Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 - |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Just how necessary is a new Novice class? | Policy | |||
FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions | Policy | |||
New ARRL Proposal | Policy | |||
Response to "21st Century" Part Two (Communicator License) | Policy | |||
Low reenlistment rate | Policy |