Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

"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

"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

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.

Exactly. NOBODY can drink coffee at 180 degrees. Few could drink it at
140.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net 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. If I cook a prime rib at 375 F I don't
plan to serve it at that temperature.

Exactly. NOBODY can drink coffee at 180 degrees.

You haven't met mrs. Bunyip. I'm not kidding.. Straight out of the pot, no
colling. She must have had her tongue cauterised by hot drinks until it was
leather when she was a child.


Bertie

"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

On 2007-12-05, Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Doug Carter posted:

On 2007-12-04, Neil Gould wrote:

In the US, primary education is not a national priority, nor a
state-level priority, and in many if not most communities, not a
local priority. On a national level,...

Regardless of priority, the presumption that U.S. education is
underfunded is a persistent myth as is the belief that funding levels
and results (educated students) are causally related.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa126.html

To begin with, I did not write that "education is underfunded" in the
sense that you are suggesting or that your cited reference uses. If you
wish to make such an argument, it would be a good idea to quote my entire
paragraph so that others can see how you have intentionally distorted its
meaning.

Sorry. I missunderstood your meaning; my bad.

To support your conclusion based on the article, which IMO is suprisingly
poor for the CATO institute, one has to determine how much of the funding
actually reaches the individual student, as it is only "per pupil" if the
pupil directly benefits from it. The article was written in 1990, and
basically supports the NEA statement that there was a 31% increase in
government spending "for education" during the prior decade. What do we
know about that period of time that might raise questions about the actual
value of that money? How much did your car or your house cost in 1980 vs.
1990? I can tell you that my 1984 vehicle cost about 1/3 of what the same
make and model cost when I replaced it in 1991 (and the cost of the same
make and model was almost 60% more when it was replaced in 2001). Also,
expenditures that were typical in 1990 were non-existant in 1980, for
example purchases of personal computers. So, to me, that 31% increase is
not positively impressive.


I don't think that the rate of increase in education funding has ever been
below the inflation rate in this country.

Even so, my point was not about the *amount* of money, it was about the
PRIORITIES, in particular how that money is spent. In our community, we
spend more per pupil than all but one other community in the state, but we
are not getting that kind of return on our investment. I (and the state
auditor FWIW) attribute it to a top-heavy school system. So, on what do
you base the relevance of your "Regardless of priority..." as an argument
for our lack of success in educating these youth?

Again, I read your post too quickly and missunderstood it. I agree completly
with your last paragraph. Lets start at the Federal level by disolving the
Department of Education as my fellow Republicans promised, but failed to do in
the mid '90s. Next, lets bust the state monopoly on primary and secondary
education.

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

It is not a jury of our peers. It is a selected jury. And, the side
that does the best selection will probably win the case. Sometimes I
think we should have professional juries; ones trained and have some
smarts.

And you can have it right now in some types of cases and some
jurisdictions. The "professional jury" is a judge. Of course both sides
have to go along with it and the other side probably won't want to for the
same reasons you want to.

True, but you loose the collective objectivity of a group, to someone who is
far to often a narrow minded "know it all".

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" wrote:

I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit of
their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most reasonable
conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey
shoot.

Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
peers.



I hear that's the way it is in my county as well. They seem to call far more
than they need, and offer reprieve many are vocal about the hardship.
Perhaps a good thing, when you have less people empanelled that truly resent
having to be there. But then that could very well effect the quality I
guess. I think I would almost support a professional panel of non-lawyers
for jurors.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote:

hmmm, not many people get excused from jury duty in taxachusetts.
I sure didn't get excused.

He meant "being empanelled" (?), which is actually sitting on a jury.
Typically, 50-100 people get called for jury DUTY, but only 12 plus 3
reserves actually sit on a jury.

I knew what he meant. I've been called to jury duty 4 times in
taxachusetts.
The first time was when I was self-employed. It didn't get me excused
from
hearing the case, a 5 day trial. The self-employed get screwed since
taxachusetts expects employers to pay employees for the first three days,
and then taxachusetts pays some tiny amount for the remainder.


When I was in Colorado, you'd get $7.50 for mileage, regardless of how far
you have to travel. An employer will pay your regular rate for 1-3 days of
jury duty, but if you're a contractor or self-employed, you're SOL.

I didn't get called for 20 years since I stopped registering to vote (1988).
I don't know how they do it in Wyoming.

My wife was called four times in the last 14 years, but never got past the
initial questioning since her brother is a former cop. All jury duty summons
were for criminal court, never civil court.

At least in Colorado, if you're not empanelled by about the middle of the
first day, you go home and don't have to come back.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

"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.