OK, I can accept that. As much as I hate to admit it, as more of the facts of the case are presented on this forum (assuming that they are indeed facts) it's beginning to make some sense. Without crafting another verbose response, let me just say that yours and Mapcase's posts seem to indicate that the court agreed that serving a beverage at a temperature that can cause the type of burn that Stella suffered is reasonably dangerous. I would tend to agree.

 

u can get money if you burn yourself?

chit man i spilled a cup of hot cappachino on my lap 3 weeks ago ended up with burn blisters from it on my meat missle balzac for 3 days, all i got was a free coffe after i offered to sho th manager th burns.

if i hadda knnown i could score some dough ida gone and seen a lawyer rigth after taking pics of it

 

You can't blame the lawyers their making a living. The blame goes to the jury and or judges that award the money. No I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

 

I certainly can... It is lawyers that make the rules that allow this crap to continue, it is lawyers who have been elected to office that refuse to enact any type of tort reform.
A simple English law about loser pays would end a great many of these sillyass lawsuits.

 

Pure water at 1 atmosphere pressure, yes. Changes in pressure and/or purity will shift the boiling point and/or freezing point.

 

Nope, not a litigator. Sometimes they actually do something decent, though.

 

Admitting you are ignorant is the first step to being able to cure that condition, congratulations on taking that step. It is a pity you are not sincere about wanting to actually learn about it, though. You make it clear you want to remain ignorant, so I will refrain from explaining it to you.

It doesn't solve the issue, and isn't intended to, just like all the other warning labels these days. Again, I'll refrain from ruining your blissful state of ignorance.

That is the only intelligent thing you said in your whole post. Did someone else feed you that line? It doesn't fit with the rest of what you said...

 

I blame the plaintiff(s). As we continue with a society where personal responsibility is optional, fault is always elsewhere, and there exists a conundrum of law and regulation that requires ever constant additions to patch up the "loopholes" and move toward a more "civilized" existence, people will continue attempting to recoup their losses through whatever means possible.

 

Just wondering where you got your infromation. Several links such as
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm says the coffee at that McDonalds was 180-190 degrees. There are several others, but they say essentially the same as this one. As you stated "knowing the details ......"

 

I still like the commercial where Jack poured hot coffee in the guys lap and followed it with cold orange juice and asked which one was better for breakfast.

On as side note though I kind of like what Old Billy said about lawyers.