If plaintiff lawyers thought that they couldn't get 50% fault of the other party, they wouldn't persue the case? Is that what you are saying? I was saying that a judge will dismiss the case & not allow it to go to trial if it doesn't appear the defendent could be found atleast 50% at fault. I'm not sure if you misunderstood me, or I'm misunderstanding you. Removing the heat & reducing the heat are different. The coffee could still be served at a reasonable temperature without taking anything away from the product. And listen Grandpaw: I don't dispell your opinions because you're old & senile, so don't think I have nothing to offer just because I'm not of an age you deem worthy. I might be right or I might be wrong on this, but my age is not a factor.
"the National Coffee Association of USA recommends that coffee be brewed at 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit and maintained at a temperature of 180-185 degrees for optimal flavor and drunk immediately" besides, who are you to say what is good about coffee? it is totally subjective what adds or diminishes the quality of the product.
Just to set some things straight, I generally do not favor these types of lawsuits, or even lawsuits at all in most cases. In fact, I tend to favor the corporation in most of these things and I don't want to pay people for their ignorance. I was just so proud that I learned what a cost-benefit model was that I just had to come brag about it! Any semi-intelligent person, with schooling or not, can figure out what a cost benefit analysis is. I'm not trying to throw the term around to make myself look smarter. It is a fact that it is used by courts to determine product safety, level of liability and negligence. This was not a singular case. Negligence was not based on the fact that some stupid woman dumped coffee on herself. Ya'll are focusing on that, but I could care less about it. I think my professor was liberal, but I'm not sure. At any rate, I didn't get my opinions from him as a few of you here seem to think. All he did was say that he thinks the courts ultimately made the right decision and that the court system worked. He never even went into the case in class. He posted online the information surrounding the case and told us we could make our own opinions on it. I'm here defending my point of view - not some liberal professor.
I no longer have access to the information that I read a few months ago, so I can't look it up to contradict you. I was vaguely aware that similar cases against Starbucks have been dismissed, but was under the belief that McDonalds coffee was being served at a higher degree than most. If that's false information, and I'm not sure if it is or not because I'm not going to completely ignore what I read before based off of a Wikipedia article, then it would change my mind about the case. Now that's some great imagery! Even with "industry standard" temperature served coffee, I agree that it still would have burned the crap out of this woman. Would it have been as severe? I don't know, but the lawyers in the case sure didn't make a good case for it if it would have been. I'm no scientist and am not going to research coffee boiling points or whatever for this. I assume that if it had been a valid argument, the defendent's lawyers would have persued it and likely changed the outcome of the case. From what I read, they gently touched on the matter & never tried to diligently to make it affect the case. And once again, this one woman is not the point.
Yea, but it wasn't me - it was the courts. And, if anyone, they are the ones to decide it. Based on cost-benefit blah blah blah.
you dont need to. it is very simple. water is heated to 212 degrees. water cannot get any hotter than 212 or it is no longer a liquid.(under normal circumstances) then it is either carried by the pressure of its own steam and pressure into another vessel or poured there by somebody. this second vessel contains ground up beans and a filter. the coffee strains through the beans and thats it, fresh coffee. that is key, the water ALWAYS starts at 212 no matter who makes the coffee. of course it cools as it filters through the beans, but it comes out pretty damn hot. mcdonalds is not unique in their coffeemaking. it would be the same if you did it over a campfire or in your kitchen.......that is the point. everybody knows damn well that coffee is boiling hot water recently filtered through some ground beans. you expect it to be very hot. you bear the responsibility of managing the risk of a scalding hot liquid. and it is also common knowledge that burns from liquids are particularly harsh. how we as a society want our coffee is between us and mcdonalds. not the business of some stupid jury or court. they shouldnt be doing any cost/benefit analysis, because they cant decide something subjective as how much i like the benefits of coffee served the way i like it.
Not your age. Your experience. I've been in the Claims Litigation business since 1975. I'm trying not to show you up since you are an intelligent young man. Don't push it.
Sabanfan, what is pissing you off so much? Can't handle some niave college student having a different opinion than you? This is Free Speech Alley. I opened this can of worms and am willingly debating the points. Feel free to continue in the discussion. If you have something to say about me personally, say it. Tirk, I may not "get the point", but I definitely am not completely ignorant. I've done a reasonable job of defending my position and haven't had to resort to saying someone can't make a decision for themselves or that you're to old to have a valid opinion, in order to do it. I could be like some and make a controversial claim, then run away and pretend I hadn't said anything, unwilling to back up my argument. But I'm here debating the issue, almost by myself, and am entirely out-numbered. Yet ya'll are the ones getting fiery about this & trying to downgrade me to win the argument.
