Wal-Mart sued for improperly assembled bicycle

[Eric Vey]

http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/213237-wal-mart-sued-for-improperly-assembled-bicycle

. . .
During Tony Willyard's first ride June 4, 2006, the handle bars
"detached from the steering stem, causing Plaintiff to lose control of
the bicycle, flip over the handle bars, and strike the ground, hitting
his right shoulder on the curb, and causing Plaintiff severe and
permanent injuries," the complaint states.
. . .

[!Jones]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:48:14 -0500, in uk.local.yorkshire "Carl
Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net> wrote:

>
>"!Jones" <hi@there.org> wrote in message
>news:q1fa541alo2hn8mublddmdu0lifkchnqhq@4ax.com...
>>
>> It's odd that a recreational newsgroup would be as vitrolic as this
>> one is, I say. One usually sees such uncivilized discourse in the
>> alt.activism.* hierarchy; however, it's quite unusual to find it
>> dominating a group in the rec.* branch. Of course, you will always
>> see the odd poster in *any* group who will make an effort to insult
>> his or her (generally, "his") reader... herein, you have a large
>> cohort!
>>
>
>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E7D81F3CF936A15752C1A96F9582 60

Hummm... now, *that* piques my interest! I have not heard of that
happening before. The courts (quite rightly, IMO) are very reluctant
to referee Usenet squabbles as they usually don't ever motivate any
physical act.

I changed the title and cross-posted... if you trim the headers in any
replies, then it won't hurt my feelings any.

Jones

[jim beam]

Eric Vey wrote:
> http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/213237-wal-mart-sued-for-improperly-assembled-bicycle
>
>
> . . .
> During Tony Willyard's first ride June 4, 2006, the handle bars
> "detached from the steering stem, causing Plaintiff to lose control of
> the bicycle, flip over the handle bars, and strike the ground, hitting
> his right shoulder on the curb, and causing Plaintiff severe and
> permanent injuries," the complaint states.
> . . .


cT = 0.96.

dude, walmart get sued a thousand times a day. from defective
toothbrushes to poison bathroom cleaner. the ability to litigate
frivolously against our financial/commercial behemoths is one of our
greatest freedoms. and for said behemoths, it's simply a cost of doing
business.

next please.

[!Jones]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:16:31 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech Eric Vey
<junker@ericvey.com> wrote:

>http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/213237-wal-mart-sued-for-improperly-assembled-bicycle
>
> . . .
>During Tony Willyard's first ride June 4, 2006, the handle bars
>"detached from the steering stem, causing Plaintiff to lose control of
>the bicycle, flip over the handle bars, and strike the ground, hitting
>his right shoulder on the curb, and causing Plaintiff severe and
>permanent injuries," the complaint states.
> . . .

They'll settle out of court for between 10 and 20K. Low end if they
documented training and quality assured the assembly; high end if no
training at all.

It's an every day thing.

Jones

[Chalo]

Eric Vey wrote:
>
> http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/213237-wal-mart-sued-for-improperly...
>
> * . . .
> During Tony Willyard's first ride June 4, 2006, the handle bars
> "detached from the steering stem, causing Plaintiff to lose control of
> the bicycle, flip over the handle bars, and strike the ground, hitting
> his right shoulder on the curb, and causing Plaintiff severe and
> permanent injuries," the complaint states.
> * . . .

For what it's worth, I worked on two Walmart bikes for a couple of
neighborhood kids (a brother and sister) today. They were both 20"
Mongoose freestyle bikes. The kids brought them to me because there
was "something wrong with the steering".

Now, both these bikes were relatively new and in almost unused
condition-- knurled texture intact along the centerline of the tires,
paint clean even under the BB, no noticeable brake wear. But they
were both so ineptly assembled that I think the job qualified as
negligent.

All eight of the brake pads on the bikes were set up so they contacted
the rim over less than half of their widths, with the remainder
rubbing the tire when the brakes were applied. But the worst part was
the "steering" problem: The stem wedge bolts were so loose that the
handlebars could easily be turned with respect to the front wheel.
One was so sloppy that I could slew it to and fro without even
immobilizing the front wheel, the other was loose enough that I could
slip it by holding the front tire in one hand and twisting the
handlebar crossbrace with the other hand.

The mag wheels on one of the bikes were so loosely toleranced that a
tire blew off at less than its rated sidewall pressure while I was
inflating it. That's a manufacturing issue, but it's the retailer's
responsibility to sort it out with the manufacturer instead of just
handing it off to the end user-- particularly when the end user is a
child.

The kids reached their limit of patience with the bikes' loose
handlebars when they both wiped out simultaneously going around a
corner. Children have no reason to know one way or the other about
the roadworthiness of their bikes, but whoever assembled the bikes at
Walmart sure does. If one or both of those kids had been seriously
hurt, I think a lawsuit against the retailer would have been
completely justifiable.

Chalo

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Jun 10, 12:16*pm, Eric Vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/213237-wal-mart-sued-for-improperly...
>
> * . . .
> During Tony Willyard's first ride June 4, 2006, the handle bars
> "detached from the steering stem, causing Plaintiff to lose control of
> the bicycle, flip over the handle bars, and strike the ground, hitting
> his right shoulder on the curb, and causing Plaintiff severe and
> permanent injuries," the complaint states.
> * . . .

Dear Eric,

The thread long since abandoned bicycles for coffee, so this is just
the easiest place to hang a general comment.

Lots of vague claims have been made about coffee temperatures, but we
can get considerably better precision without Power Tap prices.

I don't drink coffee, but RBT enthusiasts might have fun finding out
how hot the java really is in their cup with this cheap toy:

http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=93983

The advantage over a normal thermometer, apart from absurd precision,
is that you don't have to stick a probe into your coffee and can
politely check every cup on the table.

Works on tea, too, another beverage that I wouldn't drink as long as
water was available.

My remote thermometer shows that that the outside of my double-wall
insulated coke glass is about 68.7F, but the coke inside is about
42.1F (point it at the ice cubes and the reading changes).

On a faintly related note, you can get a nice low-range digital scale
for the same ~$12 from the same place:

http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=93543

Set it down, zero it, pick it up, walk around, and watch a poor man's
accelerometer measuring vibration in real time.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[still just me]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:31:39 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>
>
>cT = 0.96.
>
>dude, walmart get sued a thousand times a day. from defective
>toothbrushes to poison bathroom cleaner. the ability to litigate
>frivolously against our financial/commercial behemoths is one of our
>greatest freedoms. and for said behemoths, it's simply a cost of doing
>business.
>
>next please.

Sorry, troll minder, but the word "frivolously" does not necessarily
apply to this claim, although it may to many other suits against
WalMart.

Walmart hires people to assemble bikes. They then sell them with the
reasonable expectation of them being properly assembled. Unless they
come with a disclaimer of "bike not properly assembled, recheck all
our work" then they are likely (and correctly) liable for this. The
bike was three days old, the injuries are substantial, they're going
to lose (or likely settle) for a substantial sum.

[SMS]

still just me wrote:

> Walmart hires people to assemble bikes. They then sell them with the
> reasonable expectation of them being properly assembled. Unless they
> come with a disclaimer of "bike not properly assembled, recheck all
> our work" then they are likely (and correctly) liable for this. The
> bike was three days old, the injuries are substantial, they're going
> to lose (or likely settle) for a substantial sum.

My son's friend came over this morning, and I was putting his bicycle
behind our gate so it wouldn't be stolen. With each revolution of the
front wheel it rubbed the brake pad. I tried the brakes and they barely
contacted the rims, either back or front, apparently they were adjusted
so the out of true wheels wouldn't rub. Both pedals were broken. A fine
$50 Huffy bicycle from Target, assembled by a mininum wage teenager.

I should have left it out in front of the house so it could be stolen.
His parents could well afford to buy him a decent bicycle, but of course
the problem isn't really a lack of money, it's that they just don't know
any better. It often doesn't cost much more money. If they had bought
him a $200 bike shop bicycle it could be passed on to his brother, and
then sold on craigslist for $75, they'd have been out only a bit more
money. I bought my son a Jamis bicycle on sale at Sports Basement for
$160, one of the only "tween" bicycles I could find anywhere. Once he's
done with it I'm sure I can sell it for at least $80, maybe more because
it's so hard to find this type of bicycle.

Bicycle shops have to start doing some outreach programs at early ages,
teaching parents and kids about bicycles. They could start with offering
to do programs at groups like scouting groups, or offering to
participate in enrichment days at schools (where local businesses often
show up with programs to teach kids about the real world).

[still just me]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:39:26 -0500, !Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:

>
>They'll settle out of court for between 10 and 20K. Low end if they
>documented training and quality assured the assembly; high end if no
>training at all.
>
>It's an every day thing.

It will go higher than that. I had similar, but lesser injuries and
spent $13K in medical costs alone. If the kid really has permanent
injuries, they will have to send quite a bit more his way.

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:57:06 GMT, still just me
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:39:26 -0500, !Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>They'll settle out of court for between 10 and 20K. Low end if they
>>documented training and quality assured the assembly; high end if no
>>training at all.
>>
>>It's an every day thing.
>
>It will go higher than that. I had similar, but lesser injuries and
>spent $13K in medical costs alone. If the kid really has permanent
>injuries, they will have to send quite a bit more his way.


A client of an insurance company I do work for had an uninsured
handyman fix a changeroom door. While the door was off the hinges, one
of their customers bumped the door and it fell and banged their head.
The insurance company IN CANADA paid out 80 grand - NO PERMANENT
INJURIES.
If this Wallmart case in in the US, it will very likely go over 100
grand.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[!Jones]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:57:06 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech still just me
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:39:26 -0500, !Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>They'll settle out of court for between 10 and 20K. Low end if they
>>documented training and quality assured the assembly; high end if no
>>training at all.
>>
>>It's an every day thing.
>
>It will go higher than that. I had similar, but lesser injuries and
>spent $13K in medical costs alone. If the kid really has permanent
>injuries, they will have to send quite a bit more his way.

Not unless the injured party fights for it. He or she will have to be
ready to go to court and that takes 10 to 15K in front money... if the
person is broke, they can pay 60%. A lawyer comes in and gets 50K;
big deal... I'd settle for 20K out of court; it's where I end up.

But, it all depends: a young, white, female (particularly a blonde)
will be premium.

Then, there's the negligence issue. Being liable for damages is one
thing, knowing the bike wasn't assembled properly and selling it
anyway is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. Once it gets there, it
doesn't have a cap on it... but you have a tougher standard to meet.

Jones

[Luke]

In article <hpp35414hmbr253v76g4q2uh9op9p4mi5n@4ax.com>, clare at
snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:

> A client of an insurance company I do work for had an uninsured
> handyman fix a changeroom door. While the door was off the hinges, one
> of their customers bumped the door and it fell and banged their head.
> The insurance company IN CANADA paid out 80 grand - NO PERMANENT
> INJURIES.
> If this Wallmart case in in the US, it will very likely go over 100
> grand.

Shoulda been wearing a brain bucket. Donning the flame retardant suit...

[* * Chas]

<clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada> wrote in message
news:hpp35414hmbr253v76g4q2uh9op9p4mi5n@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:57:06 GMT, still just me
> <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:39:26 -0500, !Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>They'll settle out of court for between 10 and 20K. Low end if they
> >>documented training and quality assured the assembly; high end if no
> >>training at all.
> >>
> >>It's an every day thing.
> >
> >It will go higher than that. I had similar, but lesser injuries and
> >spent $13K in medical costs alone. If the kid really has permanent
> >injuries, they will have to send quite a bit more his way.
>
>
> A client of an insurance company I do work for had an uninsured
> handyman fix a changeroom door. While the door was off the hinges, one
> of their customers bumped the door and it fell and banged their head.
> The insurance company IN CANADA paid out 80 grand - NO PERMANENT
> INJURIES.
> If this Wallmart case in in the US, it will very likely go over 100
> grand.
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Some very interesting anti-plaintiff precedents have been set here in the
US as a result of the exorbitant settlements for frivolous claims of the
past 10-15 years - the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit is a good example.

These large settlements have encouraged unscrupulous trial lawyers (also
known as "ambulance chasers") to pursue more borderline cases. The result
has been that many bona fide claims for real injuries have been minimized
or outright denied.

The number of "slip and fall" claims have proliferated to such a point
that the burden of proof has been set so high that many legitimate lawyers
do not want to take on these kinds of cases.

It seems that many insurance companies here in the US have a policy of
quickly settling frivolous claims while vigorously fighting claims for
real injuries.

I recently settled a property damage suit for less than my out of pocket
legal expenses. Allstate Insurance spent over $250,000 and 4 years
defending against a claim that originally could have been settled for
under $10,000. I took their "take it or leave it" settlement offer
because they suggested that the case could be stretched out another 2
years if I didn't.

So in the case of Wal-Mart and the defective bike, they may or may not
settle quickly. Many insurance companies are making low "take it or leave
it" offers.

Chas.

[!Jones]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:22:00 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech clare at
snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:

>A client of an insurance company I do work for had an uninsured
>handyman fix a changeroom door. While the door was off the hinges, one
>of their customers bumped the door and it fell and banged their head.
>The insurance company IN CANADA paid out 80 grand - NO PERMANENT
>INJURIES.
>If this Wallmart case in in the US, it will very likely go over 100

Canada and the US have no significant difference in that area. They
had to be feeding a solicitor to get that much; besides, retail
premises defect will usually exceed product liability.

Jones... who knows nothing about the Wally-World deal.

[still just me]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:06:24 -0700, "* * Chas"
<verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:

>
><clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada> wrote in message
>news:hpp35414hmbr253v76g4q2uh9op9p4mi5n@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:57:06 GMT, still just me
>> <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:39:26 -0500, !Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>They'll settle out of court for between 10 and 20K. Low end if they
>> >>documented training and quality assured the assembly; high end if no
>> >>training at all.
>> >>
>> >>It's an every day thing.
>> >
>> >It will go higher than that. I had similar, but lesser injuries and
>> >spent $13K in medical costs alone. If the kid really has permanent
>> >injuries, they will have to send quite a bit more his way.
>>
>>
>> A client of an insurance company I do work for had an uninsured
>> handyman fix a changeroom door. While the door was off the hinges, one
>> of their customers bumped the door and it fell and banged their head.
>> The insurance company IN CANADA paid out 80 grand - NO PERMANENT
>> INJURIES.
>> If this Wallmart case in in the US, it will very likely go over 100
>> grand.
>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
>Some very interesting anti-plaintiff precedents have been set here in the
>US as a result of the exorbitant settlements for frivolous claims of the
>past 10-15 years - the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit is a good example.

Actually, if you do some reading on the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit
you will find that it was not at all frivolous. First, the coffee the
woman was served was at a temperature high enough to burn human flesh.
We're not talking hot coffee... we're talking scalding hot coffee.
Second, McDonalds knew the coffee was scalding hot. Their own internal
memos recognized and discussed it. The 160 degree serving temperature
was in their manual (All franchises are required to follow "the
manual" to the letter). Third, they had over 600 previous claims filed
against them for the same issue documented in their own records.
(Their employees and records testified to this point) Fourth,
McDonalds claimed that they made the coffee extra hot because people
"drank it when they got home" but this point actually cost them dearly
in the case when their own employee testified that their market
research showed that people drank their coffee in their car, not at
home.

In short, their own records and employees sunk their case by showing
their obvious knowledge of the problem, the fact that it had been
repeatedly addressed, and their negligence in correcting a dangerous
situation.

In addition, the woman did not initially sue them. Note that she was
so badly burned that she required substantial skin grafts. She asked
them only to cover her medical bills of about $10K. They refused. It
wasn't until then that she hired an attorney. Lastly, the award she
received was reduced by a Judge to about $600K - which, considering
the 600 claims, McDonald's gross negligence, and their corporate
worth, was a pittance.

>These large settlements have encouraged unscrupulous trial lawyers (also
>known as "ambulance chasers") to pursue more borderline cases. The result
>has been that many bona fide claims for real injuries have been minimized
>or outright denied.

I agree there. But the mentality now (see above) is also that any case
with a large award is automatically suspect and the plaintiff a
scammer.

>The number of "slip and fall" claims have proliferated to such a point
>that the burden of proof has been set so high that many legitimate lawyers
>do not want to take on these kinds of cases.

Personal Injury lawyers always seem ready - although cases of lower
injury level are given minimal time and attention and assigned junior
lawyers.

>It seems that many insurance companies here in the US have a policy of
>quickly settling frivolous claims while vigorously fighting claims for
>real injuries.

no $hit.

>I recently settled a property damage suit for less than my out of pocket
>legal expenses. Allstate Insurance spent over $250,000 and 4 years
>defending against a claim that originally could have been settled for
>under $10,000. I took their "take it or leave it" settlement offer
>because they suggested that the case could be stretched out another 2
>years if I didn't.

Yep, I know the problem. It's a strange mentality. A car nearly killed
me on my bike with obvious liability by the driver. Instead of
offering me a minor settlement (and covering medical expenses they
were legally required to cover anyway under state law) they fired the
first shot by sending me a bill for damages to the car. Guess what I
did next.

>So in the case of Wal-Mart and the defective bike, they may or may not
>settle quickly. Many insurance companies are making low "take it or leave
>it" offers.

I think the liability in this case is way too clear... but you never
know...

[still just me]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:58:33 -0500, !Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:

>Not unless the injured party fights for it. He or she will have to be
>ready to go to court and that takes 10 to 15K in front money... if the
>person is broke, they can pay 60%. A lawyer comes in and gets 50K;
>big deal... I'd settle for 20K out of court; it's where I end up.

Anywhere I've been in the USA personal injury lawyers work on a % of
settlement, with no costs to the plaintiff unless there's a win.

>But, it all depends: a young, white, female (particularly a blonde)
>will be premium.
>
>Then, there's the negligence issue. Being liable for damages is one
>thing, knowing the bike wasn't assembled properly and selling it
>anyway is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. Once it gets there, it
>doesn't have a cap on it... but you have a tougher standard to meet.

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:v85854h7ubk44ue8vcdpvnl9jea5kjvq1h@4ax.com,
!Jones <hi@there.org> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:22:00 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech clare at
> snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>
>> A client of an insurance company I do work for had an uninsured
>> handyman fix a changeroom door. While the door was off the hinges,
>> one of their customers bumped the door and it fell and banged their
>> head. The insurance company IN CANADA paid out 80 grand - NO
>> PERMANENT INJURIES.
>> If this Wallmart case in in the US, it will very likely go over 100
>
> Canada and the US have no significant difference in that area. They
> had to be feeding a solicitor to get that much; besides, retail
> premises defect will usually exceed product liability.
>
> Jones... who knows nothing about the Wally-World deal.

Suggested last line revision:

"Jones - who knows nothing about the varying provincial and state laws on
product liability or payment schedules for health care."

[!Jones]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:22:32 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Sandy"
<leurrre@free.fr> wrote:

>> Jones... who knows nothing about the Wally-World deal.
>
>Suggested last line revision:
>
>"Jones - who knows nothing about the varying provincial and state laws on
>product liability or payment schedules for health care."

Well, that wouldn't be accurate. I'm a retired insurance underwriter
formerly with Farmer's Insurance Group out of LA and currently
teaching employee benefits at Texas A&M University, Kingsville, TX. I
freely admit that South Texas is about as far from Canada as you can
get in the US; however, my wife is a Newfy from Saint John's and I try
to spend my summers in your beautiful country. If the US ever starts
drafting 60-year-old men (and we might), I'm coming up there to live!

Please do not place words in my mouth. I'm quite able to speak for
myself, thank you,

Jones

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:2he854p4lopdt75kirekufg4o9j5334u4n@4ax.com,
!Jones <hi@there.org> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:22:32 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Sandy"
> <leurrre@free.fr> wrote:
>
>>> Jones... who knows nothing about the Wally-World deal.
>>
>> Suggested last line revision:
>>
>> "Jones - who knows nothing about the varying provincial and state
>> laws on product liability or payment schedules for health care."
>
> I try to spend my summers in your beautiful country.

Let it astound you as I sign this, in further confirmation of your
ignorance.....


--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

[!Jones]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:29:15 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Sandy"
<leurrre@free.fr> wrote:

>Let it astound you as I sign this, in further confirmation of your
>ignorance.....

You were arguing about Canadian provencial laws; therefore, I made the
assumption that you were Canadian. I meant no offense.

Have a great rest of your life.

Jones

[Tom Kunich]

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vr0954pjb2tvho1qvh48ktv7ho1ckvtrft@4ax.com...
>
> Actually, if you do some reading on the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit
> you will find that it was not at all frivolous. First, the coffee the
> woman was served was at a temperature high enough to burn human flesh.
> We're not talking hot coffee... we're talking scalding hot coffee.

You mean like ANY boiling water that someone makes for themselves? Let's not
forget that the coffee was advertised as HOT. Let's not forget that most
people wanted it that way. And especially let's not forget that the woman
spilled the coffee on herself.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 14, 11:16 pm, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Actually, if you do some reading on the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit
> you will find that it was not at all frivolous. First, the coffee the
> woman was served was at a temperature high enough to burn human flesh.
> We're not talking hot coffee... we're talking scalding hot coffee.
> Second, McDonalds knew the coffee was scalding hot. Their own internal
> memos recognized and discussed it. The 160 degree serving temperature
> was in their manual (All franchises are required to follow "the
> manual" to the letter).

Yes, we've been through this before.

I don't drink coffee. I switched to tea way back in college, when
coffee started bothering my stomach during late night study sessions.

And fearless tea drinkers - everyone from Jolly Roger pirates to
dainty old ladies in white floppy hats - have _always_ known that tea
is made with water at a full, rolling biol. Hell, those little old
ladies even pre-heat their teapots to keep the temperature up.

Are tea drinkers really reckless daredevils? Not really. Every cook
working every kitchen or village cookfire in the world routinely deals
with boiling water. They're just smart enough not to put it in their
lap. Especially in a moving vehicle.

I'm no McDonalds fan. I enter them perhaps once in ten years, usually
under duress. But that case, and Stella, and her lawyers, and nearly
all the other McDonalds-suing lawyers, deserve all the mockery they've
gotten.

- Frank Krygowski

[SMS]

still just me wrote:

> Actually, if you do some reading on the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit
> you will find that it was not at all frivolous.

<snip>

Yeah, but it's just such a good anti-lawyer sound bite that the the
neo-con radio talks show hosts, and even the late night TV talk show
hosts couldn't resist taking the whole incident completely out of context.

The woman who was burned was a passenger, not the driver, McDonald's
_knew_ that they were serving coffee far too hot to drink when served
having received more than 700 claims for burns prior to this case, and
they lied about the reason they serve it so hot. The jury reduced the
compensatory award of $200K by 20% to $160K because they found the
plaintiff 20% liable. The judge reduced the punitive award against
McDonald's from $2.7 million to $480K, and the two parties settled for
an undisclosed amount. McDonald's reduced the temperature of the coffee
they served from 180 degrees to around 160 degrees.

[Tom Kunich]

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ds09545fi2gcp7pkddbp7lmv0nv5ne392d@4ax.com...
>
> Anywhere I've been in the USA personal injury lawyers work on a % of
> settlement, with no costs to the plaintiff unless there's a win.

Sure - except for that lawyer of mine that misfiled the suit and then had it
thrown out. He then forged my signature on a paper saying that I was paying
him by the hour.

Oh yeah, and when I got a new lawyer to sue the old lawyer he said to forget
it because that lawyer had been the president of the bar association and
most of the judges in town were his personal friends.

[!Jones]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:17:01 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech still just me
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Anywhere I've been in the USA personal injury lawyers work on a % of
>settlement, with no costs to the plaintiff unless there's a win.

It can work either way. *I* wouldn't hire a lawyer thus, though. If
your case is weak, they'll want straight quid pro quo, anyway. If
it's strong, then they'll want first fruits; however, you can always
get them to take an hourly rate... or, you can always *find* one who
will; let's put it that way.

I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, our system does, in
fact, encourage frivolous law suits. On the other hand, if damage was
limited to actual cost, then it would be cheaper for a manufacturer to
settle the resulting damages than to market a safe product.

It, like many aspects of life, is a trade-off.

Jones

[Bill Sornson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vr0954pjb2tvho1qvh48ktv7ho1ckvtrft@4ax.com...
>>
>> Actually, if you do some reading on the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit
>> you will find that it was not at all frivolous. First, the coffee the
>> woman was served was at a temperature high enough to burn human
>> flesh. We're not talking hot coffee... we're talking scalding hot
>> coffee.
>
> You mean like ANY boiling water that someone makes for themselves?
> Let's not forget that the coffee was advertised as HOT. Let's not
> forget that most people wanted it that way. And especially let's not
> forget that the woman spilled the coffee on herself.

In general I agree with taking personal responsibility, but I've had soft
drinks spill when the top they put on the cup comes off when I grasped the
cup. If a coffee cup lid isn't secured correctly, then I can see it popping
off and getting burned pretty badly. Not saying that's what happened to the
Mickey D's woman, but it's at least plausible.

More than anything (and like most things), it all comes down to competence
and common sense.

Bill S.

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 14, 9:00*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "still just me" <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:ds09545fi2gcp7pkddbp7lmv0nv5ne392d@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > Anywhere I've been in the USA personal injury lawyers work on a % of
> > settlement, with no costs to the plaintiff unless there's a win.
>
> Sure - except for that lawyer of mine that misfiled the suit and then had it
> thrown out. He then forged my signature on a paper saying that I was paying
> him by the hour.
>
> Oh yeah, and when I got a new lawyer to sue the old lawyer he said to forget
> it because that lawyer had been the president of the bar association and
> most of the judges in town were his personal friends.

Sorry man, I don't believe it. Not in SCV -- it's not Dog Patch. If
you had a good case, then it would have made no difference that the
defendant was a well known attorney with personal friends who are
judges. Every lawyer who has been around a while has judges who are
personal friends. I think what you heard was code for "I don't want
your case." -- Jay Beattie.

[* * Chas]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:kMudnUX_1vREDsnVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> "still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ds09545fi2gcp7pkddbp7lmv0nv5ne392d@4ax.com...
> >
> > Anywhere I've been in the USA personal injury lawyers work on a % of
> > settlement, with no costs to the plaintiff unless there's a win.
>
> Sure - except for that lawyer of mine that misfiled the suit and then
had it
> thrown out. He then forged my signature on a paper saying that I was
paying
> him by the hour.
>
> Oh yeah, and when I got a new lawyer to sue the old lawyer he said to
forget
> it because that lawyer had been the president of the bar association and
> most of the judges in town were his personal friends.
>

When you sue a lawyer for malpractice it's best to select a shark from a
different school, i.e. another community or county.

There's a rare breed of lawyers that specialize in legal malpractice
suits. They're not real popular with the other sharks.

About 15 years ago I was trying to buy a small home for my dad who lived
in another state. He was in his 80s and had been renting the place for a
number of years and didn't want to move. I approached the seller's lawyer
with a clean cash offer. Three months later the cost had increased $25k.
The lawyer was scamming us so I hired another lawyer through the local Bar
Association to get out of the deal.

It turned out the lawyer that I hired was best friends with the seller's
lawyer and was trying to scam me too. At that point I contacted the Bar
Assn's Ethics Committee and they referred me to a legal malpractice
lawyer. One phone call to him and I got out of the deal and got all of my
deposit money and fees back. All it cost me was the $25 referral fee. I
was lucky.

Chas.

[Michael Press]

In article
<eae13a35-59ff-4711-bd27-bd7fa8d0d27e@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 14, 11:16 pm, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Actually, if you do some reading on the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit
> > you will find that it was not at all frivolous. First, the coffee the
> > woman was served was at a temperature high enough to burn human flesh.
> > We're not talking hot coffee... we're talking scalding hot coffee.
> > Second, McDonalds knew the coffee was scalding hot. Their own internal
> > memos recognized and discussed it. The 160 degree serving temperature
> > was in their manual (All franchises are required to follow "the
> > manual" to the letter).
>
> Yes, we've been through this before.
>
> I don't drink coffee. I switched to tea way back in college, when
> coffee started bothering my stomach during late night study sessions.
>
> And fearless tea drinkers - everyone from Jolly Roger pirates to
> dainty old ladies in white floppy hats - have _always_ known that tea
> is made with water at a full, rolling biol. Hell, those little old
> ladies even pre-heat their teapots to keep the temperature up.

This they what they know, and it is true for many teas.
Other teas are much better steeped with water poured
at < 200 F. Darjeeling, for instance. Green oolong
is best steeped at 180 F, and for less than a minute.

--
Michael Press

[still just me]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:21:29 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm no McDonalds fan. I enter them perhaps once in ten years, usually
>under duress. But that case, and Stella, and her lawyers, and nearly
>all the other McDonalds-suing lawyers, deserve all the mockery they've
>gotten.

Sorry, but you're wrong in this case. They knowingly served a product
that was dangerous to customers. Their files were full of external and
internal discussions and acknowledgement of the danger. They chose to
ignore the danger. They knew better. They were negligent. They
rightfully lost the suit.

I'm not legitimizing the many, many frivolous lawsuits that get filed
every year by money hungry lawyers and their clients. However, in this
case the suit was just.

[* * Chas]

"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:2c0aaa11-a8e5-44ee-b6f6-6953cc587d35@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 14, 9:00 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "still just me" <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:ds09545fi2gcp7pkddbp7lmv0nv5ne392d@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > Anywhere I've been in the USA personal injury lawyers work on a % of
> > settlement, with no costs to the plaintiff unless there's a win.
>
> Sure - except for that lawyer of mine that misfiled the suit and then
had it
> thrown out. He then forged my signature on a paper saying that I was
paying
> him by the hour.
>
> Oh yeah, and when I got a new lawyer to sue the old lawyer he said to
forget
> it because that lawyer had been the president of the bar association and
> most of the judges in town were his personal friends.

>Sorry man, I don't believe it. Not in SCV -- it's not Dog Patch. If
>you had a good case, then it would have made no difference that the
>defendant was a well known attorney with personal friends who are
>judges. Every lawyer who has been around a while has judges who are
>personal friends. I think what you heard was code for "I don't want
>your case." -- Jay Beattie.

Good point about a lawyer not wanting to take a case. Lawyers are in
business and they look at a potential case with their monetary intrests in
mind not yours.

Chas.

[!Jones]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:41:09 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Jay
Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

>I think what you heard was code for "I don't want
>your case."

True; however, I have found that a cash retainer will usually change
that code quickly. If the lawyer is ethical, then he or she will tell
you the truth about your chances.

Having a mouthpiece who knows the judge is most deffo a *BIG* plus.
It also works the other way... you do *not* want a shyster at whom the
court is pissed for some reason unrelated to your case. I know, I
know; in theory, it doesn't matter... in theory... honeybees can't
fly, or so I've heard someplace.

Jones

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:jm2a54553iv0fao2g611e6clmq4gggorm7@4ax.com,
!Jones <hi@there.org> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:29:15 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Sandy"
> <leurrre@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> Let it astound you as I sign this, in further confirmation of your
>> ignorance.....
>
> You were arguing about Canadian provencial [sic] laws; therefore, I made
> the
> assumption that you were Canadian. I meant no offense.

So, you were insulting which nationality? Canadian? USA?

[!Jones]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:39:15 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Sandy"
<leurrre@free.fr> wrote:

>Dans le message de news:jm2a54553iv0fao2g611e6clmq4gggorm7@4ax.com,
>!Jones <hi@there.org> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:29:15 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Sandy"
>> <leurrre@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Let it astound you as I sign this, in further confirmation of your
>>> ignorance.....
>>
>> You were arguing about Canadian provencial [sic] laws; therefore, I made
>> the assumption that you were Canadian. I meant no offense.
>
>So, you were insulting which nationality? Canadian? USA?

It's odd that a recreational newsgroup would be as vitrolic as this
one is, I say. One usually sees such uncivilized discourse in the
alt.activism.* hierarchy; however, it's quite unusual to find it
dominating a group in the rec.* branch. Of course, you will always
see the odd poster in *any* group who will make an effort to insult
his or her (generally, "his") reader... herein, you have a large
cohort!

Let me leave you with one of my "silver bullets" of wisdom, sir or
ma'am, as appropriate, because, basically, I'm just passing through on
my way to Australia --> Being so overtly offensive that you cause the
other person to walk away from you shaking his or her head in disgust
isn't quite the same thing as "winning" a debate.

Please keep that in mind as you speak your peace.

Jones

[Luke]

In article <48551b84$0$3387$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Sandy
<leurrre@free.fr> wrote:

> Dans le message de news:jm2a54553iv0fao2g611e6clmq4gggorm7@4ax.com,
> !Jones <hi@there.org> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:29:15 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech "Sandy"
> > <leurrre@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> Let it astound you as I sign this, in further confirmation of your
> >> ignorance.....
> >
> > You were arguing about Canadian provencial [sic] laws; therefore, I made
> > the
> > assumption that you were Canadian. I meant no offense.
>
> So, you were insulting which nationality? Canadian? USA?
>

The French?

[still just me]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:12:01 -0500, !Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:

>It can work either way. *I* wouldn't hire a lawyer thus, though. If
>your case is weak, they'll want straight quid pro quo, anyway. If
>it's strong, then they'll want first fruits; however, you can always
>get them to take an hourly rate... or, you can always *find* one who
>will; let's put it that way.

I don't know about that. PI Lawyers want to work on commission. Their
theory is that if they take the case, it's because they feel they can
win. If they win, they get all the hourly costs they would have
charged you PLUS the flat commission. It doesn't make much sense for
them to work on any other basis. If you find a lawyer willing to take
on a PI case on a non-commission basis I'd speculate that he's not
expert in the field.

[Fry]

!Jones wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:48:14 -0500, in uk.local.yorkshire "Carl
>Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"!Jones" <hi@there.org> wrote in message
>>news:q1fa541alo2hn8mublddmdu0lifkchnqhq@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> It's odd that a recreational newsgroup would be as vitrolic as this
>>> one is, I say. One usually sees such uncivilized discourse in the
>>> alt.activism.* hierarchy; however, it's quite unusual to find it
>>> dominating a group in the rec.* branch. Of course, you will always
>>> see the odd poster in *any* group who will make an effort to insult
>>> his or her (generally, "his") reader... herein, you have a large
>>> cohort!
>>>
>>
>>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E7D81F3CF936A15752C1A96F9582 60
>
>Hummm... now, *that* piques my interest! I have not heard of that
>happening before. The courts (quite rightly, IMO) are very reluctant
>to referee Usenet squabbles as they usually don't ever motivate any
>physical act.
>
>I changed the title and cross-posted... if you trim the headers in any
>replies, then it won't hurt my feelings any.
>
>Jones

Net abuser!

[!Jones]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:54:54 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech Fry
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

>!Jones wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:48:14 -0500, in uk.local.yorkshire "Carl
>>Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"!Jones" <hi@there.org> wrote in message
>>>news:q1fa541alo2hn8mublddmdu0lifkchnqhq@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> It's odd that a recreational newsgroup would be as vitrolic as this
>>>> one is, I say. One usually sees such uncivilized discourse in the
>>>> alt.activism.* hierarchy; however, it's quite unusual to find it
>>>> dominating a group in the rec.* branch. Of course, you will always
>>>> see the odd poster in *any* group who will make an effort to insult
>>>> his or her (generally, "his") reader... herein, you have a large
>>>> cohort!
>>>>
>>>
>>>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E7D81F3CF936A15752C1A96F9582 60
>>
>>Hummm... now, *that* piques my interest! I have not heard of that
>>happening before. The courts (quite rightly, IMO) are very reluctant
>>to referee Usenet squabbles as they usually don't ever motivate any
>>physical act.
>>
>>I changed the title and cross-posted... if you trim the headers in any
>>replies, then it won't hurt my feelings any.
>>
>>Jones
>
>Net abuser!

.... and proud of it, honey-buns!

Jones

[Tom Kunich]

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ufdg545bb25e5l99hdpf1ahjp0kortfupv@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:21:29 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm no McDonalds fan. I enter them perhaps once in ten years, usually
>>under duress. But that case, and Stella, and her lawyers, and nearly
>>all the other McDonalds-suing lawyers, deserve all the mockery they've
>>gotten.
>
> Sorry, but you're wrong in this case.

Sorry but you're wrong.

If someone buys HOT COFFEE and doesn't know it's hot then it is a clear case
of Buyer Beware.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 17, 6:18 pm, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:21:29 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm no McDonalds fan. I enter them perhaps once in ten years, usually
> >under duress. But that case, and Stella, and her lawyers, and nearly
> >all the other McDonalds-suing lawyers, deserve all the mockery they've
> >gotten.
>
> Sorry, but you're wrong in this case. They knowingly served a product
> that was dangerous to customers.

As dangerous as the tea I pour every day!

> Their files were full of external and
> internal discussions and acknowledgement of the danger. They chose to
> ignore the danger. They knew better. They were negligent. They
> rightfully lost the suit.

I'll admit that I haven't seen McDonalds supposed files regarding
their hot coffee - but I'm suspicious about them being proof of
anything. Here's why.

I imagine every large corporation that deals with the public is a
constant target of ambitious lawyers, much like Microsoft, Yahoo and
Ebay are constant targets of hackers. I would expect all these
corporations have documents related to each "attack." McDonalds (or
GM, or even your public library) having such a document is not an
admission of guilt.

Yes, hot coffee is dangerous. So are sharp knives, which are (gasp!)
presented to patrons in thousands or restaurants every day. So are
power saws, which hardware stores recklessly sell to untrained
consumers. So are hammers, which have been implicated in thousands of
murders. But if Home Depot keeps records of a lawsuit ("Your hammer
was used to kill my husband in a bar fight!") it means nothing.

And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
aren't being sued and vilified.

Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.

- Frank Krygowski

[still just me]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:29:17 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

>Sorry but you're wrong.
>
>If someone buys HOT COFFEE and doesn't know it's hot then it is a clear case
>of Buyer Beware.

You don't understand the difference between HOT and DANGEROUS to human
flesh. Thankfully the court did.

[Carl Sundquist]

"Frank Krygowski" <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4884eaa1-4d1c-4736-adf0-2a81a817fa5e@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
> scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
> I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
> with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
> over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
> aren't being sued and vilified.
>
> Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Is holding a steaming hot cup of tea in your crotch considered proper
etiquette in a tea room?

[still just me]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>As dangerous as the tea I pour every day!

And less dangerous than the propane torch I was using over the
weekend, or my lawn mower, or the ladder I plan to use today. But
that's not the point. Coffee is expected to be HOT, not DANGEROUS.
McDonalds served it at the DANGEROUS point. My propane torch, the lawn
mower, and the ladder, on the contrary are expected to be dangerous.

>I'll admit that I haven't seen McDonalds supposed files regarding
>their hot coffee - but I'm suspicious about them being proof of
>anything. Here's why.

The documents were filed in the court case. You can read them if you
are inclined. They included not only 600 previous claims/complaints to
McDonalds, but internal discussion of the issue of temperature and its
danger to human skin. The issue for them was that they clearly knew of
the problem and clearly made a conscious decision to continue to do
what they were doing. Therefore, right or wrong, they are liable for
their decision.

>And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
>scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
>I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
>with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
>over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
>aren't being sued and vilified.
>

I'd make a wild guess that if someone got scalded at a tea house and
required significant medical care that they would approach the tea
house and file against the insurance company for the tea house. The
insurance company would likely pay the claim, but hypothetically, they
could choose to argue.

>Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.

Note that she did NOT initially sue McDonalds. She asked for them to
cover her out-of-pocket medical costs of $10K. No big bonus, no
rewards, just medical costs. It was not until they steadfastly refused
that she sued.

This case had nothing to do with deep-pockets until they forced her
hand.

[Bill Sornson]

Carl Sundquist wrote:
> "Frank Krygowski" <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4884eaa1-4d1c-4736-adf0-2a81a817fa5e@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
>> scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
>> I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water,
>> along with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions
>> we've had over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why
>> tea houses aren't being sued and vilified.
>>
>> Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Is holding a steaming hot cup of tea in your crotch considered proper
> etiquette in a tea room?

Do people hand patrons scalding hot tea in cardboard cups with ill-fitting
plastic pop-off tops?

[A Muzi]

> "Frank Krygowski" <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote
>> And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
>> scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
>> I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
>> with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
>> over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
>> aren't being sued and vilified.
>> Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.

Carl Sundquist wrote:
> Is holding a steaming hot cup of tea in your crotch considered proper
> etiquette in a tea room?

As a cyclist who drives infrequently but takes driving seriously my
personal opinion is that every ditz brain who drives a motor vehicle
while drinking a beverage should be boiled in oil. A cup of hot water is
a good start.

Maybe she'll pay better attention to the cyclists in the lane next to
her without the coffee distraction. All that goes double for driving
distracted by cell phones, text messaging and video displays (maps,
porn, whatnot). It's a multi-thousand pound projectile fer chrissake
-please pay attention!
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 17, 10:49 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
> > "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:4884eaa1-4d1c-4736-adf0-2a81a817fa5e@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
> >> scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
> >> I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water,
> >> along with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions
> >> we've had over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why
> >> tea houses aren't being sued and vilified.
>
> >> Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.
>
> >> - Frank Krygowski
>
> > Is holding a steaming hot cup of tea in your crotch considered proper
> > etiquette in a tea room?

Nope. Not in a tea room, and not in a moving car. Its considered
flagrantly stupid in either place.

> Do people hand patrons scalding hot tea in cardboard cups with ill-fitting
> plastic pop-off tops?

No, Bill, it's even worse! They serve them in thin china cups with no
insulation and no tops at all.

So are you ready to sue them?

- Frank Krygowski

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Jun 17, 8:49*pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
> >> scalding temperatures. *In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
> >> I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
> >> with delicate little snacks. *In the repeated discussions we've had
> >> over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
> >> aren't being sued and vilified.
> >> Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
> > Is holding a steaming hot cup of tea in your crotch considered proper
> > etiquette in a tea room?
>
> As a cyclist who drives infrequently but takes driving seriously my
> personal opinion is that every ditz brain who drives a motor vehicle
> while drinking a beverage should be boiled in oil. A cup of hot water is
> a good start.
>
> Maybe she'll pay better attention to the cyclists in the lane next to
> her without the coffee distraction. All that goes double for driving
> distracted by cell phones, text messaging and video displays (maps,
> porn, whatnot). It's a multi-thousand pound projectile fer chrissake
> -please pay attention!
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> * <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> * Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

Dear Andrew,

Could you please tell us whether she was the driver or the passenger,
how old she was, and describe the extent of her injuries and
surgeries--that is, first, second, or third degree burns, how many
skin grafts were required, where they were, and how long she was in
the hospital?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Carl Sundquist]

"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:95b66$48587734$22119@news.teranews.com...
>
> As a cyclist who drives infrequently but takes driving seriously my
> personal opinion is that every ditz brain who drives a motor vehicle while
> drinking a beverage should be boiled in oil. A cup of hot water is a good
> start.
>
> Maybe she'll pay better attention to the cyclists in the lane next to her
> without the coffee distraction. All that goes double for driving
> distracted by cell phones, text messaging and video displays (maps, porn,
> whatnot). It's a multi-thousand pound projectile fer chrissake -please pay
> attention!
> --

Andrew,

I'm not picking on you specifically, but there is a general attitude that
drivers are the one who are always at fault and cyclists are always innocent
and behaving properly.

Yes, in a car/bike collision the bike is always going to be the loser and
yes, the driver is physically protected by a multi thousand pound metal
shield. But what about their conscience and their soul? Is there no
acknowledgement that (at least some) drivers who have killed or gravely
injured a cyclist suffer as well? There is plenty of fault to spread around
whether it is drivers with cell phones or video displays or riders running
stoplights and stop signs or making aberrent manuevers, all thoughtless and
careless actions on the rider's part.

[SMS]

A Muzi wrote:

> As a cyclist who drives infrequently but takes driving seriously my
> personal opinion is that every ditz brain who drives a motor vehicle
> while drinking a beverage should be boiled in oil. A cup of hot water is
> a good start.

The woman in the McDonald's case wasn't the driver, she was a passenger.

> Maybe she'll pay better attention to the cyclists in the lane next to
> her without the coffee distraction.

Perhaps, but do you really think that a passenger needs to pay attention
to the cyclists in the next lane?

[Tom Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
> ...
> As a cyclist who drives infrequently but takes driving seriously my
> personal opinion is that every ditz brain who drives a motor vehicle
> while drinking a beverage should be boiled in oil....

Even drinking from a CamelBak? I know of some endurance racing drivers
that use them to keep hydrated.

--
Tom "Drinks while stopped at red lights" Sherman - Holstein-Friesland
Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Tom Kunich]

<carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7f4ffec0-b77b-4af3-aebc-41676f144c9b@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Could you please tell us whether she was the driver or the passenger,
> how old she was, and describe the extent of her injuries and
> surgeries--that is, first, second, or third degree burns, how many
> skin grafts were required, where they were, and how long she was in
> the hospital?

Can you explain what difference any of that would make? If you purchase a
cup of coffee one would naturally assume that you have the ability to drink
it without spilling it all over yourself.

[A Muzi]

>>> "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
>>>> scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
>>>> I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
>>>> with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
>>>> over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
>>>> aren't being sued and vilified.
>>>> Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.

>> Carl Sundquist wrote:
>>> Is holding a steaming hot cup of tea in your crotch considered proper
>>> etiquette in a tea room?

> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> As a cyclist who drives infrequently but takes driving seriously my
>> personal opinion is that every ditz brain who drives a motor vehicle
>> while drinking a beverage should be boiled in oil. A cup of hot water is
>> a good start.
>> Maybe she'll pay better attention to the cyclists in the lane next to
>> her without the coffee distraction. All that goes double for driving
>> distracted by cell phones, text messaging and video displays (maps,
>> porn, whatnot). It's a multi-thousand pound projectile fer chrissake
>> -please pay attention!

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> Could you please tell us whether she was the driver or the passenger,
> how old she was, and describe the extent of her injuries and
> surgeries--that is, first, second, or third degree burns, how many
> skin grafts were required, where they were, and how long she was in
> the hospital?

Never met her. I have an irrationally intense response to distracted
drivers. Too many incidents in traffic.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[still just me]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:47 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:7f4ffec0-b77b-4af3-aebc-41676f144c9b@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Could you please tell us whether she was the driver or the passenger,
>> how old she was, and describe the extent of her injuries and
>> surgeries--that is, first, second, or third degree burns, how many
>> skin grafts were required, where they were, and how long she was in
>> the hospital?
>
>Can you explain what difference any of that would make? If you purchase a
>cup of coffee one would naturally assume that you have the ability to drink
>it without spilling it all over yourself.

That wasn't the issue - even McDonalds didn't argue that point.

[Michael Press]

In article <u-CdnTh5QrMlKsTVnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:7f4ffec0-b77b-4af3-aebc-41676f144c9b@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > Could you please tell us whether she was the driver or the passenger,
> > how old she was, and describe the extent of her injuries and
> > surgeries--that is, first, second, or third degree burns, how many
> > skin grafts were required, where they were, and how long she was in
> > the hospital?
>
> Can you explain what difference any of that would make? If you purchase a
> cup of coffee one would naturally assume that you have the ability to drink
> it without spilling it all over yourself.

Maybe she had a drinking problem.

--
Michael Press

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:47:36 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
wrote:

>>>> "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
>>>>> scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
>>>>> I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
>>>>> with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
>>>>> over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
>>>>> aren't being sued and vilified.
>>>>> Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.
>
>>> Carl Sundquist wrote:
>>>> Is holding a steaming hot cup of tea in your crotch considered proper
>>>> etiquette in a tea room?
>
>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> As a cyclist who drives infrequently but takes driving seriously my
>>> personal opinion is that every ditz brain who drives a motor vehicle
>>> while drinking a beverage should be boiled in oil. A cup of hot water is
>>> a good start.
>>> Maybe she'll pay better attention to the cyclists in the lane next to
>>> her without the coffee distraction. All that goes double for driving
>>> distracted by cell phones, text messaging and video displays (maps,
>>> porn, whatnot). It's a multi-thousand pound projectile fer chrissake
>>> -please pay attention!
>
>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> Could you please tell us whether she was the driver or the passenger,
>> how old she was, and describe the extent of her injuries and
>> surgeries--that is, first, second, or third degree burns, how many
>> skin grafts were required, where they were, and how long she was in
>> the hospital?
>
>Never met her. I have an irrationally intense response to distracted
>drivers. Too many incidents in traffic.

Dear Andrew,

She was a passenger. Her grandson was the driver.

You might want to look into the other details and reconsider things.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Tom Kunich]

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oRj6k.2623$qa5.1698@newsfe13.lga...
>
> Yes, in a car/bike collision the bike is always going to be the loser and
> yes, the driver is physically protected by a multi thousand pound metal
> shield. But what about their conscience and their soul? Is there no
> acknowledgement that (at least some) drivers who have killed or gravely
> injured a cyclist suffer as well? There is plenty of fault to spread
> around whether it is drivers with cell phones or video displays or riders
> running stoplights and stop signs or making aberrent manuevers, all
> thoughtless and careless actions on the rider's part.

Carl, maybe you ought to start watching driver's behavior when you're
driving next time. I am growing more and more surprised that these people
are being allowed to drive in such a manner! I was pulled over by the
Highway Patrol and my car was seized and towed because it had an out of date
license sticker (DMV made an entry mistake saying I owned money on the car
and so the finance company owned it - trouble is that there was no other
name on the pink slip and hence PLAINLY there was no finance company to own
it).

While that officer was doing that there were tractor trailers passing us IN
THE COMMUTER LANES at 70 mph. After towing my vehicle the officer got back
in her car and drove back to the office where she was awarded (no kidding!)
Officer of the Month.

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:51:46 -0500, "Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
>news:95b66$48587734$22119@news.teranews.com...
>>
>> As a cyclist who drives infrequently but takes driving seriously my
>> personal opinion is that every ditz brain who drives a motor vehicle while
>> drinking a beverage should be boiled in oil. A cup of hot water is a good
>> start.
>>
>> Maybe she'll pay better attention to the cyclists in the lane next to her
>> without the coffee distraction. All that goes double for driving
>> distracted by cell phones, text messaging and video displays (maps, porn,
>> whatnot). It's a multi-thousand pound projectile fer chrissake -please pay
>> attention!
>> --
>
>Andrew,
>
>I'm not picking on you specifically, but there is a general attitude that
>drivers are the one who are always at fault and cyclists are always innocent
>and behaving properly.
>
>Yes, in a car/bike collision the bike is always going to be the loser and
>yes, the driver is physically protected by a multi thousand pound metal
>shield. But what about their conscience and their soul? Is there no
>acknowledgement that (at least some) drivers who have killed or gravely
>injured a cyclist suffer as well? There is plenty of fault to spread around
>whether it is drivers with cell phones or video displays or riders running
>stoplights and stop signs or making aberrent manuevers, all thoughtless and
>careless actions on the rider's part.


What really gets me about a LOT of cyclists is when they ride on the
sidewalk and ride across crosswalks - or ride on the wrong side of the
road (like a pedestrian) - and wonder why they are not seen when they
come sailing through.
Drivers are NOT looking for a 2 wheeled rocket to be coming up the
wrong side of the road (or scooting across the crosswalk at over
10mph)
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Carl Sundquist]

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:RLadnVczFvbrVsTVnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> "Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:oRj6k.2623$qa5.1698@newsfe13.lga...
>>
>> Yes, in a car/bike collision the bike is always going to be the loser and
>> yes, the driver is physically protected by a multi thousand pound metal
>> shield. But what about their conscience and their soul? Is there no
>> acknowledgement that (at least some) drivers who have killed or gravely
>> injured a cyclist suffer as well? There is plenty of fault to spread
>> around whether it is drivers with cell phones or video displays or riders
>> running stoplights and stop signs or making aberrent manuevers, all
>> thoughtless and careless actions on the rider's part.
>
> Carl, maybe you ought to start watching driver's behavior when you're
> driving next time. I am growing more and more surprised that these people
> are being allowed to drive in such a manner! I was pulled over by the
> Highway Patrol and my car was seized and towed because it had an out of
> date license sticker (DMV made an entry mistake saying I owned money on
> the car and so the finance company owned it - trouble is that there was no
> other name on the pink slip and hence PLAINLY there was no finance company
> to own it).
>
> While that officer was doing that there were tractor trailers passing us
> IN THE COMMUTER LANES at 70 mph. After towing my vehicle the officer got
> back in her car and drove back to the office where she was awarded (no
> kidding!) Officer of the Month.
>

Tom,

I'm not saying there isn't much reprehensible conduct on the part of motor
vehicle drivers. There is far too much and it does seem to be getting worse
daily. Regardless, what happened to you does not change the fact that some
bicycle riders are at fault in tragic accidents and that some drivers suffer
emotionally for it.

[Tom Kunich]

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Ibk6k.2631$qa5.924@newsfe13.lga...
>
> I'm not saying there isn't much reprehensible conduct on the part of motor
> vehicle drivers. There is far too much and it does seem to be getting
> worse daily. Regardless, what happened to you does not change the fact
> that some bicycle riders are at fault in tragic accidents and that some
> drivers suffer emotionally for it.

I'll agree that many bicycle accidents are caused by the rider. Even the
people I ride with will often run stop signs without looking. While I also
will run back street stop signs, I only do so when I can see that it is
clear.

And I have seen bicyclists (thank heavens none that I ride with) run stop
lights THROUGH MOVING TRAFFIC.

Stupidity knows no bounds. Just because you're on a bicycle doesn't make you
smart.

[still just me]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:25:55 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
canada wrote:

>What really gets me about a LOT of cyclists is when they ride on the
>sidewalk and ride across crosswalks - or ride on the wrong side of the
>road (like a pedestrian) - and wonder why they are not seen when they
>come sailing through.
>Drivers are NOT looking for a 2 wheeled rocket to be coming up the
>wrong side of the road (or scooting across the crosswalk at over
>10mph)
>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Fortunately or unfortunately, the law in many areas allows cyclists to
act either as pedestrians or as motor vehicles. If you get in an
accident with a motor vehicle, the other side will claim that
whichever you chose to do was wrong.

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:25:55 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
canada wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:51:46 -0500, "Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
>>news:95b66$48587734$22119@news.teranews.com...
>>>
>>> As a cyclist who drives infrequently but takes driving seriously my
>>> personal opinion is that every ditz brain who drives a motor vehicle while
>>> drinking a beverage should be boiled in oil. A cup of hot water is a good
>>> start.
>>>
>>> Maybe she'll pay better attention to the cyclists in the lane next to her
>>> without the coffee distraction. All that goes double for driving
>>> distracted by cell phones, text messaging and video displays (maps, porn,
>>> whatnot). It's a multi-thousand pound projectile fer chrissake -please pay
>>> attention!
>>> --
>>
>>Andrew,
>>
>>I'm not picking on you specifically, but there is a general attitude that
>>drivers are the one who are always at fault and cyclists are always innocent
>>and behaving properly.
>>
>>Yes, in a car/bike collision the bike is always going to be the loser and
>>yes, the driver is physically protected by a multi thousand pound metal
>>shield. But what about their conscience and their soul? Is there no
>>acknowledgement that (at least some) drivers who have killed or gravely
>>injured a cyclist suffer as well? There is plenty of fault to spread around
>>whether it is drivers with cell phones or video displays or riders running
>>stoplights and stop signs or making aberrent manuevers, all thoughtless and
>>careless actions on the rider's part.
>
>
>What really gets me about a LOT of cyclists is when they ride on the
>sidewalk and ride across crosswalks - or ride on the wrong side of the
>road (like a pedestrian) - and wonder why they are not seen when they
>come sailing through.
>Drivers are NOT looking for a 2 wheeled rocket to be coming up the
>wrong side of the road (or scooting across the crosswalk at over
>10mph)
>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Another one just had his leg broken yesterday here in Kitchener
pulling that stunt. Shot out on the crosswalk in front of a driver
making a turn.
Driver was not charged.
Good chance the rider will be.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[still just me]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:00:25 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>Dear Andrew,
>
>She was a passenger. Her grandson was the driver.
>
>You might want to look into the other details and reconsider things.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel

And you could google for more. I no longer have the journal on hand
that described the case and testimony in detail. The burns were
severe. Again, it's important to note that she didn't sue initially,
she just asked Mc Donalds for help with the sizeable ($10K) medical
bills related to the grafts and treatment.

[A Muzi]

-snip meandering conversation-

> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
-snip rant-

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> She was a passenger. Her grandson was the driver.

In that event, I was both off topic and out of line (ranting about
distracted drivers drinking coffee while almost driving).
Sorry.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 19, 9:56 am, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:29:17 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
>
> com> wrote:
> >Sorry but you're wrong.
>
> >If someone buys HOT COFFEE and doesn't know it's hot then it is a clear case
> >of Buyer Beware.
>
> You don't understand the difference between HOT and DANGEROUS to human
> flesh. Thankfully the court did.

Again, what about tea? It's properly made by using boiling water.
It's properly served very hot. This has been true for many hundreds
of years. See http://pages.ripco.net/~c4ha2na9/tea/faq.html

Yet that same water is - OMG! - also "DANGEROUS to human flesh"!!!

Is it just that tea drinkers are intelligent enough to understand that
hot water can harm you, and coffee drinkers need to be constantly
reminded of what every first grader knows?

- Frank Krygowski

[* * Chas]

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9hpk54lfd38j125ilfj7c46bgu95hjhiat@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:25:55 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
> canada wrote:
>
> >What really gets me about a LOT of cyclists is when they ride on the
> >sidewalk and ride across crosswalks - or ride on the wrong side of the
> >road (like a pedestrian) - and wonder why they are not seen when they
> >come sailing through.
> >Drivers are NOT looking for a 2 wheeled rocket to be coming up the
> >wrong side of the road (or scooting across the crosswalk at over
> >10mph)
> >** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
> Fortunately or unfortunately, the law in many areas allows cyclists to
> act either as pedestrians or as motor vehicles. If you get in an
> accident with a motor vehicle, the other side will claim that
> whichever you chose to do was wrong.
>
>

In California, to be considered a pedestrian you have to dismount and walk
beside the bike. Not too long ago, there were communities that required
cyclist to dismount and walk their bikes across intersections. Most if not
all of these rulings have been struck down.

I've noticed recently that several communities in the Bay Area have
started enforcing traffic laws with regards to violations committed by
cyclists. The minimum fines are usually ~$149 or $271 USD - PLUS court
costs which can total up to several hundred additional dollars.

Citations can be treated the same as CA motor vehicle moving violations
and can be charged against your driving record which could affect your
automobile insurance rates. They can also be treated as local violations
and not reported to the state.

Chas.

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:03:02 GMT, still just me
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:25:55 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
>canada wrote:
>
>>What really gets me about a LOT of cyclists is when they ride on the
>>sidewalk and ride across crosswalks - or ride on the wrong side of the
>>road (like a pedestrian) - and wonder why they are not seen when they
>>come sailing through.
>>Drivers are NOT looking for a 2 wheeled rocket to be coming up the
>>wrong side of the road (or scooting across the crosswalk at over
>>10mph)
>>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
>Fortunately or unfortunately, the law in many areas allows cyclists to
>act either as pedestrians or as motor vehicles. If you get in an
>accident with a motor vehicle, the other side will claim that
>whichever you chose to do was wrong.
>
In Canada a cyclist is a VEHICLE, but not a motor vehicle, and is
bound by ALL "rules of the road".
Only kids under a certain age, on bikes under a certain size are
allowed to ride on the sidewalk (by bylaw in some towns/cities) - and
ALL cyclists are required to dismount if using a crosswalk. That's the
LAW - at least here in Ontario.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[* * Chas]

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mdpk54dfpkcqmprob5p7kllpiemm6h333r@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >As dangerous as the tea I pour every day!
>
> And less dangerous than the propane torch I was using over the
> weekend, or my lawn mower, or the ladder I plan to use today. But
> that's not the point. Coffee is expected to be HOT, not DANGEROUS.
> McDonalds served it at the DANGEROUS point. My propane torch, the lawn
> mower, and the ladder, on the contrary are expected to be dangerous.
>
> >I'll admit that I haven't seen McDonalds supposed files regarding
> >their hot coffee - but I'm suspicious about them being proof of
> >anything. Here's why.
>
> The documents were filed in the court case. You can read them if you
> are inclined. They included not only 600 previous claims/complaints to
> McDonalds, but internal discussion of the issue of temperature and its
> danger to human skin. The issue for them was that they clearly knew of
> the problem and clearly made a conscious decision to continue to do
> what they were doing. Therefore, right or wrong, they are liable for
> their decision.
>
> >And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
> >scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
> >I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
> >with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
> >over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
> >aren't being sued and vilified.
> >
>
> I'd make a wild guess that if someone got scalded at a tea house and
> required significant medical care that they would approach the tea
> house and file against the insurance company for the tea house. The
> insurance company would likely pay the claim, but hypothetically, they
> could choose to argue.
>
> >Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.
>
> Note that she did NOT initially sue McDonalds. She asked for them to
> cover her out-of-pocket medical costs of $10K. No big bonus, no
> rewards, just medical costs. It was not until they steadfastly refused
> that she sued.
>
> This case had nothing to do with deep-pockets until they forced her
> hand.

I'm not trying to defend McDonald's per se but on the other side of the
coin, have you ever been in a restaurant where a noisy annoying customer
was *****ing that their coffee was cold?

Contrary to the advertised image, it's not as if McDonald's is a giant
monolith. Many McDonald's are owned by franchise operators and 600
complaints is not a large number for an operation the size of McDonald's.
How many complaint have they received that their coffee was cold?

Chas.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 19, 10:17 am, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >As dangerous as the tea I pour every day!
>
> And less dangerous than the propane torch I was using over the
> weekend, or my lawn mower, or the ladder I plan to use today. But
> that's not the point. Coffee is expected to be HOT, not DANGEROUS.
> McDonalds served it at the DANGEROUS point. My propane torch, the lawn
> mower, and the ladder, on the contrary are expected to be dangerous.

But isn't the just-boiled water used to make fresh tea just as
DANGEROUS?

Is someone working on a lawsuit against Lipton? IIRC, every tea bag
they sell includes instructions to boil the water. Horrors!

> >I'll admit that I haven't seen McDonalds supposed files regarding
> >their hot coffee - but I'm suspicious about them being proof of
> >anything. Here's why.
>
> The documents were filed in the court case. You can read them if you
> are inclined.

Not much, thanks.

> They included not only 600 previous claims/complaints to
> McDonalds, but internal discussion of the issue of temperature and its
> danger to human skin. The issue for them was that they clearly knew of
> the problem and clearly made a conscious decision to continue to do
> what they were doing. Therefore, right or wrong, they are liable for
> their decision.

Once again: They made a conscious decision, in the same way that
every tea house in America makes that decision. That's how you make
tea. Customers should know it's hot.



>
> >And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
> >scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
> >I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
> >with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
> >over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
> >aren't being sued and vilified.
>
> I'd make a wild guess that if someone got scalded at a tea house and
> required significant medical care that they would approach the tea
> house and file against the insurance company for the tea house. The
> insurance company would likely pay the claim, but hypothetically, they
> could choose to argue.

Admittedly, they are less likely to "choose to argue" these days, as a
result of Stella. However, I see this as a further abandonment of
basic common sense, not as a brave new move toward justice for all.
Stupid is still stupid, and there are levels of stupidity we should
not protect.

> >Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.
>
> Note that she did NOT initially sue McDonalds. She asked for them to
> cover her out-of-pocket medical costs of $10K. No big bonus, no
> rewards, just medical costs. It was not until they steadfastly refused
> that she sued.

Can we set up a hypothetical analogy or two?

What if a teahouse serves a properly prepared pot of tea in a formal
setting - just-boiled water and all? What if an elegantly dressed
lady in a floppy hat decides to balance the pot of hot tea on her
floppy hat? And what if it falls off and scalds her?

Should the teahouse _really_ be held responsible? Of course not.
There are levels of stupidity we should not protect.

What if this inane behavior happened 600 times, and each lady had a
lawyer send a letter to the teahouse? Should they then say
"Obviously, the method of making tea that's been used for hundreds of
years must now be ditched, because people have grown too stupid to
safely take advantage of it. From now on, it's instant tea in tepid
water - for safety!"

> This case had nothing to do with deep-pockets until they forced her
> hand.

It had nothing to do with deep pockets until the owner of those
pockets accurately said "No, we're not responsible for such obvious
stupidity." Then a predatory lawyer said "Oh, yes, I'll be happy to
take your case! I'm willing to take a slim chance at a lot of money!"

- Frank Krygowski

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:17:52 GMT, still just me
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>As dangerous as the tea I pour every day!
>
>And less dangerous than the propane torch I was using over the
>weekend, or my lawn mower, or the ladder I plan to use today. But
>that's not the point. Coffee is expected to be HOT, not DANGEROUS.
>McDonalds served it at the DANGEROUS point. My propane torch, the lawn
>mower, and the ladder, on the contrary are expected to be dangerous.

That's funny, I've been using Propane, MAP, and Acelylene torches for
almost 50 years without incident. I've never, in over 50 years
operating power lawnmowers been injured by one, nor have I ever been
injured by a ladder.

They are expected to be dangerous???
No, they just demand to be respected - as does a cup of hot coffee.

People have just lost respect for just about anything or anybody, and
are not willing to take responsibility for their actions.

If I buy a hot tea or hot chocolate ANYWHERE (I don't drink coffee) I
KNOW I need to be very carefull or I will burn my mouth and be sore
for several days. I also KNOW that if I spill it on myself I will pay
for it in pain.
Just like I KNOW that if the torch is lit, it must be pointed away
from myself and anything flammable or of a low melting point.
Or like I KNOW to keep my hands and feet out from under a running
lawn-mower and not to direct the discharge towards antone or anything
fragile.
Or like I KNOW the ladder needs to be set up properly on a solid base
and safely tied off.
>
>>I'll admit that I haven't seen McDonalds supposed files regarding
>>their hot coffee - but I'm suspicious about them being proof of
>>anything. Here's why.
>
>The documents were filed in the court case. You can read them if you
>are inclined. They included not only 600 previous claims/complaints to
>McDonalds, but internal discussion of the issue of temperature and its
>danger to human skin. The issue for them was that they clearly knew of
>the problem and clearly made a conscious decision to continue to do
>what they were doing. Therefore, right or wrong, they are liable for
>their decision.
>
>>And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
>>scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
>>I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
>>with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
>>over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
>>aren't being sued and vilified.
>>
>
>I'd make a wild guess that if someone got scalded at a tea house and
>required significant medical care that they would approach the tea
>house and file against the insurance company for the tea house. The
>insurance company would likely pay the claim, but hypothetically, they
>could choose to argue.
>
>>Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.
>
>Note that she did NOT initially sue McDonalds. She asked for them to
>cover her out-of-pocket medical costs of $10K. No big bonus, no
>rewards, just medical costs. It was not until they steadfastly refused
>that she sued.
>
>This case had nothing to do with deep-pockets until they forced her
>hand.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:48:03 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
wrote:

>-snip meandering conversation-
>
>> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
>-snip rant-
>
>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> She was a passenger. Her grandson was the driver.
>
>In that event, I was both off topic and out of line (ranting about
>distracted drivers drinking coffee while almost driving).
>Sorry.

Dear Andrew,

I wish that I--

Er, that the rest of us on RBT could handle our oops! moments as well
as you do.

For what it's worth, here's a page with many of the details of the
case:
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html

The only tricky part is that the page may display a "0" for the degree
sign, so 1800 means 180 degrees, 200 means 20 degrees, and so forth.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[still just me]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>But isn't the just-boiled water used to make fresh tea just as
>DANGEROUS?

Yes it is. Someone may get sued over it. Selling dangerous products to
customers increases your liability dramatically. Any place that gives
scalding hot products to customers should think about the risk they
take in doing that. They should probably serve water at 140 degrees or
less. Certainly some tea gourmet will claim that they can tell the
difference between tea made at 160 degrees and tea made at 140 degrees
but I really have my doubts they could ID it in a blind taste test.

Would the tea shop be found liable for a burn? I dunno, but if there
were repeated written claims on file against them in their own records
and there was documentation that the issue and potential danger had
been discussed internally at the company, then they'd have some
serious exposure.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 19, 10:17 am, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>
>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >As dangerous as the tea I pour every day!
>>
>> And less dangerous than the propane torch I was using over the
>> weekend, or my lawn mower, or the ladder I plan to use today. But
>> that's not the point. Coffee is expected to be HOT, not DANGEROUS.
>> McDonalds served it at the DANGEROUS point. My propane torch, the lawn
>> mower, and the ladder, on the contrary are expected to be dangerous.
>
>But isn't the just-boiled water used to make fresh tea just as
>DANGEROUS?
>
>Is someone working on a lawsuit against Lipton? IIRC, every tea bag
>they sell includes instructions to boil the water. Horrors!
>
>> >I'll admit that I haven't seen McDonalds supposed files regarding
>> >their hot coffee - but I'm suspicious about them being proof of
>> >anything. Here's why.
>>
>> The documents were filed in the court case. You can read them if you
>> are inclined.
>
>Not much, thanks.
>
>> They included not only 600 previous claims/complaints to
>> McDonalds, but internal discussion of the issue of temperature and its
>> danger to human skin. The issue for them was that they clearly knew of
>> the problem and clearly made a conscious decision to continue to do
>> what they were doing. Therefore, right or wrong, they are liable for
>> their decision.
>
>Once again: They made a conscious decision, in the same way that
>every tea house in America makes that decision. That's how you make
>tea. Customers should know it's hot.
>
>
>
>>
>> >And BTW, I've mentioned several times that tea is properly served at
>> >scalding temperatures. In fact, though I don't frequent such places,
>> >I understand that tea houses serve entire pots of boiling water, along
>> >with delicate little snacks. In the repeated discussions we've had
>> >over Stella's McDonalds accident, nobody has explained why tea houses
>> >aren't being sued and vilified.
>>
>> I'd make a wild guess that if someone got scalded at a tea house and
>> required significant medical care that they would approach the tea
>> house and file against the insurance company for the tea house. The
>> insurance company would likely pay the claim, but hypothetically, they
>> could choose to argue.
>
>Admittedly, they are less likely to "choose to argue" these days, as a
>result of Stella. However, I see this as a further abandonment of
>basic common sense, not as a brave new move toward justice for all.
>Stupid is still stupid, and there are levels of stupidity we should
>not protect.
>
>> >Oh - except, perhaps, that their pockets are much, much less deep.
>>
>> Note that she did NOT initially sue McDonalds. She asked for them to
>> cover her out-of-pocket medical costs of $10K. No big bonus, no
>> rewards, just medical costs. It was not until they steadfastly refused
>> that she sued.
>
>Can we set up a hypothetical analogy or two?
>
>What if a teahouse serves a properly prepared pot of tea in a formal
>setting - just-boiled water and all? What if an elegantly dressed
>lady in a floppy hat decides to balance the pot of hot tea on her
>floppy hat? And what if it falls off and scalds her?
>
>Should the teahouse _really_ be held responsible? Of course not.
>There are levels of stupidity we should not protect.
>
>What if this inane behavior happened 600 times, and each lady had a
>lawyer send a letter to the teahouse? Should they then say
>"Obviously, the method of making tea that's been used for hundreds of
>years must now be ditched, because people have grown too stupid to
>safely take advantage of it. From now on, it's instant tea in tepid
>water - for safety!"
>
>> This case had nothing to do with deep-pockets until they forced her
>> hand.
>
>It had nothing to do with deep pockets until the owner of those
>pockets accurately said "No, we're not responsible for such obvious
>stupidity." Then a predatory lawyer said "Oh, yes, I'll be happy to
>take your case! I'm willing to take a slim chance at a lot of money!"
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Dear Frank,

Who does this sound like in a helmet thread?

>> The documents were filed in the court case. You can read them if you
>> are inclined.
>
>Not much, thanks.

Incidentally, it's quite easy to google for tea + lawsuit + scalding
and discover that tea drinkers sue, too, when tea handed to them in
drive-throughs spills and gives them severe burns:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=tea+lawsuit+scalding&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[* * Chas]

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ic0m541fl7m7inlp3vasmdaf6o1fafk78s@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >But isn't the just-boiled water used to make fresh tea just as
> >DANGEROUS?
>
> Yes it is. Someone may get sued over it. Selling dangerous products to
> customers increases your liability dramatically. Any place that gives
> scalding hot products to customers should think about the risk they
> take in doing that. They should probably serve water at 140 degrees or
> less. Certainly some tea gourmet will claim that they can tell the
> difference between tea made at 160 degrees and tea made at 140 degrees
> but I really have my doubts they could ID it in a blind taste test.
>
> Would the tea shop be found liable for a burn? I dunno, but if there
> were repeated written claims on file against them in their own records
> and there was documentation that the issue and potential danger had
> been discussed internally at the company, then they'd have some
> serious exposure.

What about hot pizza? Bubbling hot melted cheese on top of a pizza can
certainly burn the roof of your mouth, tongue, lips and throat. Do you see
warning signs in pizzerias? What part of hot didn't you learn as a child?

Most microwavable foods have warnings about possible injuries caused by
heat or steam.

The question is how actively should we protect people from themselves? I
used to go to Europe for 2-3 weeks at a time on business. When I would
return to the US I was always amazed at the large number of rules and
regulations designed to protect us (US) from ourselves.

The US is the most litigatious culture in the world. I believe in strongly
prosecuting companies and individuals who consciously market defective
goods or services but a reasonable amount of common sense needs to
prevail.

Chas.

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:17:37 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:


>
>Incidentally, it's quite easy to google for tea + lawsuit + scalding
>and discover that tea drinkers sue, too, when tea handed to them in
>drive-throughs spills and gives them severe burns:
>
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=tea+lawsuit+scalding&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
Hot tea and hot coffee in drivethroughs is the HEIGHT of stupidity.
Kinda like the Braille on drivethrough cash machines.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 19, 9:17 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> Incidentally, it's quite easy to google for tea + lawsuit + scalding
> and discover that tea drinkers sue, too, when tea handed to them in
> drive-throughs spills and gives them severe burns:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=tea+lawsuit+scalding&as_epq=&...

And I disagree with those frivolous lawsuits as well.

What's next? "Consumer sues matchbook company. Burning match claimed
to be too hot"?