* Reply to a message in Personal.
Ron Taylor wrote in a message to Alan Rackmill:
AR>AR>And I have to disagree with you about the severity if the burn
  >AR>when
  >  >scalding fluid is kept on the skin my the fabric in the clothing.
  >  >In fact, that is what caused the burns to be as severe as they were.
AR> RT> It would hurt, granted, but the fabric would insulate the
  > RT> skin from the most severe affects of the hot liquid which
  > RT> would cool tremendously before it actually contacted the
  > RT> skin.
AR>Depends on the thickness of the clothing.
 RT> I believe she was wearing slacks.
Which comes in all thicknesses.
AR>But, the fabric will retain the hot liquid in its position 
AR>touching the
  >skin, and the heat was high enough for long enough that the burns were
  >quite secere.
AR>To test this, take a hand towel, fold it up and place it in the sink.
  >Then, take a teapot full of boiling water and pour it on the towel.
 RT> Then I'd have to agree with you, but the lady wasn't wearing
 RT> a folded hand towel.  Now take a pair of slacks, stretched
 RT> out into one layer as if worn on the legs,  pour hot water
 RT> on them and then measure the temperature on them in five
 RT> seconds.
Ok, but in that five seconds, you can sustain a very bad burn.
AR>Check how long it takes to cool off enough so that you can touch it wthout
  >burning yourself.
  >You will be surprised.
 RT> Not really... I realize that a couple of inches of towel
 RT> fabric, soaked in hot water will retain a lot of the heat
 RT> for several minutes.  Check it out with a single layer of
 RT> polyester or cotton.
AR>You also would be surprised at how fast the skin will burn at that high
  >temperature.
 RT> I never implied that the lady wasn't burned.... just that
 RT> her burns could not have been debilitating and certainly not
 RT> to a degree as to justify hospitalization....  BTW, _was_
 RT> she admitted???  I don't know. 
Ok, I see.
All you have about the case is "hearsay".
You have not looked into it any further than what has been discussed here is 
what it looks like to me.
I would suggest that you check into it a little further.
When I first heard about this, I felt the same way you did.
Basically, I still feel that the woman shouldn't have gotten anything, but I 
did look into it.
There were several articles in the Wall Street Journal concerning this case.
The one that stands out in my mind the clearest was dated Sept 1.
I forget he year, but that shouldn't be too hard to find.  It was right after 
the jury awarded the woman the $2,000,000.  and discusd the case quite 
thoroughly.
It was on the first page, in the upper right hand corner.
It ran the full length pf page one and took up a large portion of the page in 
the interior of the front section.
Anyhow, to answer you question, yes she was admitted to the hospital.
And she required some extensive "repair work", and spent a fair amount of 
time in the hospital.
 
The severity of damage done to her genital area was never in dispute.
The damage was quite severe.
I did not see the photos, but the reportsfrom jury members and others who did 
see them all agree that the damage was bad.
Even the McDonald's defense stipulated that the burns were quite severe.
Every one joked about the fact that she was 83 and wasn't likely to be 
getting much use from that areaa of her body, but that does nt negate the 
actual damage done to her.
I am not saying thios as a cop out, but I think you should really spend an 
hour in a library and do some reasearch on this case.
Actually, it should take less time than that to dig out the info. 
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)
---------------