Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richnorth who wrote (80690)	1/12/2002 11:45:23 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116753

While some of these litigations are out to lunch, the one concerning the 3rd degree burns at MacDonalds is really not. 3rd degree burns are really 3rd degree. They are serious. The women was hospitalized and her case was serious. The question is, why was the coffee so hot? The behind the scenes reason is that the chains have been in competition to get drive through business and drive through coffees are always cooled by winter wind and waiting in the car before they are consumed. Lukewarm coffee is a business loser, so the chains tell their franchisees to raise the temperature of the coffee to a scalding degree. Hence the women was caught as a victim of a coffee war to keep customers that was wrong-headed. The coffee would have burned the roof of her mouth if it had not spilled on her. How hot was the coffee? To cause those kind of burns, probably pretty close to 200 degrees. The next time a restaurant serves me coffee that hot they can get it back in the face. Then they can sue me. We are told caveat emptor as if it is entirely the responsibility of the ignorant and powerless consumer to tippie toe warily through a jungle of irresponsible, unaccountable and monied employers and retailers. Bureaucratic money-hungry business has to be held accountable for its actions. These actions I will admit bear an awesome responsibility. But what does the little guy have to say about it? Hence the great leveller of legal responsibility. Divide her 2.9 million dollar settlement by the billions of scalding coffees and burnt mouths, and you will see that is is farthings per coffee and I am sure it hurt MacDonalds not a whit, and I am afraid did not smarten them up much either. The point is to get them to be more responsible, not less accountable. But I am afraid it just made them ever more determined to make it so the next injury is somehow not their fault, by more disclaimers, and slicker lawyering. EC<:-}