Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

In article ,
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.

I'm curious to know: Did the woman's hired guns go after the Bunn
Corporation, makers of the coffee brewing equipment that McDonald's
used? Clearly their equipment is brewing coffee that is too hot?

Clearly the equipment is improperly designed since it allows the coffee
to be brewed and dispensed at too high a temp.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

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.

I'm curious to know: Did the woman's hired guns go after the Bunn
Corporation, makers of the coffee brewing equipment that McDonald's
used? Clearly their equipment is brewing coffee that is too hot?

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?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Kind of like the bartender that gets sued because someone leaves his
place and gets into an accident. I agree, where does it end and personal
responsibility take over.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

"Ross" wrote

Kind of like the bartender that gets sued because someone leaves his place
and gets into an accident. I agree, where does it end and personal
responsibility take over.
I don't see any connection between the two. The drink the bartender is
serving has no potential for damage, unless the user decides to drive drunk.
The bartender does not know if he is gong to call a cab, ride with a friend,
or walk after leaving.

The coffee going out the door will burn everyone who spills a little on him.
Every time, anyone. It, in itself is a hazard, not like the drink, who only
becomes a hazard- dependent on what the person does after consuming it
safely.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Ross" wrote

Kind of like the bartender that gets sued because someone leaves his place
and gets into an accident. I agree, where does it end and personal
responsibility take over.
I don't see any connection between the two. The drink the bartender is
serving has no potential for damage, unless the user decides to drive drunk.
The bartender does not know if he is gong to call a cab, ride with a friend,
or walk after leaving.

I see a nearly precise connection. The seller of alcohol knows that
everyone who drinks it will be impaired to some degree.


The coffee going out the door will burn everyone who spills a little on him.
Every time, anyone. It, in itself is a hazard, not like the drink, who only
becomes a hazard- dependent on what the person does after consuming it
safely.

The alcohol going out the door will impair the consumer every time,
anyone. The seller of coffer doesn't know that someone will do
something stupid like spill it on themselves.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote

I see a nearly precise connection. The seller of alcohol knows that
everyone who drinks it will be impaired to some degree.

Most people are still legal to drive if tey only consum 1 drink over a
period of 3o or 40 minutes. besides, the bartender does NOT know who is
going to drive, or do something where the imparement could cause harm.

The alcohol going out the door will impair the consumer every time,
anyone.

But an alcohol imparement will not cause any harm, if the consumer does not
drive, or walk out into traffic. The seller has no way of knowing ther is
any bad consequence possible.

The seller of coffer doesn't know that someone will do something stupid
like spill it on themselves.

But all it will take is one spill to do great harm. A spill is possible for
any person that walks out with coffee that hot.

The big point is that the seller of the coffee has in his power the ability
to make a safer product, and does not take the opportunity. There is some
responsibility because of that fact.
--
Jim in NC

"Jay Honeck" wrote

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

I'm not sure that is right, Jay. No, I'm sure that is not right.

I'm not saying I agree with the verdict or the amount awarded, but Mc D's
does serve their coffee way too damn hot. It is reasonable to assume that
some will be spilled, on occasion. Who doesn't spill a bit of coffee, on
occasion. Anyone here that can say they have never spilled a drop of
takeout coffee on them? I doubt it. It should not be so hot that it causes
deep 3rd degree burns. When I am forced to stop there for coffee, I put ICE
in it, so I can drink it!

That would be about as reasonable as a place serving hydrochloric acid to
their customers, in flimsy cups with lids that can pop off, and when they do
pop off, sometimes some of the acid will spill on you.

McD's has a coffee temperature policy that places them wide open for
damages. That is for places that maintain the target temperatures. This
one place was more than likely well above the target temperature.

You should not put coffee between your legs and take off the lid, no doubt.
You should not pay for it with widespread 3rd degree burns, and skin grafts,
though.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote

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

I'm not sure that is right, Jay. No, I'm sure that is not right.

I'm not saying I agree with the verdict or the amount awarded, but Mc D's
does serve their coffee way too damn hot. It is reasonable to assume that
some will be spilled, on occasion. Who doesn't spill a bit of coffee, on
occasion. Anyone here that can say they have never spilled a drop of
takeout coffee on them? I doubt it. It should not be so hot that it causes
deep 3rd degree burns. When I am forced to stop there for coffee, I put ICE
in it, so I can drink it!

You would have to have the coffee at 130 degrees or less to guarantee
that a large spill such as this woman had would not cause a 3rd degree
burn. And cooler than that to avoid a second degree burn. Coffee less
than 130 degrees is not good coffee and in a car you almost couldn't
drink it fast enough to get an entire cup gone before it was lukewarm.

Sorry, but I don't want my coffee to be cooler than my shower water. If
you can't handle coffee as it is meant to be served, then may I suggest
water, soda, juice, etc., and leave coffee to those of us capable of
handling its "hazards."

http://www.cqcapd.state.ny.us/newsletter/estime.htm


That would be about as reasonable as a place serving hydrochloric acid to
their customers, in flimsy cups with lids that can pop off, and when they do
pop off, sometimes some of the acid will spill on you.

That is about the dumbest analogy I've seen in a long time.


McD's has a coffee temperature policy that places them wide open for
damages. That is for places that maintain the target temperatures. This
one place was more than likely well above the target temperature.

And what do you consider to be the safe target temperature?


You should not put coffee between your legs and take off the lid, no doubt.
You should not pay for it with widespread 3rd degree burns, and skin grafts,
though.

I disagree. What if the accident had been someone lighting a cigarette
while fueling their car with similar resulting 3rd degree burns? Would
you suggest that we ban gasoline given its flammability?

Matt

On 12/5/2007 12:26:38 AM, skym wrote:

I don't have an opinion one way or the other.

I do. Good coffee has to be brewed and served very hot.

http://www.peets.com/learn/coffee_basics.asp

Anyone who grinds right before they brew knows that.

--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:
On 12/5/2007 12:26:38 AM, skym wrote:

I don't have an opinion one way or the other.

I do. Good coffee has to be brewed and served very hot.

http://www.peets.com/learn/coffee_basics.asp

Anyone who grinds right before they brew knows that.


What does "Good coffee" or any other food product with the term good in
front of it have to do with McDs?

Also, while you link does say, "The best temperature for brewing coffee is
between 195 F and 205 F." it doesn't say it should be served at that
temperature. If I cook a prime rib at 375 F I don't plan to serve it at that
temperature.

On 12/5/2007 10:40:30 AM, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

Also, while you link does say, "The best temperature for brewing coffee is
between 195 F and 205 F." it doesn't say it should be served at that
temperature.

So you brew a pot of coffee at that temperature, then what? Wait 20 minutes
for it to cool down? Of course not. You draw off a cup right away.

Also your prime rib example is not a valid comparison. Beef has to sit 5 to
10 minutes before you cut into it or you risk losing all the juice and making
it too dry.


--
Peter