The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from
McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take
into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's
consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury
per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999
people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that
proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?

And...

a.. Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185
degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at
"between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk
"immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185
degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.) Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do
wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" --
the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O92dnfFtGO-8u1LeRVn-jg@speakeasy.net...
>> That is how we brew coffee, it must percolate which is done by
>> boiling of course at two hundreds and twelve degrees, sea level.
>> Anything less would require the use of instant decaffeinated for wimps.
>
> It's one thing to use boiling, or near boiling water, to brew through
> beans.
> It's another thing entirely to keep it at that temperature, even after
> repeated injuries. The woman in that case had it spill into her lap and
> when it wicked up into the material it caused THIRD DEGREE burns,
> requiring
> numerous skin grafts to correct. There's certainly something to be said
> for
> being careful, but a normal temperature used for serving would not have
> cause these sort of injuries. One shouldn't expect a beverage served at a
> drive through to be capable of causing such *extremely* severe burns. And
> yet McDonalds repeatedly chose to ignore the warnings and injury reports
> leading up to this. For QUITE a while.
>
> So please, find a better 'bad example' as this one was rightfully decided.
>

 

So she didn't spill it ? It just "happened" ?

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O92dnfFtGO-8u1LeRVn-jg@speakeasy.net...

>The woman in that case had it spill into her lap

 

So she didn't spill it ? It just "happened" ?

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O92dnfFtGO-8u1LeRVn-jg@speakeasy.net...

>The woman in that case had it spill into her lap

 

So she didn't spill it ? It just "happened" ?

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O92dnfFtGO-8u1LeRVn-jg@speakeasy.net...

>The woman in that case had it spill into her lap

 

Right, so by that logic as long as you peddle enough crap to enough nitwits
it really doesn't matter if you hurt several HUNDRED of them.

> The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from
> McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't
take
> into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's
> consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury
> per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe,
23,999,999
> people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't
that
> proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?

 

Right, so by that logic as long as you peddle enough crap to enough nitwits
it really doesn't matter if you hurt several HUNDRED of them.

> The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from
> McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't
take
> into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's
> consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury
> per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe,
23,999,999
> people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't
that
> proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?

 

Right, so by that logic as long as you peddle enough crap to enough nitwits
it really doesn't matter if you hurt several HUNDRED of them.

> The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from
> McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't
take
> into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's
> consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury
> per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe,
23,999,999
> people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't
that
> proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?

 

It's all in the actuarial analysis. simple P&L. How many people did the
rush hour barbecue before Ford recalled the Pinto.

Bill Kearney wrote:
> Right, so by that logic as long as you peddle enough crap to enough nitwits
> it really doesn't matter if you hurt several HUNDRED of them.
>
>
>>The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from
>>McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't
>
> take
>
>>into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's
>>consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury
>>per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe,
>
> 23,999,999
>
>>people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't
>
> that
>
>>proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?
>
>

 

It's all in the actuarial analysis. simple P&L. How many people did the
rush hour barbecue before Ford recalled the Pinto.

Bill Kearney wrote:
> Right, so by that logic as long as you peddle enough crap to enough nitwits
> it really doesn't matter if you hurt several HUNDRED of them.
>
>
>>The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from
>>McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't
>
> take
>
>>into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's
>>consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury
>>per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe,
>
> 23,999,999
>
>>people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't
>
> that
>
>>proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?
>
>

 

It's all in the actuarial analysis. simple P&L. How many people did the
rush hour barbecue before Ford recalled the Pinto.

Bill Kearney wrote:
> Right, so by that logic as long as you peddle enough crap to enough nitwits
> it really doesn't matter if you hurt several HUNDRED of them.
>
>
>>The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from
>>McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't
>
> take
>
>>into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's
>>consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury
>>per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe,
>
> 23,999,999
>
>>people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't
>
> that
>
>>proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?
>
>