OT: Obituary
#101
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Obituary
If 1 person in 10 was injured.. or 1 in a 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 it may
have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury in 24
million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on themselves.
To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a stretch...
unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an intentionally
dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice of forethought..
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> 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"?
>
have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury in 24
million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on themselves.
To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a stretch...
unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an intentionally
dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice of forethought..
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> 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"?
>
#102
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Obituary
If 1 person in 10 was injured.. or 1 in a 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 it may
have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury in 24
million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on themselves.
To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a stretch...
unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an intentionally
dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice of forethought..
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> 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"?
>
have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury in 24
million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on themselves.
To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a stretch...
unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an intentionally
dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice of forethought..
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> 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"?
>
#103
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Obituary
If 1 person in 10 was injured.. or 1 in a 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 it may
have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury in 24
million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on themselves.
To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a stretch...
unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an intentionally
dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice of forethought..
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> 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"?
>
have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury in 24
million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on themselves.
To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a stretch...
unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an intentionally
dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice of forethought..
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> 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"?
>
#104
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Obituary
No, I am saying: just follow the money. Coffee is almost pure profit. 1
serious injury resulting in a legal complaint in 24 million cups sold.
Settle out of court for a few thousand, and you are tens of million
dollars ahead. As far as the Pinto comparison goes, there were only a
handful of injuries out of the millions sold. BTW, read carefully, it is
not one injury on 24 million, it is one "complaint" as in legal action.
The actual number of injuries is probably 10x that, but most people
figure it's their own fault.
billy ray wrote:
> If 1 person in 10 was injured.. or 1 in a 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 it may
> have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury in 24
> million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on themselves.
>
> To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a stretch...
> unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an intentionally
> dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice of forethought..
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>>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"?
>>
>
>
serious injury resulting in a legal complaint in 24 million cups sold.
Settle out of court for a few thousand, and you are tens of million
dollars ahead. As far as the Pinto comparison goes, there were only a
handful of injuries out of the millions sold. BTW, read carefully, it is
not one injury on 24 million, it is one "complaint" as in legal action.
The actual number of injuries is probably 10x that, but most people
figure it's their own fault.
billy ray wrote:
> If 1 person in 10 was injured.. or 1 in a 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 it may
> have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury in 24
> million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on themselves.
>
> To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a stretch...
> unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an intentionally
> dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice of forethought..
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>>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"?
>>
>
>
#105
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Obituary
No, I am saying: just follow the money. Coffee is almost pure profit. 1
serious injury resulting in a legal complaint in 24 million cups sold.
Settle out of court for a few thousand, and you are tens of million
dollars ahead. As far as the Pinto comparison goes, there were only a
handful of injuries out of the millions sold. BTW, read carefully, it is
not one injury on 24 million, it is one "complaint" as in legal action.
The actual number of injuries is probably 10x that, but most people
figure it's their own fault.
billy ray wrote:
> If 1 person in 10 was injured.. or 1 in a 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 it may
> have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury in 24
> million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on themselves.
>
> To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a stretch...
> unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an intentionally
> dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice of forethought..
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>>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"?
>>
>
>
serious injury resulting in a legal complaint in 24 million cups sold.
Settle out of court for a few thousand, and you are tens of million
dollars ahead. As far as the Pinto comparison goes, there were only a
handful of injuries out of the millions sold. BTW, read carefully, it is
not one injury on 24 million, it is one "complaint" as in legal action.
The actual number of injuries is probably 10x that, but most people
figure it's their own fault.
billy ray wrote:
> If 1 person in 10 was injured.. or 1 in a 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 it may
> have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury in 24
> million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on themselves.
>
> To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a stretch...
> unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an intentionally
> dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice of forethought..
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>>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"?
>>
>
>
#106
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Obituary
No, I am saying: just follow the money. Coffee is almost pure profit. 1
serious injury resulting in a legal complaint in 24 million cups sold.
Settle out of court for a few thousand, and you are tens of million
dollars ahead. As far as the Pinto comparison goes, there were only a
handful of injuries out of the millions sold. BTW, read carefully, it is
not one injury on 24 million, it is one "complaint" as in legal action.
The actual number of injuries is probably 10x that, but most people
figure it's their own fault.
billy ray wrote:
> If 1 person in 10 was injured.. or 1 in a 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 it may
> have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury in 24
> million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on themselves.
>
> To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a stretch...
> unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an intentionally
> dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice of forethought..
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>>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"?
>>
>
>
serious injury resulting in a legal complaint in 24 million cups sold.
Settle out of court for a few thousand, and you are tens of million
dollars ahead. As far as the Pinto comparison goes, there were only a
handful of injuries out of the millions sold. BTW, read carefully, it is
not one injury on 24 million, it is one "complaint" as in legal action.
The actual number of injuries is probably 10x that, but most people
figure it's their own fault.
billy ray wrote:
> If 1 person in 10 was injured.. or 1 in a 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 it may
> have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury in 24
> million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on themselves.
>
> To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a stretch...
> unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an intentionally
> dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice of forethought..
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
>>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"?
>>
>
>
#107
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Obituary
Yes, I will agree that shysters will always follow the money as it is in
their interest to do so.
Coffee is, by its nature, a "hot" drink and carries certain well known
inherent risks primarily among them that it is hot.
The lady in question did not order "Iced" or "cold" coffee so it is assumed
by everyone not a shyster or in shyster mode that she intended it to be hot.
The coffee drinking association mentioned previously states the optimum
brewing temperature and holding temperatures are as high or higher than
McDonald's used.
No claim was made that this was her first cup of coffee or her first cup of
McDonald's coffee.
Coffee temperature is relatively easy to gauge from the outside of a paper
cup. If it is too hot to hold it is too hot to drink and therefore too hot
to pour upon herself.
Pouring coffee know to be 'to hot" on yourself is not, as far as I know, an
approved or suggested was of cooling coffee and no claim was made to that
effect.
Specialty coffee shops (i.e. Starbucks) brew coffee at the recommended
temperature... that is... a temperature higher than the McDonalds in
question.
Perhaps Starbucks patrons are less ignorant than McDonald's customers. This
goes against common sense as their patrons are willing and, indeed, eager to
pay $3-$5 for a cup of coffee.
I guess it comes down to personal accountability.
I cannot blame McDonalds for brewing and holding their product at a
temperature lower than the optimum according to industry figures.
I cannot blame a company if I spill a beverage from a non defective
container (no such claim was made) on myself.
I will not blame a company if I insist of consuming a product that I
requested be hot, was prepared hot, served hot, and I intentionally and with
full knowledge of it hotness spilt it upon myself.
On the other hand Ford designed the Pinto (and Mustang and Maverick) and
intentionally did not install any divider between the gasoline tank and the
trunk (other than a floor mat) which in many cases had direct opening into
the passenger compartment. The engineering department warned Ford officials
of the problem and Ford Shyster and actuarial departments calculated the
cost of the related deaths.
For those unaware ford used the top of the gasoline tank as the floor of the
trunk. Anything thrown into the trunk was therefore thrown atop a gasoline
tank protected only by a mat placed loosely in the trunk area (imagine a
large vinyl floormat)
"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:QcTzf.1498$id.90@trnddc04...
> No, I am saying: just follow the money. Coffee is almost pure profit. 1
> serious injury resulting in a legal complaint in 24 million cups sold.
> Settle out of court for a few thousand, and you are tens of million
> dollars ahead. As far as the Pinto comparison goes, there were only a
> handful of injuries out of the millions sold. BTW, read carefully, it is
> not one injury on 24 million, it is one "complaint" as in legal action.
> The actual number of injuries is probably 10x that, but most people figure
> it's their own fault.
>
> billy ray wrote:
>> If 1 person in 10 was injured.. or 1 in a 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 it
>> may have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury
>> in 24 million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on
>> themselves.
>>
>> To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a
>> stretch... unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an
>> intentionally dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice
>> of forethought..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>
>>>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"?
>>>
>>
their interest to do so.
Coffee is, by its nature, a "hot" drink and carries certain well known
inherent risks primarily among them that it is hot.
The lady in question did not order "Iced" or "cold" coffee so it is assumed
by everyone not a shyster or in shyster mode that she intended it to be hot.
The coffee drinking association mentioned previously states the optimum
brewing temperature and holding temperatures are as high or higher than
McDonald's used.
No claim was made that this was her first cup of coffee or her first cup of
McDonald's coffee.
Coffee temperature is relatively easy to gauge from the outside of a paper
cup. If it is too hot to hold it is too hot to drink and therefore too hot
to pour upon herself.
Pouring coffee know to be 'to hot" on yourself is not, as far as I know, an
approved or suggested was of cooling coffee and no claim was made to that
effect.
Specialty coffee shops (i.e. Starbucks) brew coffee at the recommended
temperature... that is... a temperature higher than the McDonalds in
question.
Perhaps Starbucks patrons are less ignorant than McDonald's customers. This
goes against common sense as their patrons are willing and, indeed, eager to
pay $3-$5 for a cup of coffee.
I guess it comes down to personal accountability.
I cannot blame McDonalds for brewing and holding their product at a
temperature lower than the optimum according to industry figures.
I cannot blame a company if I spill a beverage from a non defective
container (no such claim was made) on myself.
I will not blame a company if I insist of consuming a product that I
requested be hot, was prepared hot, served hot, and I intentionally and with
full knowledge of it hotness spilt it upon myself.
On the other hand Ford designed the Pinto (and Mustang and Maverick) and
intentionally did not install any divider between the gasoline tank and the
trunk (other than a floor mat) which in many cases had direct opening into
the passenger compartment. The engineering department warned Ford officials
of the problem and Ford Shyster and actuarial departments calculated the
cost of the related deaths.
For those unaware ford used the top of the gasoline tank as the floor of the
trunk. Anything thrown into the trunk was therefore thrown atop a gasoline
tank protected only by a mat placed loosely in the trunk area (imagine a
large vinyl floormat)
"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:QcTzf.1498$id.90@trnddc04...
> No, I am saying: just follow the money. Coffee is almost pure profit. 1
> serious injury resulting in a legal complaint in 24 million cups sold.
> Settle out of court for a few thousand, and you are tens of million
> dollars ahead. As far as the Pinto comparison goes, there were only a
> handful of injuries out of the millions sold. BTW, read carefully, it is
> not one injury on 24 million, it is one "complaint" as in legal action.
> The actual number of injuries is probably 10x that, but most people figure
> it's their own fault.
>
> billy ray wrote:
>> If 1 person in 10 was injured.. or 1 in a 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 it
>> may have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury
>> in 24 million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on
>> themselves.
>>
>> To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a
>> stretch... unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an
>> intentionally dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice
>> of forethought..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>
>>>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"?
>>>
>>
#108
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Obituary
Yes, I will agree that shysters will always follow the money as it is in
their interest to do so.
Coffee is, by its nature, a "hot" drink and carries certain well known
inherent risks primarily among them that it is hot.
The lady in question did not order "Iced" or "cold" coffee so it is assumed
by everyone not a shyster or in shyster mode that she intended it to be hot.
The coffee drinking association mentioned previously states the optimum
brewing temperature and holding temperatures are as high or higher than
McDonald's used.
No claim was made that this was her first cup of coffee or her first cup of
McDonald's coffee.
Coffee temperature is relatively easy to gauge from the outside of a paper
cup. If it is too hot to hold it is too hot to drink and therefore too hot
to pour upon herself.
Pouring coffee know to be 'to hot" on yourself is not, as far as I know, an
approved or suggested was of cooling coffee and no claim was made to that
effect.
Specialty coffee shops (i.e. Starbucks) brew coffee at the recommended
temperature... that is... a temperature higher than the McDonalds in
question.
Perhaps Starbucks patrons are less ignorant than McDonald's customers. This
goes against common sense as their patrons are willing and, indeed, eager to
pay $3-$5 for a cup of coffee.
I guess it comes down to personal accountability.
I cannot blame McDonalds for brewing and holding their product at a
temperature lower than the optimum according to industry figures.
I cannot blame a company if I spill a beverage from a non defective
container (no such claim was made) on myself.
I will not blame a company if I insist of consuming a product that I
requested be hot, was prepared hot, served hot, and I intentionally and with
full knowledge of it hotness spilt it upon myself.
On the other hand Ford designed the Pinto (and Mustang and Maverick) and
intentionally did not install any divider between the gasoline tank and the
trunk (other than a floor mat) which in many cases had direct opening into
the passenger compartment. The engineering department warned Ford officials
of the problem and Ford Shyster and actuarial departments calculated the
cost of the related deaths.
For those unaware ford used the top of the gasoline tank as the floor of the
trunk. Anything thrown into the trunk was therefore thrown atop a gasoline
tank protected only by a mat placed loosely in the trunk area (imagine a
large vinyl floormat)
"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:QcTzf.1498$id.90@trnddc04...
> No, I am saying: just follow the money. Coffee is almost pure profit. 1
> serious injury resulting in a legal complaint in 24 million cups sold.
> Settle out of court for a few thousand, and you are tens of million
> dollars ahead. As far as the Pinto comparison goes, there were only a
> handful of injuries out of the millions sold. BTW, read carefully, it is
> not one injury on 24 million, it is one "complaint" as in legal action.
> The actual number of injuries is probably 10x that, but most people figure
> it's their own fault.
>
> billy ray wrote:
>> If 1 person in 10 was injured.. or 1 in a 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 it
>> may have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury
>> in 24 million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on
>> themselves.
>>
>> To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a
>> stretch... unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an
>> intentionally dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice
>> of forethought..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>
>>>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"?
>>>
>>
their interest to do so.
Coffee is, by its nature, a "hot" drink and carries certain well known
inherent risks primarily among them that it is hot.
The lady in question did not order "Iced" or "cold" coffee so it is assumed
by everyone not a shyster or in shyster mode that she intended it to be hot.
The coffee drinking association mentioned previously states the optimum
brewing temperature and holding temperatures are as high or higher than
McDonald's used.
No claim was made that this was her first cup of coffee or her first cup of
McDonald's coffee.
Coffee temperature is relatively easy to gauge from the outside of a paper
cup. If it is too hot to hold it is too hot to drink and therefore too hot
to pour upon herself.
Pouring coffee know to be 'to hot" on yourself is not, as far as I know, an
approved or suggested was of cooling coffee and no claim was made to that
effect.
Specialty coffee shops (i.e. Starbucks) brew coffee at the recommended
temperature... that is... a temperature higher than the McDonalds in
question.
Perhaps Starbucks patrons are less ignorant than McDonald's customers. This
goes against common sense as their patrons are willing and, indeed, eager to
pay $3-$5 for a cup of coffee.
I guess it comes down to personal accountability.
I cannot blame McDonalds for brewing and holding their product at a
temperature lower than the optimum according to industry figures.
I cannot blame a company if I spill a beverage from a non defective
container (no such claim was made) on myself.
I will not blame a company if I insist of consuming a product that I
requested be hot, was prepared hot, served hot, and I intentionally and with
full knowledge of it hotness spilt it upon myself.
On the other hand Ford designed the Pinto (and Mustang and Maverick) and
intentionally did not install any divider between the gasoline tank and the
trunk (other than a floor mat) which in many cases had direct opening into
the passenger compartment. The engineering department warned Ford officials
of the problem and Ford Shyster and actuarial departments calculated the
cost of the related deaths.
For those unaware ford used the top of the gasoline tank as the floor of the
trunk. Anything thrown into the trunk was therefore thrown atop a gasoline
tank protected only by a mat placed loosely in the trunk area (imagine a
large vinyl floormat)
"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:QcTzf.1498$id.90@trnddc04...
> No, I am saying: just follow the money. Coffee is almost pure profit. 1
> serious injury resulting in a legal complaint in 24 million cups sold.
> Settle out of court for a few thousand, and you are tens of million
> dollars ahead. As far as the Pinto comparison goes, there were only a
> handful of injuries out of the millions sold. BTW, read carefully, it is
> not one injury on 24 million, it is one "complaint" as in legal action.
> The actual number of injuries is probably 10x that, but most people figure
> it's their own fault.
>
> billy ray wrote:
>> If 1 person in 10 was injured.. or 1 in a 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 it
>> may have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury
>> in 24 million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on
>> themselves.
>>
>> To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a
>> stretch... unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an
>> intentionally dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice
>> of forethought..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>
>>>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"?
>>>
>>
#109
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Obituary
Yes, I will agree that shysters will always follow the money as it is in
their interest to do so.
Coffee is, by its nature, a "hot" drink and carries certain well known
inherent risks primarily among them that it is hot.
The lady in question did not order "Iced" or "cold" coffee so it is assumed
by everyone not a shyster or in shyster mode that she intended it to be hot.
The coffee drinking association mentioned previously states the optimum
brewing temperature and holding temperatures are as high or higher than
McDonald's used.
No claim was made that this was her first cup of coffee or her first cup of
McDonald's coffee.
Coffee temperature is relatively easy to gauge from the outside of a paper
cup. If it is too hot to hold it is too hot to drink and therefore too hot
to pour upon herself.
Pouring coffee know to be 'to hot" on yourself is not, as far as I know, an
approved or suggested was of cooling coffee and no claim was made to that
effect.
Specialty coffee shops (i.e. Starbucks) brew coffee at the recommended
temperature... that is... a temperature higher than the McDonalds in
question.
Perhaps Starbucks patrons are less ignorant than McDonald's customers. This
goes against common sense as their patrons are willing and, indeed, eager to
pay $3-$5 for a cup of coffee.
I guess it comes down to personal accountability.
I cannot blame McDonalds for brewing and holding their product at a
temperature lower than the optimum according to industry figures.
I cannot blame a company if I spill a beverage from a non defective
container (no such claim was made) on myself.
I will not blame a company if I insist of consuming a product that I
requested be hot, was prepared hot, served hot, and I intentionally and with
full knowledge of it hotness spilt it upon myself.
On the other hand Ford designed the Pinto (and Mustang and Maverick) and
intentionally did not install any divider between the gasoline tank and the
trunk (other than a floor mat) which in many cases had direct opening into
the passenger compartment. The engineering department warned Ford officials
of the problem and Ford Shyster and actuarial departments calculated the
cost of the related deaths.
For those unaware ford used the top of the gasoline tank as the floor of the
trunk. Anything thrown into the trunk was therefore thrown atop a gasoline
tank protected only by a mat placed loosely in the trunk area (imagine a
large vinyl floormat)
"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:QcTzf.1498$id.90@trnddc04...
> No, I am saying: just follow the money. Coffee is almost pure profit. 1
> serious injury resulting in a legal complaint in 24 million cups sold.
> Settle out of court for a few thousand, and you are tens of million
> dollars ahead. As far as the Pinto comparison goes, there were only a
> handful of injuries out of the millions sold. BTW, read carefully, it is
> not one injury on 24 million, it is one "complaint" as in legal action.
> The actual number of injuries is probably 10x that, but most people figure
> it's their own fault.
>
> billy ray wrote:
>> If 1 person in 10 was injured.. or 1 in a 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 it
>> may have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury
>> in 24 million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on
>> themselves.
>>
>> To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a
>> stretch... unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an
>> intentionally dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice
>> of forethought..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>
>>>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"?
>>>
>>
their interest to do so.
Coffee is, by its nature, a "hot" drink and carries certain well known
inherent risks primarily among them that it is hot.
The lady in question did not order "Iced" or "cold" coffee so it is assumed
by everyone not a shyster or in shyster mode that she intended it to be hot.
The coffee drinking association mentioned previously states the optimum
brewing temperature and holding temperatures are as high or higher than
McDonald's used.
No claim was made that this was her first cup of coffee or her first cup of
McDonald's coffee.
Coffee temperature is relatively easy to gauge from the outside of a paper
cup. If it is too hot to hold it is too hot to drink and therefore too hot
to pour upon herself.
Pouring coffee know to be 'to hot" on yourself is not, as far as I know, an
approved or suggested was of cooling coffee and no claim was made to that
effect.
Specialty coffee shops (i.e. Starbucks) brew coffee at the recommended
temperature... that is... a temperature higher than the McDonalds in
question.
Perhaps Starbucks patrons are less ignorant than McDonald's customers. This
goes against common sense as their patrons are willing and, indeed, eager to
pay $3-$5 for a cup of coffee.
I guess it comes down to personal accountability.
I cannot blame McDonalds for brewing and holding their product at a
temperature lower than the optimum according to industry figures.
I cannot blame a company if I spill a beverage from a non defective
container (no such claim was made) on myself.
I will not blame a company if I insist of consuming a product that I
requested be hot, was prepared hot, served hot, and I intentionally and with
full knowledge of it hotness spilt it upon myself.
On the other hand Ford designed the Pinto (and Mustang and Maverick) and
intentionally did not install any divider between the gasoline tank and the
trunk (other than a floor mat) which in many cases had direct opening into
the passenger compartment. The engineering department warned Ford officials
of the problem and Ford Shyster and actuarial departments calculated the
cost of the related deaths.
For those unaware ford used the top of the gasoline tank as the floor of the
trunk. Anything thrown into the trunk was therefore thrown atop a gasoline
tank protected only by a mat placed loosely in the trunk area (imagine a
large vinyl floormat)
"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:QcTzf.1498$id.90@trnddc04...
> No, I am saying: just follow the money. Coffee is almost pure profit. 1
> serious injury resulting in a legal complaint in 24 million cups sold.
> Settle out of court for a few thousand, and you are tens of million
> dollars ahead. As far as the Pinto comparison goes, there were only a
> handful of injuries out of the millions sold. BTW, read carefully, it is
> not one injury on 24 million, it is one "complaint" as in legal action.
> The actual number of injuries is probably 10x that, but most people figure
> it's their own fault.
>
> billy ray wrote:
>> If 1 person in 10 was injured.. or 1 in a 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 it
>> may have been company error. In this particular case there is one injury
>> in 24 million from a person spilling a beverage they KNOW to be hot on
>> themselves.
>>
>> To compare cups of coffee to Pinto gasoline tanks is a bit of a
>> stretch... unless you contend that the McDonald's Coffee Cup was of an
>> intentionally dangerous and defective design and was used with the malice
>> of forethought..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eZGdnSuP78gsPFLenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>
>>>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"?
>>>
>>
#110
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Obituary
Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Dave Milne wrote:
>
> So she didn't spill it ? It just "happened" ?
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Dave Milne wrote:
>
> So she didn't spill it ? It just "happened" ?
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ