On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,

Here we go again.....

MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.

A beautiful textbook case of negligence.

--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,


Here we go again.....

MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.

A beautiful textbook case of negligence.


How hot is Excessively hot? Sounds almost like the law passage attempt
a few years back to force homeowners to limit the hot water to a pretty
low value - I don't recall, but it was like 110-120 degrees. This was to
protect children IIRC. Of course the lowered temperatures make a great
breeding ground for Legionellosis.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,

Here we go again.....
MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.

A beautiful textbook case of negligence.

How hot is Excessively hot? Sounds almost like the law passage attempt
a few years back to force homeowners to limit the hot water to a pretty
low value - I don't recall, but it was like 110-120 degrees. This was to
protect children IIRC. Of course the lowered temperatures make a great
breeding ground for Legionellosis.
- Mike KB3EIA -

Good point Mike. In many houses (mine for example) there is NO
way to separately regulate the domestic hot water temperature from
the heating system's temperature because the heater is a dual funtion
unit whereby the domestic hot water is a coil inside the heating system
hot water unit... and in today's hot water heating units (mine is only
three years old), the water temp setting cuts off at the high end at
around 180 degrees F.

Frankly it really gets my goat about how everyone else has to have
their lives dictated by the blatent stupidity of a few.

Soapbox off :-) :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Phil Kane wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,

Here we go again.....
MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.

A beautiful textbook case of negligence.

How hot is Excessively hot? Sounds almost like the law passage attempt
a few years back to force homeowners to limit the hot water to a pretty
low value - I don't recall, but it was like 110-120 degrees. This was to
protect children IIRC. Of course the lowered temperatures make a great
breeding ground for Legionellosis.
- Mike KB3EIA -


Good point Mike. In many houses (mine for example) there is NO
way to separately regulate the domestic hot water temperature from
the heating system's temperature because the heater is a dual funtion
unit whereby the domestic hot water is a coil inside the heating system
hot water unit... and in today's hot water heating units (mine is only
three years old), the water temp setting cuts off at the high end at
around 180 degrees F.

My parents hot water heater is the same way. You do need to be careful,
but we should always be careful


Frankly it really gets my goat about how everyone else has to have
their lives dictated by the blatent stupidity of a few.


The bright spot in all this is that the pathetic losers do not know the
satisfaction of accepting responsibility for their own actions. They
remain lifelong victims. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and If I put a
flexible cup of hot coffee in my lap and it spills, I'm the stupid person.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Good point Mike. In many houses (mine for example) there is NO
way to separately regulate the domestic hot water temperature from
the heating system's temperature because the heater is a dual funtion
unit whereby the domestic hot water is a coil inside the heating system
hot water unit... and in today's hot water heating units (mine is only
three years old), the water temp setting cuts off at the high end at
around 180 degrees F.


My parents hot water heater is the same way. You do need to be
careful, but we should always be careful


We have that too, and every so often you get a cold shower because the
heating system
decided that the house was cold, and sucked all the heat out of the
unit. GRRRR!!!

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,

Here we go again.....

Right you are, see below:

MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use

That is based on opinion ONLY. True it apparently found
support in a jury of 12, but that doesn't make it right. Many
people want "steaming hot" food...including coffee. The fact
that the old lady was so stupid as to put the cup in her croch
tells me a lot about how dumb she was.

Let's change the brew from coffee to tea. Anyone with an
ounce of brains or experience knows tea is made with boiling
water poured into a cup with a teabag. NOTE - boiling water
is the norm. Had Miss Idiot had tea in the cup instead of
coffee would she not have sued? I suspect we know the
answer to that since personal responsibility seems to be
abondoned today.

...but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.

So I ask...is it OK for a cup of tea to be served to a customer
at 212 degrees...boiling water? If you were at a friend's home and that
friend made you a cup of tea which you then spilled on yourself,
would you sue your friend because the water was poured
from a pot that had just been boiling?

A beautiful textbook case of negligence.

In your opinion anyway. More a case of screw the corporation
and make a few bucks when the case should have been dismissed.
If the logic is that it was too hot, then what should the temperature
threshold be for any food (i.e. tea, coffee, french fries, etc.)?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I notice there's no temperature
threshold so designated by any governmental entity I know of.

Sorry Phil, the public opinion is not a slam dunk in support of
your legal viewpoint on this.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,

Here we go again.....


Right you are, see below:


MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use


That is based on opinion ONLY. True it apparently found
support in a jury of 12, but that doesn't make it right. Many
people want "steaming hot" food...including coffee. The fact
that the old lady was so stupid as to put the cup in her croch
tells me a lot about how dumb she was.

I kind of wish that McD's would have taken the tack of printing "do not
try to hold the coffee in your crotch" on the coffee cups. simply
printing "caution, contents may be hot will not absolve them of
negligence for the people that do not know that they should not *sit on*
the cup, or try to pour it on their children.




Let's change the brew from coffee to tea. Anyone with an
ounce of brains or experience knows tea is made with boiling
water poured into a cup with a teabag. NOTE - boiling water
is the norm. Had Miss Idiot had tea in the cup instead of
coffee would she not have sued? I suspect we know the
answer to that since personal responsibility seems to be
abondoned today.

Stupidicus adoramicus



...but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.


So I ask...is it OK for a cup of tea to be served to a customer
at 212 degrees...boiling water? If you were at a friend's home and that
friend made you a cup of tea which you then spilled on yourself,
would you sue your friend because the water was poured
from a pot that had just been boiling?

And don't forget that the taste of the coffee changes with the
temperature it is brewed at. Boiled coffee is a from that some people enjoy.

I wonder if McD's is negligent re the obesity lawsuits that a
group of lawyers are working on as we speak.


http://www.banzhaf.net/obesitylinks


- mike KB3EIA -

Phil Kane wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:



In a world where people can successfully sue because they did not know
coffee was hot,



Here we go again.....

MacDonalds was sued successfully because they were on notice that
the coffee was excessively hot for its intended purpose and manner
of use but did nothing to prevent such injuries, and they were found
negligent in not reducing the temperature to where it would not
cause second-degree burns on exposed skin, let alone in customers'
mouths, the intended use.



I always chill my coffee a bit with some ice or water from the soda
machine. Otherwise
it's too damm hot. Maybe my mouth lacks insulation or something, but my
mouth
will scald before my skin would.