =far= hotter
than would be expected (let's say for the sake of argument that it was
just short of boiling in the cup), and instead of burning her somewhat, it
caused an injury which required amputation, I would say that she is not
totally responsible for the additional damage. The difference between
somewhat burned, and almost dead came from the water being =far= too hot.


McDonalds served it's coffee at 180 degrees. That IS a normal temperature
for coffee. The National Coffee Association advises that coffee be brewed
between 195-205 degrees for "optimal extraction" and then consumed
immediately. If 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 Wendy's serve their coffee at similar or
higher temperatures than McDonalds.

"peter" wrote in message
ps.com...

You might want to check the actual facts of the case. 1) She wasn't
the driver of the vehicle. 2) The car was stopped at the time when
she removed the top of the cup. 3) No speedbump was involved. And,
most significantly, the coffee temperature was substantially hotter
than typical at similar establishments (or from home coffee makers)
and there had been numerous other incidents involving substantial
injury.


It's a fact that her coffee was substantially hotter than typical at similar
establishments or from home coffee makers? What similar establishments?
Which home coffee makers?