[thechat] rebel without a clause

deke web at master.gen.in.us
Tue Oct 29 18:35:01 CST 2002


On 29 Oct 2002 at 17:06, aardvark posted a message which said:

> didn't she put the coffee between her legs and then start driving?

No. Her son was driving her, and the car was sitting still. She removed
the lid in order to add the cream, and because the cup was so flimsy,
it collapsed in her hands.

> and am i the only one who assumes that all hot beverages handed
> to me by someone other than me will be at around boiling
> temperature?  seriously, why *wouldn't* one assume that?

One should be able to assume that foods sold in the a restaurant are
safe to consume, if for no other reason than the "implied warranty of
merchantability". Coffee is normally sold at 160-170F. That is very hot
- but McDonald's was selling it at 185-190F.

Water at 190F causes third degree burns within 2 to 7 seconds.
Third-degree burns means the skin is burned away down to the
muscle/fatty-tissue layer. It will not heal without skin grafting,
debridement, and whirlpool treatments.

Stella Liebeck was in the hospital for 7 days from those burns.

> > In the suit, McDonalds not only admitted that the coffee was unsafe,
> > but that they knew the coffee was unsafe, since over 700 *other*
> > people had asked them to pay medical bills from coffee burns, and that
> > they were still at the time of the trial, serving coffee which could
> > not be drunken.

> i have to go back and look, but i don't recall them admitting it was
> 'unsafe'... i thought the wording was that they knew it was damn hot,
> and that if poured in one's lap, would be unsafe...

The McDonald's people agreed to the term “not fit for consumption” at
trial, because coffee at that temperature causes severe scalds if
spilled or drunk.

> 700 other people just made the same mistake... 700 out of how
> many people didn't guess that it was superheated?

No, there were 700 other people who had to receive medical treatment
because of such problems as severe burns to the genital area, perineum,
inner thighs, and buttocks. There were probably hundreds of thousands
who, like me, burnt their mouth and spent a week or so in pain, without
bothering to see a doctor.

> > McDonalds got lucky. Someone *should* have seen the inside of a cell
> > for criminal assault.

> now that i don't agree with...

The jury figured her losses were $200,000 and they reduced it to
$160,000, figuring that the company was 80% responsible.

> it's a buyer beware and common sense situation... if you didn't
> make it yourself, assume it's at boiling temperature... take all
> necessary precautions to not pour it on yourself...

At that temperature, you shouldn't be pouring the coffee on yourself,
but you shouldn't be pouring it *in* yourself, either.

Do you inspect the cows before you drink milk? Do you demand to see a
tuberculin test on your waitress and the kitchen staff when you sit
down? Do you carry a thermometer to make sure the sausage has reached
an internal temperature that will kill trichinosis worms?  Do you test
the salad to make sure it's not carrying listeria?

Or do you assume that restaurants are taking reasonable precautions to
ensure that they don't kill or disable their customers?

What about the "Jack In The Box" hamburgers that killed kids? Or was
that "Carl's, Junior"? Should the parents have been more vigilant.

deke




--
99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name





More information about the thechat mailing list