Rd Thompson wrote in a message to Christopher Coyne:
 RT> Hi Christopher, as you were just saying about Re:
 RT> 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. 
 RT> Did you realize that she recieved severe burns in her
 RT> genital area (the part that you can't mention)?  Bottom line
 RT> is that the coffee in that particular Mickey Dees *was*
 RT> overheated.  
It was not overheated.
The coffee in McDonald's was hotter than any other place, BUT it was the 
temperature that the Coffee Institute of America recommended for coffee to be 
served at to produce its fullest flavor.
This temperature is approximately 30 degrees hotter than other places, if I 
remember my research correctly.
In fact, McD was noted for the fact that it served its coffee at a very hot 
temperature.
 RT> Was she careless driving off with it between
 RT> her legs?  Yes.  
She was the passanger in the car.
And she put the cup of coffee between her legs in order to "anchor it" while 
she took the top off.
As she was attempting to remove the top, the cup collapsed and spilled the 
hot coffee on her.
 RT> Was Mickey Dees negligent in the
 RT> temperature of the coffee?  Yes.  
No they were not.
The little old lady was the one who was negligent.
Actually, she was stupid, but that is another problem altogether.
 RT> Should Mickey Dees have
 RT> settled for the original claim?  Yep!  It was chump change
 RT> and they wouldn't have shown their arrogance as they did in
 RT> court. 
True.
Alan
Team OS/2,
Fidonet 1:107/101, ibmNET 40:4371/101, OS2NET 80:135/15
internet: alanrackmill@mindspring.com
--- timEd/2 1.01
1:107/101)
---------------