Hi Christopher, as you were just saying about Re: Censorship....
CC> RT> Did you realize that she recieved severe burns in her genital area
CC> RT> (the part that you can't mention)?  Bottom line is that the coffee in
CC> RT> that particular Mickey Dees *was* overheated.  Was she careless 
driving
CC> RT> off with it between her legs?  Yes.  Was Mickey Dees negligent in the
CC> RT> temperature of the coffee?  Yes.  Should Mickey Dees have settled for
CC> RT> the original claim?  Yep!  It was chump change and they wouldn't have
CC> RT> shown their arrogance as they did in court. 
CC> 
CC> Yes, I think McDs should've settled to, that's besides the 
CC> point.  I like my coffee quote unquote "overheated".  I've 
CC> seen the machines theyuse.  They are no different than any 
CC> other resturaunt's.  I didn't know the burns were that 
CC> serious, abut examine the situation for a minute.  A person 
CC> orders coffee.  Common sense tells you it's going to be 
CC> VERY hot.  But, the person  chose to be careless with it 
CC> and therefore injure his/herself.  Taking the personal 
CC> words out, should that person be able to sue?
CC> 
CC> Another senario.  There is a major spill.  There is a sign 
CC> over the spill.  However, a person chooses to act like an 
CC> idiot, run through the resturaunt therefore slipping and 
CC> busting his/her head.  Should he/she be able to sue?
Ahhhhh, now we are getting to the question as to whether or not I
thought she had a right to sue.  The answer is yes.  Anyone can sue. 
Do I think that she should have won?  No. Despite her horrific
injuries,  I think that she needed to assume personal responsibility
for her own actions which were putting the hot cup of coffee between
her legs and then driving off.  For example, who would she have sued if
she burned herself as a result of trying to avoid another car while she
was driving?
I hope that this answer covers your questions  In the second scenario,
if the signs are properly in place regarding the wet floor and someone
neglects to heed them, they are at fault.  The key is the signs being
properly in place so that they are readily seen from any angle of
approach.
 
CC> The last senario is a little off, but do you see where I'm 
CC> coming from now?  The civil legal system has gotten TOTALLY 
CC> out of hand, and the coffee incident proved it.
 
In and of itself, it is not proof, but when you add it to many others
it is.   You must also remember that the original jury award was
simply the result of Mickey Dees attitude toward the woman.  It was
also later reduced by the judge to approximately $800,000.
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 I don't know what apathy is and really don't give a damn.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------