ok, somebody has to say it! this thread was about fat chicks, not coffee. enough of the arguing and stay on course but if you guys didn't go to law school, you missed your calling....some pretty good points on both sides
rigght, if 180 degree can cause third degree burns, would you agree it shouldnt be sold? pay attention, you said: "Whatever temperature one boils coffee at" boiling water is not a variable termperature. it is a constant. there is no "whatever". obviously. well they could serve ice coffee, that would be as "accident proof as possible". you are creating a situation where some court is determining how hot is too hot. thats silly. people should just accept that accident happen and call it a day. i would expect that the overwhelming majority of coffee served can burn the absolute crap out of you if purchased than immediately poured on your seated crotch. like marc noted earler, (and i mention him because i dont regularly purchase coffee, but his experience is what i hear from everyone) the coffee you buy is basically always incredibly hot and dangerous. bu the court who took mcdonald's money from them for selling a perfectly ordinary product in a perfectly safe cup is. we shouldnt be telling companies not to sell producs because peopla are gonna take off the cap and pour the stuff in their laps. people should just learn to be careful and realize tat when accident happen, the person who needs to be more careful is the one who caused the accident.
that means you boil water, then pour it over the coffee and let it filter through, just like coffee has been made for thousands of years or whatever. clearly the coffee cools somewhat as it filters into whatever holding vessel, but it is still blisteringly hot. i guess you favor a mandatory waiting period for fresh coffee to cool because customers cannot understand the idea of waiting for things to cool before pouring them on themselves.
I'm listening, because he's right. Liberals in moderates' clothing like Red :yelwink2: do not understand the concept of personal accountability.
right, i agree with sabanfan. sometimes when you are involved in an accident, you just have to say to yourself: "damn that was unfortunate" and accept how crappy it was without laying blame on anyone else. if you burn yourself with coffee, you should be considering how to never do it again, not how to change the world to suit you. you shouldnt seek to impose your will on any company or anyone else unless they have really wronged you.
Cost-Benefit Analysis. It's simple. Serve it at a temperature that allows the most safety while allowing the best product at the relatively lowest cost. And nobody has said that this was entirely McDonald's fault, or that McDonalds should pay the entire costs - they didn't. McDonalds shares a part of the burden based on NEGLIGENCE. People keep ignoring this one simple little word. The whole case is about McDonald's inaction after explicit knowledge of the danger.
Sassy, you obviously don't understand the point of FSA. This forum was created for people like us that continue to argue regardless of whether the other person will ever cave.
I burned the roof of my mouth the other day while eating at Pizza Hut. I was too hungry to wait for the pizza to cool and it didn't come with a warning label. Can't wait till I get my settlement check from Pizza Hut ... gotta love the amercian way!
I generally agree. They seem to want the courts to award money to all victims regardless of how much of the incident was their fault. I'm not in favor of that at all. Like I said, I originally felt the same as ya'll - that this case was ridiculous and a failure of the court. It's not quite that simple when you see all the facts though. Once again, the key here is that this was a national problem causing lots of injuries based on a certain amount of recklessness by McDonalds and McDonalds failed to act. This case was not based on this single incident, but rather the entire negligence by McDonalds.
