Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

"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