Hi Christopher, as you were just saying about Re: Censorship....
CC> RT> No, she didn't.  She sued for medical recovery.  Probably would have
CC> RT> been about 200,000.  McDonald's got a hair up their butt and went to
CC> RT> court thinking that they had a slam dunk.  The jury awarded her those
CC> RT> damages, partially due to McDonald's attitude toward the common man.
CC> I'm sorry, please understand that this reply, even though not
CC> intentional,  may be baised because I am now a McD employee.  What 
CC> medical damage?  Who of us have nopt actually burned  themselfes
CC> with coffee.  I've done it plenty of times  including on a part I
CC> can't mention (It can be done, even  with clothes on).  I NEVER had
CC> to go to the hospital.  That  hospital BS was just that, BS.  I'm
CC> sorry, but I don't  think companies should be allowed to be sued
CC> because the  customer didn't show common sense, but that's MY
CC> opinion. 
Did you realize that she recieved severe burns in her genital area
(the part that you can't mention)?  Bottom line is that the coffee in
that particular Mickey Dees *was* overheated.  Was she careless driving
off with it between her legs?  Yes.  Was Mickey Dees negligent in the
temperature of the coffee?  Yes.  Should Mickey Dees have settled for
the original claim?  Yep!  It was chump change and they wouldn't have
shown their arrogance as they did in court. 
RD 
sandman@azstarnet.com - A newspaper ISP - Arizona Daily Star
sandman@brassroots.org - A no compromise gun rights organization.
http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
___
 X KWQ/2 1.2i X Think wrongly if you please,  but think for yourself.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------