Prev: spam
Next: "Canceled opening the page" (Safari)
From: nospam on 19 Nov 2009 19:19
In article
<jeg-3FCC1D.16024217112009(a)190-207-246-207.dyn.dsl.cantv.net>, Julian
G�mez <jeg(a)polished-pixels.com> wrote:

> She placed the cup of hot coffee between her legs. It sloshed out and
> she got burned. How anyone got to her age without being aware of the
> risk of her action is amazing.

the issue is not that she got burned but that the burns were so severe,
and had occurred some 700 times before to other mcdonalds patrons.
From: nospam on 19 Nov 2009 19:19
In article <he2k3t$e2t$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote:

> > Well, how about this: she suffered third-degree burns and required skin
> > grafts.
>
> Does it actually say that in the transcripts?

yes it does.

she suffered 3rd degree burns (full thickness, to the bone) over 6% of
her body. she was hospitalized for 8 days for skin grafting and
debridement. she was permanently disfigured and disabled for 2 years.
the jury saw photos of her burns and they were shocked at how serious
it was.

> In every medical or first aid class or book I've seen,
> part of the definition of "third degree burn" includes
> charred flesh. Coffee is mostly water, thus if not under
> pressure, CANNOT be higher than 100 degrees Celsius, and
> cannot char flesh.

according to testimony, liquids at the temperature at which the coffee
was served could cause full thickness burns in 2-7 seconds.
From: nospam on 19 Nov 2009 19:19
In article <doraymeRidThis-40CDAB.12015419112009(a)news.albasani.net>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> > Coffee
> > is supposed to be sold at a drinkable temperature
>
> You just make things up as they suit you. It is not *supposed* to be
> this at all for reasons I have given.

it's a legal requirement that food sold be safe to consume. that
includes not just being free of dirt, insects and pathogens, but also
at a temperature that won't injure the consumer.
From: nospam on 19 Nov 2009 19:19
In article <he3ouj$ss1$1(a)news.albasani.net>, AV3
<arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

> They weren't held responsible for her accident but for the damage caused
> by their excessively hot coffee, causing the seriousness of what would
> otherwise have been negligible soiling and mild burning.

correct.

> Part of MacD's irresponsible behavior was to ignore numerous complaints
> about the excessive temperature their coffee was served at. This was a
> matter of record and part of the evidence against MacD, and they were
> held liable for it. Justly, I think.

that's what did them in.

> All sharp knives are dangerous, and their manufacturers are not liable
> for damage from careless handling. Coffee served at restaurants other
> than MacDonald's is not prone to cause serious burns. MacD was held
> liable for escessively hot and dangerous coffee and for ignoring
> complaints about it. Spilling coffee out of a styrofoam cup is
> commonplace and not analogous to cutting yourself while using a knife.

correct.
From: nospam on 19 Nov 2009 19:19
In article <1j9fcke.1fduelg1plii1oN%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
Mike Rosenberg <mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:

> Meanwhile, one topic that hasn't been brought up is that of proportional
> liability, and that's something that is always taken into consideration
> in such cases.

she was found to be 20% responsible.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Prev: spam
Next: "Canceled opening the page" (Safari)