Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Don Armstrong wrote: > > > 1: Of course, you do hear about rather rediculous [sic] judgements from > > > time to time. That's because there are quite a few moronic lower court > > > judges out there. Most of those settlements (the Mc-D's coffee one for > > > instance) are often overturned or reduced in the appeals process. > > > > Contrary to popular belief, the McDonald's coffee case was not frivolous. > > > > http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm > > Give me a break. Coffee is hot. It is made with boiling water. This > is not a case of a McDonalds employee spilling coffee on someone else. > This is someone not being careful and spilling it on themselves.
"Coffee at 180 degrees" is a distinct item from "coffee". Coffee is not properly served at 180 degrees, and the standard of care is entirely different between 180 degrees and a more typical 130. A person should be entitled to use the standard of care for what was offered, and not have to guess that the item might be vastly more dangerous than all the other things sold under the same label. But, of course, the system did work here, because the woman in question *was* held partially responsible. Thomas
