McDonalds' lawsuit...and tool safety.

Page 3 of 5  


Oh my. ad hominems. In lieu of facts. Must be he doesn't *have* any facts.
I'm *so* flattered. *snicker*
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Youl didn't read it the first time, dip, so why post it again?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You lie. You *didn't* post any actual references regarding antiques. You the closest you came was when you claimed it was "in the U.S. customs laws".
"Title 39 United States Code" contains _all_ the customs *laws*. The word 'antique' does *NOT* appear in it anywhere. verifiable at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/19.html
In the Code of Federal Regulations, implementing those laws, there are thirteen occurrences of antique/antiques/antiquity: THREE are table-of-contents items, NINE are "antiques of an age exceeding 100 years" or "antiques of an age specified in 9707.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States", or "antiques as described in 10.53" (and section 10.53 uses the 'antiques of an age specified in 9707.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule) The last entry, in it's entirety: "antiques imported in good faith, but rejected as unauthentic". Verifiable at <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cfr/
The "Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States", contains precisely *one* reference, in section 9707.00.00, which specified:
"Antiques of an age exceeding 100 years"
as exempt from duty.
Oh yeah, I've got a 1939 Croseley table-top radio that U.S. CUSTOMS has officially recognized as an antique

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:a042c$3fc91b84

And this temperature had been determined by asking customers what THEY preferred. It wasn't just some guy that decided to make it hot. Customers told MCD they wanted it that hot.

Then the inside temp was wrong. MCD specified the temp was to be 185 +/-5 degrees. Today, thanks to the lawsuit, it's 155. Starbucks will make coffee hot (185) if you request it.

Again, because customers that buy coffee generally had a long commute the higher temp was needed to esnure it stayed warm. It was a reasonable thing for MCD to do.

The cup did have a "reminder" that the coffee was very hot.

McDonalds asked customers what they wanted, and then prepared it as they requested. A few customers didn't quite understand the danger inherent to the product they were asking for and were injured by it. Several folks have been injured from eating a MCD apple pie because the filling comes out of the frier at about 200 degrees.
I had a friend lose a finger because he stuck it under a Honda lawnmower that was running BUT the power drive had been disengaged. He though that when the drive was disengaged the blade stopped even though the motor was going. To hear him tell the story it's still a mystery to him why the blade keeps spinning even if the drive is stopped. He was certain the blade was stopped. Honda cut him a check for about $3K without even really contesting it as I recall.
Both accidents (coffee and mower) are unfortunate. Both accidents will always happen because folks don't quite understand what they are dealing with. Corporations will always have to pay for this, which means we'll always have to pay for this in the end. It all kind of works out in the wash.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, this is false. The facts in the case showed that that specific McDonald's franchise had received numerous complaints from previous customers that their coffee was too hot. Yet they did nothing. _That_ is why they were held liable.

Not in the face of repeated complaints, it wasn't reasonable.

Nope. Those warnings didn't appear on McD's coffee cups until *after* the lawsuit.

Again, false. Customers of that specific franchise had complained previously that it was too hot.
-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hmm. Google kicks ass.
See http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm "The actual facts about the McDonalds' Coffee Case"
"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. "

They had 700 claims that the coffee was too hot over 10 years the website says. They serve over 1M meals per day. If 10% order coffee, then that is 36.5M orders of coffee they served over 10 years. 700 complained, which is about 0.01% complaint rate. That's insignificant.

Website sez it did note the coffee was hot.

And certainly at 155 degrees some would complain it was too cold. Your point?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:57:27 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

At least SHE stuck to her word!
Hi, Dougie!...again!! lol
BTW...both points of your tag line are bogus.
You should go to the site where you got it...and tell them.
We often vote for more than 2 people for President (you did mean the President of the United States, didn't ya? If so, that should be a capital P).
And they always choose from more than 50 candidates for Miss America.
I find it interesting...that you chose to capitalize 'Miss America'...and not President! lol
'Bye, Dougie!
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Trent wrote:
<snip>

Common sense tells you to test it first, doesn't it? Not stick your hands in it for 5 seconds to see. Do you gulp hot coffee or sip it to see how hot it is? All I'm saying is I don't believe she used reasonable precautions to keep herself from being burned. As I rememebr they dropped the temp from 185 to 165 and were she to do the same again, I believe it would burn her again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:50:09 -0700, Grandpa <jsdebooATcomcast.net> wrote:

And the jury AGREED with you. She DIDN'T get all she asked for in ACTUAL damages...because they felt she contributed to the accident...just as you say.
The bulk her initial award was for PUNITIVE damages. And the jury simply took into account the many other accidents of this nature that happened with Mickey D hot coffee.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Dyslexics of the world ... UNTIE !
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Trent wrote:
<snip>

Doesn't make a rats ass either way. Common sense tells you not to put hot stuff near your crotch as it'll burn the hell out of you whether its 165 or 185. So McNastys lowered the temp of their coffee. If the old bitch does it again the lowered temp will still burn her snatch. Yeah, I'm partial to this arguemwnt as it happened in my hometown.
As for the tools, thats interesting that they can do this. I wonder if perhaps all power tools should maybe have a removable 'key' like Craftsman uses on their bigger stuff.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most likely YOU did not fully switch the sander off. It is relatively easy to make most switches go "off" without fully cliking them into the full off position. On a dust protected switch it is somewhat herder to see that you have done this, but then again you probably wouldn't have checked even if it wasn't a dust protected switch. So, yes, in my opinion any resultant fire would have been your fault - not the sander's manufacturer. I would assume however that the worst that would have happened is the sander would have run until it fell off the bench and broke.
My brother once was using a belt sander and accidently pulled out the plug while it was running. He did a couple of other tasks and then was ready to start sanding again. He walked over and plugged in the sander. The next day he bought a new sander as the one he had been using took a plung off the deck he was working on and landed on the concrete carport underneath. Yes, it was his fault. If there had been someone walking under there at the time and been hit in the head, that would have been his fault, too. Undoubedly, if that had been the case the sander maker would have been sued as clearly the sander switch "should" have failed to the "off" position upon loss of power and we should all pay for these smart switches.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30 Nov 2003 04:46:09 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@cs.com (David Hall) wrote:

Define 'off'. lol To the extent that I pushed the rocker switch...and the tool didn't get any electricity for several minutes...it was off.
There's no doubt in my mind that the switch was teetering...and that it had one of two directions to go in...and that it finally decided to go to the on position again.
In my mind, this is poor design. Can you do this with your electrical box breaker?...or table saw switch? I can't with mine.

Most? Maybe...maybe not. But the ones I've seen where the handle doesn't fully go to the off position, the switch will never turn back ON! It may hang there...not full down...like in the case of a common light switch, for instance. But I've never seen one go back on.
After going to a link I was given here, I see that this manufacturer has recalled many sanders because of this very same problem.

Actually, you can't tell at all...by looking at the switch. You can't see the switch.

Correct. Off...COMPLETELY off to me...has always been when you operate the switch and the tool stops running.

From what I read, there have been several major fires caused by this problem...but no deaths.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Dyslexics of the world ... UNTIE !
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oh believe me if the insurer can find away out of paying then it most definitely would of been your fault
just my cynical tuppence worth
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hey, maybe there is hope for you. You must be thinking of some other lawsuit, perhaps one of the many fake stories that are propagated.

Really? Like what?

Now you've really got me interested. This must be big.

Name a couple. Better yet give us some information from transcripts or briefs and above all refer to the tort in question.

You're opposed to the adversarial system?
And you say "if"? I thought you knew the faults and had the answers.

Lawyers, like doctors, are self-regulating. I would call both a failure, but the legal system's great handicap are the legislatures. How is it you think it should be "monitered"? Perhaps religious leaders givings edicts?

You drink coffee that burns?

I don't believe you.
and

You should read what happened...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
p_j wrote:

You must be a lawyer. Only a lawyer wouldn't know that our court system is broken.
Go sit in any traffic court which usually handles a multitude of stuff not traffic related, and you will be appalled at what goes on and the injustices done and the way judges handle trials. Did you watch the OJ trial? That was enough to make any intelligent person puke, regardless of whether you believe he did or did not do the deed. It was the subject of derision by most people for months, and that doesn't suggest that something is wrong?
Most of what goes on in a court room is just posturing and emotion building by lawyers. Prosecutor spend great amounts of time on how heinous a crime is which has no bearing on whether a specific individual did or did not commit the crime. It's just passion building to get the jury pissed and find somebody, anybody, guilty. What's the nonsense of a prosecutor charging the defendant with 80 different crimes when he murders someone? Yea, legislatures are to blame, they should immediately remove the status of doctors and lawyers to be self governing. But legislatures have exerted little control over trial conduct.
You want examples? A lawyer runs over two kids that are off the highway because she has been drinking but claims the sun was in her eyes. It's established that she has had at least 6 drinks in the hour and one-half before the "accident." She is found guilty of the most minor offense and given 40 hours of public service. Claims it would be a hardship and never receives any punishment. You think maybe it was because she worked on the prosecutors staff?
How about silicon breast implants? We know how that ended and the big bucks involved. However, leading scientists generally agree that there is no evidence that silicone caused the women's complaints. Oh and if you don't like that one. Take the tobacco case. Anyone who has ever smoked, knows that smoking is bad for you. What the hell do you think caused all that hacking and coughing. And the packs say right on them that they will kill you. So what reasonable person would smoke them. You may not like tobacco and you may not like the tobacco companies, but who is at fault, the tobacco company or the individual that smokes even though he can barely get through the first cigarette? And apportioning fault is total bullshit. No one forced anyone to smoke, and if you stupid enough to ever smoke the 2nd or more cigarette, it's all your fault.
Want to improve the court system. Easy, pass a law that a lawyer may not receive more than 5 percent or $100,000 of a settlement which ever is lower. Then pass a law that civil suits can't be ganged together. And, pass a law that lawyers and judges may not be elected a representative or a senator, because it is a conflict of interest and violation of the separation of power. And finally, make judges accountable by undergoing period review (not less that every 3 years) with the potential for being removed permanently from the bench by a board that is not composed of lawyers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George Cawthon writes:

Not always. Smoking killed my father, but he never saw a warning on a cigaret pack: IIRC, that first arrived about '65, maybe '64, and his throat cancer killed him in '61.
The big problem with the cigaret companies is the FACT that their internal memos prove that they knew of the damage smoking does several decades before the public did, and spent much effort, and tons of money, hiding the facts.

Just one thought to add to that: why do kids still smoke today, in the face of the expense (when I started, Viceroys cost about a quarter a pack: when I quit, Luckies were 9 bucks a carton; today, the cost is on the order of $35 a carton in tobacco states), the parental disdain (sometimes), the difficulty even finding a place to smoke?
Charlie Self
"Say what you will about the ten commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them." H. L. Mencken
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01 Dec 2003 00:50:45 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

They smoke because its THERE!
MY question...why is tobacco still THERE?!
We've outlawed less dangerous drugs. Hell...even marijuana isn't as bad for you as cigarette smoke.
Why don't we just outlaw it? (rhetorical...I DO know the answer! lol)
Have a nice week...
Trent
Dyslexics of the world ... UNTIE !
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The answer is the money they generate, and contribute to campaigns and other things politicians have access to. They spend massive amounts on advertizing and much of the end product (not the cigarettes etc) end up in sports, youth sports and other stuff. Its all about money, nothing else.
Trent wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Trent" wrote:

Gasoline is there, but most of us aren't stupid enough to huff it. There is no reason that it shouldn't be there. It is called freedom. I agree that the government shouldn't support tobacco agriculture, there is no reason to outlaw it. And you are wrong, marijuana smoke is much worse for you than regular tobacco smoke, not counting the psychodellic part.
Hey, why don't we outlaw fat?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 02:15:32 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"

We're GOING to...hang in there! lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Dyslexics of the world ... UNTIE !
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.