Hi Rich, as you were just saying about Re: Censorship....
RW> RT> Did you realize that she recieved severe burns in her
RW> RT> genital area (the part that you can't mention)?  Bottom line
RW> 
RW> I don't buy it and have never seen any evidence of it. 
Newsweek published pictures of her legs and the area around her
genitals.  (They were blocked out.)
RW> RT> is that the coffee in that particular Mickey Dees *was*
RW> RT> overheated.  Was she careless driving off with it between
RW> 
RW> The hottest you can heat it is 212 F (OK, a little more
RW> because of the impurities in the water) MD's coffees
RW> are at most 6 ozs.  Pour 6 ozs of hot water on your
RW> crotch and its going to hurt.  The odds are you are
RW> going to wind up with some 1st degree burns (i.e.
RW> similar to a sunburn) but that's it!
BS.  Try burns of a lot deeper degree than that.  Temperature is not
the only determiner of burn extent.  The amount of time that the
temperature was applied carries a bit of weight.
RW> Even if you soak a towel in boiling water and put it on
RW> your body you are not going to wind up $200,000 worth
RW> of medical cost.
So, your point?
RW> Of course you ain't going to be want get frisky with
RW> the wife for a while :).
I doubt that old woman was going to get frisky with my wife, anyway. 
:^)
 
RW> RT> her legs?  Yes.  Was Mickey Dees negligent in the
RW> RT> temperature of the coffee?  Yes.  Should Mickey Dees have
RW> RT> settled for the original claim?  Yep!  It was chump change
RW> 
RW> Then why did an appellate judge reduce the settlement?
Because the jury awarded her $2,000.000.  That is a little more than
$200,000.  The judge reduced it to $800,000.
RW> Because the jury didn't look at the facts and make a
RW> ruling, they looked at a poor old lady fighting the big
RW> evil corporate giant and decided to stick it to the
RW> company.  Whereas the judge looked at the evidence and
RW> the law and ruled.
Okay.
 
RW> That's one thing that the news almost NEVER reports.
RW> Most of these multi-million dollar awards are over
RW> turned or significantly reduced on appeal.  I remember
RW> one case where a jury awarded some smuck ten million
RW> dollars in one of these off the wall cases.  On appeal
RW> he got something like one thousand (of which his lawyer
RW> got one third).
RW> 
RW> Even if you could show me that she was injured there is
RW> no way that you could find MD's anymore then 50% libel.
RW> That would mean that she would have had to have
RW> $400,000 worth of medical cost from 6 ozs of hot water.
Don't argue with me, I was not on the jury, I was not the judge and I
don't think that she should have won.
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 Notice: All incoming fire has the right of way.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------