Did any of you arguing for McDonalds read any of the reasoning behind the jury decision?
Let me make it easy for you and paste some stuff so you don't have to read the whole thing. "During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard." "McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees." "Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds." "The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third degree burns from the coffee..." >>> If you are saying that there are arbitrary "reasonable" temperature> >>> zones for food and beverages, what are you defining them as? "He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above..." McDonald's admitted their stuff was dangerous above and beyond reasonable expectations, admitted they didn't care and admitted they didn't plan on doing anything about it. McDonald's knowingly and willfully sold a dangerous product not fit for reasonable use. The only way this fits with that asinine "ladder" comparison is if the ladder had rungs that would collapse under certain conditions, or something to that affect, making the product as a whole defective when used in a reasonable manner. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gruss Gott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 4:31 PM Subject: Re: Someone is trying to sue me >> Adam wrote: >> They gave her >> something well more dangerous than should be reasonably expected > > How so? When I buy coffee I expect that it will be so hot as to burn > my mouth if I sipped it right away. I've never not gotten coffee that > way and I buy or make it daily. > > I could see your argument if the coffee had acid in it, was > pressurized, came in a spike ball, etc. > > But it's hot coffee. Everyone knows coffee is hot and will burn you. > > If you are saying that there are arbitrary "reasonable" temperature > zones for food and beverages, what are you defining them as? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:248879 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
