Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
their jaundiced eye.

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
...
This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
their jaundiced eye.

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?


Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING HOT!

Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding levels.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?

Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING HOT!

Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding levels.

Um, well, okay -- but isn't coffee *supposed* to be "effing hot"?

Mine is, every morning...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:05:16 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck wrote:

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?

Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING HOT!

Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding levels.

Um, well, okay -- but isn't coffee *supposed* to be "effing hot"?

Mickey D's coffee caused third-degree burns. The argument was that was *too*
effing hot.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:05:16 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
wrote:

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?

Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING
HOT!

Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding levels.

Um, well, okay -- but isn't coffee *supposed* to be "effing hot"?

Mickey D's coffee caused third-degree burns. The argument was that was
*too*
effing hot.


I would be interested in knowing how much insulation the cup provided. If
it was paper then it couldn't have been to hot. If it was made of Shuttle
re-entry tiles then it probably was to hot.

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
...

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:05:16 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
wrote:

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?

Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING
HOT!

Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding
levels.

Um, well, okay -- but isn't coffee *supposed* to be "effing hot"?

Mickey D's coffee caused third-degree burns. The argument was that was
*too*
effing hot.


I would be interested in knowing how much insulation the cup provided. If
it was paper then it couldn't have been to hot. If it was made of Shuttle
re-entry tiles then it probably was to hot.



Regardless of her initial award, does anyone know how much she actually
collected after appeal issues and such. I heard it was much less, but don't
recall the numbers. Maybe $200k.

On Dec 2, 6:32 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Tom Conner" wrote in message

...







"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:05:16 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
wrote:

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?

Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING
HOT!

Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding
levels.

Um, well, okay -- but isn't coffee *supposed* to be "effing hot"?

Mickey D's coffee caused third-degree burns. The argument was that was
*too*
effing hot.

I would be interested in knowing how much insulation the cup provided. If
it was paper then it couldn't have been to hot. If it was made of Shuttle
re-entry tiles then it probably was to hot.

Regardless of her initial award, does anyone know how much she actually
collected after appeal issues and such. I heard it was much less, but don't
recall the numbers. Maybe $200k.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It was settled for $600,000.

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:42:36 -0800, "Tom Conner"
wrote:


"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:05:16 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
wrote:

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?

Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING
HOT!

Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding levels.

Um, well, okay -- but isn't coffee *supposed* to be "effing hot"?

Mickey D's coffee caused third-degree burns. The argument was that was
*too*
effing hot.


I would be interested in knowing how much insulation the cup provided. If
it was paper then it couldn't have been to hot. If it was made of Shuttle
re-entry tiles then it probably was to hot.

Closer to the latter than former. They used foam cups which give you
no real feel for how hot the stuff is until it touches you lips of
tongue.

Roger (K8RI)

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:26:30 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:05:16 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck wrote:

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?

Did you see the extent of the burns? There is hot and there is EFFING HOT!

Apparently they had the temperature cranked way above scalding levels.

Um, well, okay -- but isn't coffee *supposed* to be "effing hot"?

Mickey D's coffee caused third-degree burns. The argument was that was *too*
effing hot.

There were some extenuating circumstances and a sympathetic jury.
Yes, they used to serve the coffee too hot to drink immediately if it
were freshly made, but most of their customers knew that. It was
served in foam cups so you couldn't feel just how hot until your lips
touched it. it was just right for taking with you...to a point.
The elderly woman was holding the cup between her legs when it
spilled. She then sat in it as she *probably* didn't have the strength
to raise high enough to get out of it. Originally they only wanted
Mickey D's to pay the medical bills, but in our society that would
have been admitting they were responsible and the lawyers said no.
That would have opened a whole new can of worms. So from there on out
it just escalated. Go before a jury and show you were turned down for
medical bills and play your cards right....

Now I wondered what kind of nut would hold hot coffee between their
legs. On the way from my daughter's place in Boulder to Denver
International some years back I found out. sigh I had to take a
jacket off and the only place for my "fresh, hot coffee" was between
my knees, or on the floor between my feet which I couldn't reach due
to all the heavy clothing.

Sure enough, just as the jacket slipped off the one arm the coffee
went over. I did a very rapid imitation of a suspension bridge.
Fortunately we also had paper towels and were able to clean the coffee
out of the leather seat. Spread out like that the coffee cooled in
seconds. However I did have that "fresh brewed" aroma all the way
from Denver, to Cleveland, to Midland MI. No, I did not get any burns
due to good reflexes and being in good shape.

Roger (K8RI)

Ron Wanttaja

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?

You need to look at the specifics of the case. There is hot, and there
is HOT. She reasonably expected hot, but was served HOT.

Had she spilled hot coffee, she would have learned to be more careful,
but she would not have had extensive injuries. She spilled HOT coffee,
which caused extensive injuries.

The difference between hot and HOT was very significant in this
particular case. Just for jollies, you can test the concept yourself
with pool water. The difference between 79 degree water and 82 degree
water is surprisingly easy to tell. In the McD case, there was a TWENTY
degree difference, at a temperature in which single degrees cause much
greater increase in injury.

Further, McDonalds had been warned repeatedly (I think there had even
been prior incidents) that their coffee was TOO HOT and chose to serve
it that way anyway, knowing that it could easily cause unexpected
injuries. It could reasonably be argued that this hidden danger was
reckless disregard for human safety.

Since nobody likes lawyers and the problems they cause, it does make an
attractive flag to rally around ("stupid person spills coffee and blames
McD") because nobody can argue the opposite case without studying the
details.

Since there are so many stupid (IMHO) judgements, the good judgements
that look stupid on the surface get thrown into the same bin. And (lest
we tar lawyers unfairly for this), it is the job of the lawyer to be
persuasive - and the job of the other lawyer to do the same. The
JUDGEMENT is rendered by.... (wait for it).... a Judge. (Sometimes a jury).

THAT is where the problem is.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.