Forums | MacLife

I never made any reference to what I think about the amount she asked for. I just said that if someone files, they're likely to say whatever they can to try and make people sympathetic to their claim, so her claim that the car was not moving can't be proved or disproved.

How would bratboy know for certain that the car wasn't moving?

So basically you're saying that anyone who sues is likely to lie about the facts?

Factual questions are ones for the jury to decide.  It's possible that McDonald's did not even contest her version of those facts (from what I've read, they didn't).

Either way, disagreements over material fact issues would be decided by the jury.

I don't know for certain what occurred, you're right.  I'm going off the information that exists...which makes more sense to me than simple conjecture about what you think really happened.

And you never answered my question...is there ANY temperature at which food or drink would be too hot to be served to a customer, or are guidelines/regulations concerning such things unimportant, in your mind? 

Does the fact that other restaurants served at lower temps mean anything, or that the McDonalds execs noted they were taking the risk of serving at higher temps in order to save money?

I never made any reference to what I think about the amount she asked for. I just said that if someone files, they're likely to say whatever they can to try and make people sympathetic to their claim, so her claim that the car was not moving can't be proved or disproved.

How would bratboy know for certain that the car wasn't moving?

You said that she would lie to get the money because she was suing for millions.  But she wasn't suing for millions.

No, I didn't.

I said she would have reason to lie because she was suing.

...but none of that was at issue!  The issue was the temperature of the coffee.

Because McDonald's was found to be at fault for serving their coffee at too hot a temperature (the exact temperature of which was NOT in dispute), HOW she spilled the coffee would really end up being unimportant, as long as she did demonstrate gross carelessness in the matter.

*edit*

And i'll note that a few posts ago, you were claiming that not only was the car moving, but that she was driving!  You've yet to admit your mistake.

So basically you're saying that anyone who sues is likely to lie about the facts?

How dare I question the actions of someone filing a law suit!

I'm saying that since we can't know for a fact whether the car was moving, we have to go by what we do know for facts.

We know for a fact that she bought coffee.

We know for a fact that she put the coffee between her knees.

We know for a fact that millions of people get coffee at McDonald's all of the time, and that only a very very small number of complaints have been reported.

I know for a fact that homemade coffee can cause the same kind of burns that this woman received.

I know for a fact that the parking lot is at a very steep angle.

I know for a fact that many people get coffee at that specific McDonald's. I know this because I know many people who do, and who have for years.

I know for a fact that the coffee at that McDonald's never seemed hotter than coffee I got anywhere else, and that I got coffee there numerous times.

From those facts, I can deduce that since so many people get coffee at McDonald's, most are repeat customers. Given her age, I would also deduce that she had gotten coffee at McDonald's before, and therefore knew that[b]

We know for a fact that millions of people get coffee at McDonald's all of the time, and that only a very very small number of complaints have been reported.

This is getting tiresome.  I already showed you (repeatedly) that the McDonalds execs admitted that they chose to pay for damages instead of lowering the coffee temperature. 

I know for a fact that the coffee at that McDonald's never seemed hotter than coffee I got anywhere else, and that I got coffee there numerous times.

Oh...well forget the facts that show other restaurants served their coffee at a lower temperature!  Matt says it didn't "seem" hotter!  Did you spill each on yourself and figure out if they burned the same??  Idiotic!

From those facts, I can expect that since fewer than 1% of people have made complaints, that most people didn't seem to have a problem with the temperature of the coffee.

SHE SPILLED THE COFFEE.  It would probably be difficult to know how much hotter the coffee was unless you spilled it on yourself and received severe burns as a result.

I must say, matt...I'm really puzzled by your apparent lack of ability to understand that:

"Hot" exists in varying degrees.

Injuries from burns exist in varying degrees.

And i'll note that a few posts ago, you were claiming that not only was the car moving, but that she was driving!  You've yet to admit your mistake.

I never made the claim that she was controlling the car, if that's what you're trying to divert the subject to.

Oh you're right...you said "driving."

Sorry, I assumed that by using the uncommon verb "driving" you were implying that often used phrase "controlling the car."



Matt, you've refused repeatedly to answer questions that I've posed to you concerning appropriate temperatures for food and beverage serving.   I doubt you've read the information I've posted about trial testimony by McDonald's, or the comments of the judge.

Who do you think had the best control of the information, here?  Who do you think could afford the best legal counsel?  Who had the burden of proof?

But again, I didn't accuse her of lying. I said that she would have reason to lie, as would anyone who is suing for a monetary judgement.

...and I already pointed out that the specifics of how the coffee spilt were not at issue during this trial.  The temperature of the coffee was at issue.

A temperature shown to be higher than that of other fast-food restuarants...and one that McDonalds had been repeatedly warned about.

A temperature higher than the recommended standard.

A temperature that was capable of causing 3rd-degree burns in seconds...burns that would not have occurred in coffee served at the industry standard temperature.

A temperature that McDonald's execs admitted they chose in order to cut down on bean costs and to cut down on refill requests.  They further stated (as the judge notes) that they were willing to settle suits concerning coffee burns because they figured the cost/benefit worked to their favor.  The same exact way that ANY business makes choices concerning what are cost-effective safety precautions, and what are not.

As a dumb question, why does it matter that many people did not injure themselves on the coffee?  If that restaurant were to have a sharp kitchen knife hanging from a string in one corner, most people eating there would avoid having a knife going into their eye, would be aware than knives hanging from a string are dangerous, and would be careful, but McD's would still be responsible for having something dangerous around.

It doesn't matter, at all.

For all we know, Burger King may have had 95% less coffee injuries per 100,000 customers, and Dunkin Donuts even less than that. 

The exact number is irrelevant.  If a small toy with a breakable piece was being handed out in happy meals, it would not matter that only 5 children nationwide (out of millions) choked to death on it.

A company could get by committing a negligent act for years with only few harmed in the process.  This is exactly WHY McDonalds continued to serve coffee that was too hot for the amount of time that it did...it did not cost them too much to do so.

She's a full-grown adult who should have done everything possible to not pour hot coffee on herself.

The idea that she didn't comes only from your own imagination of what occurred.

One more time for you...the issue was the temperature of the coffee!

It seems like you're saying that McDonald's should have been able to serve their coffee at ANY temperature, with impunity, because anyone who accidently spills coffee automatically deserves whatever burns they receive because of it.

Perhaps you're not understanding....no one is claiming that coffee shouldn't be hot enough to cause a burn.  It is the NATURE of this specific severe burn...along with the deviation from industry standard, that makes this instance stand out as one of negligence on the part of McDonalds.  As I said before...."hot" means many things.  "Burns" vary in severity.

I'll ask you a final time, matt (this is probably the 5th time I've posed this question to you in this thread):

Is there any temperature at which you would believe a restaurant would be negligent for serving it's food or beverage?  Would it be inappropriate to serve boiling hot soup to a customer? 

What if a McDonald's employee had spilt the coffee, here?  Then would the temperature of the coffee be important, in your mind?

From my limited knowledge of tort law (one semester of law school so far), I know that a business is often likely to be held liable for injury if that injury arises from the business' failure to adhere to an industry safety standard, when that injury is more severe than what would have occurred had that standard been followed.

I'll ask you a final time, matt (this is probably the 5th time I've posed this question to you in this thread):

Is there any temperature at which you would believe a restaurant would be negligent for serving it's food or beverage?  Would it be inappropriate to serve boiling hot soup to a customer? 

What if a McDonald's employee had spilt the coffee, here?  Then would the temperature of the coffee be important, in your mind?

From my limited knowledge of tort law (one semester of law school so far), I know that a business is often likely to be held liable for injury if that injury arises from the business' failure to adhere to an industry safety standard, when that injury is more severe than what would have occurred had that standard been followed.

Accordign to the info matt (or someone) provided earlier, the coffeee was served at a temperature in compliance with the industry standard. However, hot coffee is HOT. If i lower the temperature of coffee, and spill it on my lap I'll still burn myself because it still hot coffee.

The issue is that coffee as such is in fact a boiling liquid that people drink for pleasure.

Well you obviously have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

I'll ask you a final time, matt (this is probably the 5th time I've posed this question to you in this thread):

Is there any temperature at which you would believe a restaurant would be negligent for serving it's food or beverage?  Would it be inappropriate to serve boiling hot soup to a customer? 

What if a McDonald's employee had spilt the coffee, here?  Then would the temperature of the coffee be important, in your mind?

From my limited knowledge of tort law (one semester of law school so far), I know that a business is often likely to be held liable for injury if that injury arises from the business' failure to adhere to an industry safety standard, when that injury is more severe than what would have occurred had that standard been followed.

Accordign to the info matt (or someone) provided earlier, the coffeee was served at a temperature in compliance with the industry standard. However, hot coffee is HOT. If i lower the temperature of coffee, and spill it on my lap I'll still burn myself because it still hot coffee.

That was not industry standard, but recommended for home consumption and preparation.  And you are also ignorant of thermal physics.