You do realize that this is the exact kind of thing that caused this discussion in the first place. I'm well familiar with that case. I was talking about my own experiences in the food service industry, but of course you barely read a sentence and set on a war path accusing me of not checking my facts, quite like somebody googling a geolocation for an ip and harnessing/threatening the other side.
As to the case, it had its merits, but since then it has spawned a whole bunch of people trying to get rich quick. Now every company has to put these warning labels to appease their insurance companies. Now we have people that can't think for themselves that NEED labels. It's much like the debate about trying to legislate common sense. Todd Crane > On Apr 13, 2016, at 6:25 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:57:42 -0700, Todd Crane said: >> .What ever happened to holding people responsible for being >> stupid. When did it start becoming ((fill in the blank)) coffee shop >> for you burning your tongue on your coffee > > Whatever happened to holding people responsible for fact checking before they > post? :) > > You *do* realize that the woman in the McDonald's case got *third degree* > burns and required skin grafts, right? Water at 180F is hot enough to > burn you - we even have a word for it: scalding. And unlike sipping too-hot > coffee, where you can spit it out quickly, hot water spilled on clothing > continues to burn until the clothing is removed or cooled off - neither of > which is feasible when you're elderly and seated in a car. > > And that she originally only sued for the cost of her medical bills, and the > jury increased it with punitive damages when presented evidence that over 700 > other people had received burns? > > Now go and get informed, and commit this sin no more :) > > https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts - how that lawsuit *actually* played out.
