Jeff Morris wrote:
Why do you keep claiming she was putting on makeup? The facts were presented:
she was trying to take the cover off to add milk and sugar.

You keep misrepresenting the facts, long after you were corrected. Why is that
Jim? Does truth have little meaning for you?


Actually, although I had heard reports that she was putting on makeup, I
was dead wrong. - Apparently she wasn't putting on makeup. Instead, she
was trying to force the top off the cup, and having difficulty doing so.
What she should have done, of course, was wait until she could hold the
cup securely somewhere other han over her lap, and THEN try to get the
top off. In other words, if she was having trouble getting the top off a
cup of coffee held over her lap in a car, she should have realized that
she shouldn't continue forcing the top off, in the car. t

But I wasn't wrong with respect to the underlying issue, which is that
entire country is suffering from the exorbitant law suit recoveries
obtained by such hot shot lawyers.

I got the basic fact right, Jeff. The BASIC FACTS are that she got a hot
shot lawyer who enraged the jury with inflammatory pictures of her burns
and got a punitive judgment against MacDonalds that was based on their
emotional reaction to the pictures, and not on any rational
consideration of whether MacDonalds, or the lady, should pay for their
was negligence. - This was confirmed when the award was substantially
reduced on appeal.

The FACTS are that judgments of this kind, and the defensive measures
resulting from the threat of them, are a major drag on our economy for
both small and large business, and in particular, a major reason our
medical costs are the highest in the world. The end result of lawsuits
like this is a continued tax on all of us due to the added costs to
business. Where they relate to medical issues, they are a major factor
in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical insurance,
to levels beyond those that many people can afford. In other words,
Jeff, because of tort recoveries such as that one (ignoring who was at
fault, and what both parties SHOULD have done) punitive tort recoveries
are a major reason that millions of American citizens can't get or can't
afford meaningful health care. It's also a major factor in the
precarious status of Medicare, lack of care for the indigent, etc.,
Additionally, related costs to businesses add to unemployment and
underemployment in many sectors of our economy.

But I suppose that we got one positive result out of the MacDonalds
suit. - We can now get lukewarm coffee from MacDonalds that we can
safely hold in our laps while we sit in our car. - Does that give you
some nice warm fuzzies Jeff?

Jim


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:


My recollection is that she had to have multiple skin grafts.
Macboy is quite an attorney!

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Sorry Jim, but I don't "shop" at McDs, and I don't buy Macs
(edible - barely - or those that resemble sailboats).


You maynot shop at MacDonalds, or buy Macs. But have you, or will you,
ever have to go to a hospital, Johathan? If so, unless you are one of
the lucky ones (like me) who has adequate health insurance from your
employer, there is a high probability that you will be billed for a
very, very large amount of money. So large that it may mess up your
whole life.

Jim

"Jim Cate" wrote


The FACTS are that judgments of this kind, and the defensive measures
resulting from the threat of them, are a major drag on our economy for
both small and large business, and in particular, a major reason our
medical costs are the highest in the world. The end result of lawsuits
like this is a continued tax on all of us due to the added costs to
business. Where they relate to medical issues, they are a major factor
in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical insurance,
to levels beyond those that many people can afford. In other words,
Jeff, because of tort recoveries such as that one (ignoring who was at
fault, and what both parties SHOULD have done) punitive tort recoveries
are a major reason that millions of American citizens can't get or can't
afford meaningful health care. It's also a major factor in the
precarious status of Medicare, lack of care for the indigent, etc.,
Additionally, related costs to businesses add to unemployment and
underemployment in many sectors of our economy.

Jim's right, just as boats like the Mac26XM raise insurance for the rest of
us real sailors. it ain't fair!

SV

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Jeff Morris wrote:

Actually Jim, keeping the coffee at 185 degrees burns it and produces

inferior

coffee. It was far too hot to be consumed, and thus Mac was negligent.

Actually, Jeff, in case you hadn't noticed, most people who buy hot
coffee actually expect it to be hot. It's often served somewhat hotter
than they normally drink it. - In fact, part of the enjoyment of
drinking a cup of hot coffee is the conversation occuring as you wait
for it to cool off a little to permit you to drink it. You take small
sips of it initially, while it's still too hot to gulp down, and then
you take longer sips as it gradually cools down. Most people, including
me, would object to coffee served lukewarm such that we have to gulp it
down immediately before it gets cold. That's why they call it a "coffee
break," Jeff.

In any event, most people recognize that you need to check out the
coffee by sipping it before you gulp it down, or before you try to jerk
the top off while holding it above your lap.

Jim



This

could explain why they lost the case.

So why did you get the basic facts of the wrong, Jim? I guess you don't

like to

get confused my them.


I got the basic fact right, Jeff. (I didn't mention the fact that
MacDonals served their coffee hot, since most people would naturally
assume that coffee IS going to be hot, unless you ask for iced coffee.)


That wasn't "hot" coffee, it was "scalding" coffee, completely undrinkable and
dangerous to handle. "Unsuited for the purpose" is the term lawyers use, I
think.




The basic fact, once again, are that this stupid bitch put the cup of
coffee between her legs while she was preoccupied with something else in
the vehicle (whether or not she was driving is really of no consequence
to the story.) As I understood it, she was busy applying her makeup
while supporting the cup of coffee in her crotch.


When coffee is served in a flimsy cup to someone seating in a car, one must
consider the possibility it could get spilled.



The BASIC FACTS are that she got a hot shot lawyer who enraged the jury
with inflammatory pictures of her burns, and got a punitive judgment
against MacDonalds that was based on their emotional reaction to the
pictures, and not on any rational consideration of whether MacDonalds,
or the lady, was negligent. - This was confirmed when the award was
substantially reduced on appeal.


Reduced somewhat, but still a substantial penalty.


The BASIC FACTS are that judgments of this kind, and the defensive
measures resulting from the threat of them, are a major drag on our
economy for both small and large business, and in particular, a major
reason our medical costs are the highest in the world. The end result of
lawsuits like this is a continued tax on all of us due to the added
costs to business, and where they relate to medical issues, a major
factor in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical
insurance, which are rising to levels beyond what many people can
afford. It's also a major factor in the precarious status of Medicare,
care for the indigent, etc., Costs to businesses add to unemployment and
underemployment in many sectors of our economy.

But I suppose that we got one positive result out of the MacDonalds
suit. - We can now get lukewarm coffee from MacDonalds that we can
safely hold between our legs while we ride in our car. - Does that give
you some nice warm fuzzies Jeff?


Actually, I never buy coffee from a takeout, because I find that its too hot to
drink and by the time it cools a bit to be drinkable, I've probably spilled it!
When I first heard about this case, I thought the woman was crazy, but the more
I found out about it the clearer it seemed that Micky D's was negligent.

Actually, although I had heard reports that she was putting on makeup, I was dead wrong. - Apparently she wasn't putting

on makeup. Instead, she was trying to force the top off the cup, and
having difficulty doing so. What she should have

done, of course, was wait until she could hold the cup securely
somewhere other han over her lap, and THEN try to get

the top off. In other words, if she was having trouble getting the top
off a cup of coffee held over her lap in a car,

she should have realized that she shouldn't continue forcing the top
off, in the car. t

But I wasn't wrong with respect to the underlying issue, which is that entire country is suffering from the

exorbitant law suit recoveries obtained by such hot shot lawyers.

I got the basic fact right, Johnathan. The BASIC FACTS are that she got a hot shot lawyer who enraged the jury

with inflammatory pictures of her burns and got a punitive judgment
against MacDonalds that was based on their

emotional reaction to the pictures, and not on any rational
consideration of whether MacDonalds, or the lady,

should pay for their was negligence. - This was confirmed when the award
was substantially reduced on appeal.

The FACTS are that judgments of this kind, and the defensive measures resulting from the threat of them, are

a major drag on our economy for both small and large business, and in
particular, a major reason our medical costs

are the highest in the world. The end result of lawsuits like this is a
continued tax on all of us due to the added

costs to business. Where they relate to medical issues, they are a
major factor in the continued rise in the costs

of health care and medical insurance, to levels beyond those that many
people can afford. In other words, Jeff,

because of tort recoveries such as that one (ignoring who was at
fault, and what both parties SHOULD have done)

punitive tort recoveries are a major reason that millions of American
citizens can't get or can't afford

meaningful health care. It's also a major factor in the precarious
status of Medicare, lack of care for the

indigent, etc., Additionally, related costs to businesses add to
unemployment and underemployment in many

sectors of our economy.

But I suppose that we got one positive result out of the MacDonalds suit. - We can now get lukewarm coffee

from MacDonalds that we can safely hold in our laps while we sit in our
car. - Does that give you some nice warm

fuzzies Jonathan? Oh I forgot. You don't go to MacDonalds.

Jim

Marc wrote:

And the court found her 20% liable for her actions. Of course ,
dumbass, they found Mc D's liable for 80%.

And, of course, the damages were substantially reduced on appeal.

I still think that when people order hot coffee, they expect it to be
hot, and when they order a coke, they expect it to be cold. In both
circumstances, most people take appropriate precautions.

Jim

"Jim Cate" wrote

In any event, most people recognize that you need to check out the
coffee by sipping it before you try to jerk off while holding it above
your lap.

Jim


Good point, Jimbo.

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Donal" wrote in message
...




zmaybe if that had been the situation. However, she wasn't at the wheel, she
wasn't driving, and contrary to Jim's repeated calims, she wasn't putting on
makeup.

Of course, what actually happened was that MacDonalds sold her a cup of
hot coffee, and she didn't take appropriate care in opening it in her
car. She had trouble getting the top off a cup of hot coffee. But
instead of realizing that she should wait until she could remove the top
safely, she kept on pulling on it until she spilled the coffee in her lap.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED was that a hot-shot contingency lawyer was able
to show some highly inflamatory pictures of her burns to a jury, and the
jury was so enraged that they awarded a multi-million dollare punative
damages against MacDonalds, REGARDLESS of who was at fault, or whether
MacDonalds should be forced to pay despite the acions of the customer.

I was wrong about her putting on makeup, but I wasn't wrong with respect
to the underlying issue, which is that entire country is suffering from
such exorbitant law suit recoveries obtained by such hot shot lawyers.

I got the basic fact right, Jeff. The BASIC FACTS are that she got a hot
shot lawyer who enraged the jury with inflammatory pictures of her burns
and got a punitive judgment against MacDonalds that was based on their
emotional reaction to the pictures, and not on any rational
consideration of whether MacDonalds, or the lady, should be penalized
for their negligence. - This was CONFIRMED when the award was
substantially reduced on appeal.

The FACTS are that judgments of this kind, and the defensive measures
resulting from the threat of them, are a major drag on our economy for
both small and large business, and in particular, a major reason our
medical costs are the highest in the world. The end result of lawsuits
like this is a continued tax on all of us due to the added costs to
business. Where they relate to medical issues, they are a major factor
in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical insurance,
to levels beyond those that many people can afford. In other words,
Jeff, because of tort recoveries such as that one (ignoring who was at
fault, and what both parties SHOULD have done) punitive tort recoveries
are a major reason that millions of American citizens can't get or can't
afford meaningful health care. It's also a major factor in the
precarious status of Medicare, lack of care for the indigent, etc.,
Additionally, related costs to businesses add to unemployment and
underemployment in many sectors of our economy.

But I suppose that we got one positive result out of the MacDonalds
suit. - We can now get lukewarm coffee from MacDonalds that we can
safely hold in our laps while we sit in our car. - Does that give you
some nice warm fuzzies?

Jim

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I never realized that *you* would be capable of being
injured by luke warm coffee.

The point is that you don't know the facts, Jonathan. You don't know how
many complaints MacDonalds had received because their coffee wasn't
served hot enough, as most people prefer.

Jim

Jeeze, is Jim 'coming on' to Jeff?

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Does that give you some nice warm fuzzies?

Jim