🚀 go-pugleaf

Don wrote:
> "Melanie Rocky Ford" <spoofeddatnospam@RockyForda.nat> wrote in message 
> news:Xns98D5C210A1694spoofedatnospamRocki@216.196.97.142...
>> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com>  wrote :
>>
>>> Why should she pay for McDonalds negligence?
>> Bull crap.
> 
> Do your homework before you run your yap.
> 
> Read it and weep..........

It's all there, but it won't make a bit difference to 
an angry ideologue like Melanie.  She is willfully 
blind to reason.


> 
> There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case.  No
> one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
> important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
> the stories about the case.  McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
> scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
> and muscle.  Here's the whole story.
> 
> Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
> her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
> February 1992.  Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
> in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.
> 
> After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
> stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
> coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
> charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
> motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.)  Liebeck placed
> the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
> the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
> into her lap.
> 
> The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
> to her skin.  A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
> thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
> including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
> areas.  She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
> underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
> treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
> refused.
> 
> During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
> claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
> involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
> history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
> this hazard.
> 
> McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
> advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
> maintain optimum taste.  He admitted that he had not evaluated the
> safety ramifications at this temperature.  Other establishments sell
> coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
> generally 135 to 140 degrees.
> 
> Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
> actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
> degrees, plus or minus five degrees.  He also testified that a burn
> hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
> and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
> into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
> the mouth and throat.  The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
> would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
> the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
> 
> Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
> burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
> thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.  Other testimony
> showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
> of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially.  Thus,
> if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
> have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
> 
> McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
> home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
> showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
> driving.
> 
> McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
> customers want it that way.  The company admitted its customers were
> unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
> that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
> "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
> the hazard.
> 
> The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages.  This amount
> was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
> fault in the spill.  The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
> punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
> sales.
> 
> Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
> local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
> 
> The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
> or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
> McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
> 
> No one will ever know the final ending to this case.
> 
> The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
> been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
> case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
> Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/45ylr
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/y6kohw
> 
>