I'm too big a pansy. I don't even eat spicy food! <grin>BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm pretty sure they were warned about it because one of main points made during that case was that the coffee was being heated at extremely high and unsafe temperatures. For failing to comply with health and safety standards, they lost a lot money from that point alone. The coffee they serve you now should be at the suitable hot temperature (just not as scaldingly hot as the coffee that injured that lady), but maybe at the McDonald's you frequent you could have a profitable settlement right in your lap just waiting to be exploited... (Just kidding. You're a good man, but if the money's right...Woodruff wrote:I can buy that, except...part of the levy against McDonald's should have been that they LOWER THE TEMPERATURE OF THE COFFEE, rather than simply putting a warning label on the cup. But it wasn't, as far as I'm aware...it seems just as damn hot as always.BigBallinStalin wrote: Well what people tend to forget about that case is that she got 2nd and I'm pretty sure she also received 3rd degree burns, because the coffee was heated at dangerously high levels. That McDonald's establishment decided to forego health standards/rules by heating the coffe at an extremely high temperature in order to increase customer service speed.
I wouldn't want to support the notion that she deserves that much money, but that lawsuit and the punishment placed on McDonald's serves as a good warning for them to properly adhere to safety standards.
(I'm not arguing with your other points over the reasoning of why this and that happens and how it can be ridiculous because it really can be. I'm just providing more insight to this particular case.)
)
