Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

On 2007-12-05, Matt W. Barrow wrote:

"kontiki" wrote in message
news
Jay Honeck wrote:

How 'bout the makers of the stryofoam cups? How about the lid
manufacturer? How about the driver of the car who must've jerked
suddenly to make her spill the coffee?

Where does this end?
--

You forgot the car manufacturer who designed a vehicle with
brakes that allow sudden stops or turns which caused the
coffee to spill.

Or the steel mill that made the steel that the car manufacturer used....

It ends when no one but lawyers have deep enough pockets to rape.

The English system of "loser pays" would help.

Jay Honeck wrote:
I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts
of the case.

THANK YOU for sharing the facts of the case. They are very
enlightening.

None of the facts, IMHO, pin ANY blame on the folks who brewed the
coffee. McDonald's was wronged, plain and simple.

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.

"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

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts
of the case.

THANK YOU for sharing the facts of the case. They are very
enlightening.

None of the facts, IMHO, pin ANY blame on the folks who brewed the
coffee. McDonald's was wronged, plain and simple.

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.

A bit more of discovery would find that there are thousands of such cases
nationwide, only a tiny fraction occurring at McD's.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:


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.

A bit more of discovery would find that there are thousands of such
cases nationwide, only a tiny fraction occurring at McD's.

Objection, that states facts not in evidence and McD's is the only plaintiff
in trial here today.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:


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.

A bit more of discovery would find that there are thousands of such
cases nationwide, only a tiny fraction occurring at McD's.

Objection, that states facts not in evidence and McD's is the only
plaintiff in trial here today.

Sustained.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:


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.

A bit more of discovery would find that there are thousands of such
cases nationwide, only a tiny fraction occurring at McD's.

Objection, that states facts not in evidence and McD's is the only
plaintiff in trial here today.

Non-sequitur.

Play "Perry Mason" someplace else.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts
of the case.
THANK YOU for sharing the facts of the case. They are very
enlightening.

None of the facts, IMHO, pin ANY blame on the folks who brewed the
coffee. McDonald's was wronged, plain and simple.

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.

Still nothing that makes Mickey D's liable in my opinion. As I posted
earlier, coffee is considered best brewed at about 200 degrees F and
"held" at 170 or above. It sounds like McDonald's was following sound
coffee brewing and serving practice.

Putting a cup of hot liquid between your legs is negligent and just
asking for trouble. I can see a 3 year-old not knowing this, but a 79
year-old is without excuse.

I suspect that ordinary matches burn a lot more than 700 people in a
typical decade. I suspect that makers of matches have prior knowledge
of this hazard. Does this make a match manufacturer liable for every
idiot who burns themselves with a match?

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote

Still nothing that makes Mickey D's liable in my opinion. As I posted
earlier, coffee is considered best brewed at about 200 degrees F and
"held" at 170 or above. It sounds like McDonald's was following sound
coffee brewing and serving practice.

Where do you find that serving at 170 degrees is standard practice?

Also, consider for a moment that the serving temperature of coffee in a sit
down resturant could safely be hotter than coffee served at a take out
window. That would certainly be wise, without a doubt.

Putting a cup of hot liquid between your legs is negligent and just asking
for trouble. I can see a 3 year-old not knowing this, but a 79 year-old
is without excuse.

How many 79 year olds do you know that do not have much more mental age than
a 3 year old? I certainly know some.

I will not defend the fact that coffee between the legs is not wise, but
still, the punishment for making a bad decission such as that should not be
skin grafts.

I suspect that ordinary matches burn a lot more than 700 people in a
typical decade. I suspect that makers of matches have prior knowledge of
this hazard. Does this make a match manufacturer liable for every idiot
who burns themselves with a match?

I doubt that a match itself has ever caused a set of burns nearly as severe
as the case of the way too hot coffee.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote

Still nothing that makes Mickey D's liable in my opinion. As I posted
earlier, coffee is considered best brewed at about 200 degrees F and
"held" at 170 or above. It sounds like McDonald's was following sound
coffee brewing and serving practice.

Where do you find that serving at 170 degrees is standard practice?

I posted a search string a couple of days ago that showed a slew of
references.


Also, consider for a moment that the serving temperature of coffee in a sit
down resturant could safely be hotter than coffee served at a take out
window. That would certainly be wise, without a doubt.

I disagree. In a sit-down restaurant, I'll be drinking right away and
having the coffee slightly cooler isn't a problem. At a drive-thru I
may be 10 minutes away from the first sip. I want it hot when I get to
drink it.


Putting a cup of hot liquid between your legs is negligent and just asking
for trouble. I can see a 3 year-old not knowing this, but a 79 year-old
is without excuse.

How many 79 year olds do you know that do not have much more mental age than
a 3 year old? I certainly know some.

Then the person in the car with them should not have bought the 79
year-old hot coffee if she wasn't competent to drink it.


I will not defend the fact that coffee between the legs is not wise, but
still, the punishment for making a bad decission such as that should not be
skin grafts.

It wasn't punishment. No one forced this one her. She brought it on
herself. Look up what punishment means.


I suspect that ordinary matches burn a lot more than 700 people in a
typical decade. I suspect that makers of matches have prior knowledge of
this hazard. Does this make a match manufacturer liable for every idiot
who burns themselves with a match?

I doubt that a match itself has ever caused a set of burns nearly as severe
as the case of the way too hot coffee.

Some of the worst burns I know of came from fires started by matches,
especially when gasoline is involved. Probably only butane cigarette
lighters have caused more.

Matt