RT> Did you realize that she recieved severe burns in her genital area
RT> (the part that you can't mention)?  Bottom line is that the coffee in
RT> that particular Mickey Dees *was* overheated.  Was she careless driving
RT> off with it between her legs?  Yes.  Was Mickey Dees negligent in the
RT> temperature of the coffee?  Yes.  Should Mickey Dees have settled for
RT> the original claim?  Yep!  It was chump change and they wouldn't have
RT> shown their arrogance as they did in court. 
Yes, I think McDs should've settled to, that's besides the point.  I like my 
coffee quote unquote "overheated".  I've seen the machines theyuse.  They are 
no different than any other resturaunt's.  I didn't know the burns were that 
serious, abut examine the situation for a minute.  A person orders coffee.  
Common sense tells you it's going to be VERY hot.  But, the person  chose to 
be careless with it and therefore injure his/herself.  Taking the personal 
words out, should that person be able to sue?
Another senario.  There is a major spill.  There is a sign over the spill.  
However, a person chooses to act like an idiot, run through the resturaunt 
therefore slipping and busting his/her head.  Should he/she be able to sue?
The last senario is a little off, but do you see where I'm coming from now?  
The civil legal system has gotten TOTALLY out of hand, and the coffee 
incident proved it.
Peace.
--- CNet/3
---------------