On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> In this case she did "swim" in it, see also
> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm (which describes that case
> IMHO much better).
Thanks for the link. That should remind me to check anectdotes out
slightly more carefully.
Don Armstrong
--
Sentence
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030920 21:50]:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Joe Drew wrote:
> > Contrary to popular belief, the McDonald's coffee case was not
> > frivolous.
> >
> > http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
> First off, hot coffee causes 2nd degree burns, not
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First off, hot coffee causes 2nd degree burns, not 3rd degree
> burns.[1]
Ordinary temperature coffee does indeed cause 2nd degree burns. This
is not true however for coffee served at 180 degrees Farenheit.
> Secondly, the punitive award by the jury o
Whoa. Digging around in the archives are we?
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Joe Drew 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
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 proce
5 matches
Mail list logo
