Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
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 |