[thechat] rebel without a clause

[Hugh Blair]

> > In the McDonald's case, the woman had permanent scarring and
> > disfigurement, and $20,000 in out-of-pocket medical expenses, in
> > addition to being bedridden and having to be cared for by
> > her family for months. She asked for the $20,000, and McDonalds
> > refused to pay a  dime.
>
> didn't she put the coffee between her legs and then start driving?

No, she was the passenger.  She initally got a big settlement, but it
was reduced a big bunch on appeal. Then, they settled with the details
kept private.

> 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?

Amen.

> > 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...

No, they didn't admit that at all.

> > McDonalds got lucky. Someone *should* have seen the inside
> of a cell for criminal assault.
>
> now that i don't agree with...

Right - nobody was criminally wrong.

Some reading:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.consumerrights.net/mcdonalds.html

Hugh