Rd Thompson wrote in a message to Alan Rackmill:
 RT> Hi Alan, as you were just saying about Censorship....
AR> RT> Hi Christopher, as you were just saying about Re:
AR>  RT> Censorship.... 
AR> 
AR> CC> RT> No, she didn't.  She sued for medical recovery.  Probably would
AR> CC> RT> have
AR> CC> RT> been about 200,000.  McDonald's got a hair up their butt and went
AR> CC> RT> to
AR> CC> RT> court thinking that they had a slam dunk.  The jury awarded her
 RT> those
AR> CC> RT> damages, partially due to McDonald's attitude toward the common
AR> CC> RT> man.
AR> CC> I'm sorry, please understand that this reply, even though not
AR> CC> intentional,  may be baised because I am now a McD employee.  What 
AR> CC> medical damage?  Who of us have nopt actually burned  themselfes
AR> CC> with coffee.  I've done it plenty of times  including on a part I
AR> CC> can't mention (It can be done, even  with clothes on).  I NEVER had
AR> CC> to go to the hospital.  That  hospital BS was just that, BS.  I'm
AR> CC> sorry, but I don't  think companies should be allowed to be sued
AR> CC> because the  customer didn't show common sense, but that's MY
AR> CC> opinion. 
AR> 
AR>  RT> Did you realize that she recieved severe burns in her
AR>  RT> genital area (the part that you can't mention)?  Bottom line
AR>  RT> is that the coffee in that particular Mickey Dees *was*
AR>  RT> overheated.  
AR> 
AR> It was not overheated.
 RT> Compared to the rest of the industry, yes, it was.  It was
 RT> served at over 180 degrees.  Boiling is only 212.
it was heated to a higher temperature than most other places, but it was not 
"overheated".  ;-)
AR> The coffee in McDonald's was hotter than any other place, 
AR> BUT it was the temperature that the Coffee Institute of 
AR> America recommended for coffee to be served at to produce 
AR> its fullest flavor.
AR> This temperature is approximately 30 degrees hotter than 
AR> other places, if I remember my research correctly.
 RT> Agreed.
AR> In fact, McD was noted for the fact that it served its 
AR> coffee at a very hot temperature.
 RT> Also agreed.
AR>  RT> Was she careless driving off with it between
AR>  RT> her legs?  Yes.  
AR> 
AR> She was the passanger in the car.
AR> And she put the cup of coffee between her legs in order to 
AR> "anchor it" while she took the top off.
AR> As she was attempting to remove the top, the cup collapsed 
AR> and spilled the hot coffee on her.
 RT> Be that as it may, she was still holding that paper cup of
 RT> coffee between her legs in a vehicle that was starting to
 RT> move..
The movement of the vehicle was not what caused the coffee to spill.
The cup "collapsed" when she put too much pressure on the top as she was 
trying to get the lid off.
I have spilled coffee and other liquids on me several times when I slipped 
while removing the lid from a cup of liquid.
It is easy to do.
AR>  RT> Was Mickey Dees negligent in the
AR>  RT> temperature of the coffee?  Yes.  
AR> 
AR> No they were not.
 RT> See my comment above.
AR> The little old lady was the one who was negligent.
AR> Actually, she was stupid, but that is another problem altogether.
 RT>  
 RT> Yes, she was and the jury should not have made the award. 
 RT> We both know that the jury award was not as much for her as
 RT> it was against Mickey Dees.
Right.
And when the jury was asked how they came up with the figure of 
$2,000,000.00, they said that it represented two days worth of coffee 
receipts for McDonald's, according to the figures it was given about the 
sales of coffee.
Hmmmmm, that would amount to about roughly one million cups of coffee sold 
daily.
I forget how many people get burned while drinking McDonald's coffee, but I 
wonder why there aren't more suits?
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)
---------------