NJ driver's GF liable because she texted him?
05-24-2012, 11:16 PM
#61
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
Savington, If your turbo kit actually makes 240rwhp rather than your claimed 200rwhp, and somebody tries to do a skid surrounded by a crowd of pedestrians, risking possibly hitting the first 2 rows, but instead hits 3 rows of people due to extra power, is it your fault at all?
Dann
Dann
Reply
1
1
05-24-2012, 11:24 PM
#62
Its a hard case,
However I truly do think that if someone risks injuring themselves intentionally, and they find that they injure themselves more than they had planned to risk, its hardly fair to blame it on somebody else.
The .22slr reference isnt true, the guy loads the bullets in, he knows its not a BB gun.
Coffee is made with boiling or near boiling water, if I choose to risk minor injury, and instead manage to get a major injury thats not someone elses fault.
Savington, If your turbo kit actually makes 240rwhp rather than your claimed 200rwhp, and somebody tries to do a skid surrounded by a crowd of pedestrians, risking possibly hitting the first 2 rows, but instead hits 3 rows of people due to extra power, is it your fault at all?
Dann
However I truly do think that if someone risks injuring themselves intentionally, and they find that they injure themselves more than they had planned to risk, its hardly fair to blame it on somebody else.
The .22slr reference isnt true, the guy loads the bullets in, he knows its not a BB gun.
Coffee is made with boiling or near boiling water, if I choose to risk minor injury, and instead manage to get a major injury thats not someone elses fault.
Savington, If your turbo kit actually makes 240rwhp rather than your claimed 200rwhp, and somebody tries to do a skid surrounded by a crowd of pedestrians, risking possibly hitting the first 2 rows, but instead hits 3 rows of people due to extra power, is it your fault at all?
Dann
Reply
0
0
05-25-2012, 08:16 AM
#63
I don't get the argument here. You should expect your coffee to be skin-burning hot.
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71
So, let me get this straight. Since a company followed what could only be logically considered reasonable procedure to brew a cup of coffee, and a customer mishandled it, the company should be liable?
I didn't realize we had so many nanny-state idiots in here, I thought the DIY nature of this forum lent itself to more "no ---- sherlock" type of people.
Says who? Source?
Show me a coffee maker that doesn't get the water to a boil before brewing.
Originally Posted by National Coffee Association
Water Temperature During Brewing
Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee. If you are brewing the coffee manually, let the water come to a full boil, but do not overboil. Turn off the heat source and allow the water to rest a minute before pouring it over the grounds.
Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee. If you are brewing the coffee manually, let the water come to a full boil, but do not overboil. Turn off the heat source and allow the water to rest a minute before pouring it over the grounds.
Originally Posted by National Coffee Association
Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!
Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. It should never be left on an electric burner for longer than 15 minutes because it will begin to develop a burned taste. If the coffee is not to be served immediately after brewing, it should be poured into a warmed, insulated thermos and used within the next 45 minutes.
Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. It should never be left on an electric burner for longer than 15 minutes because it will begin to develop a burned taste. If the coffee is not to be served immediately after brewing, it should be poured into a warmed, insulated thermos and used within the next 45 minutes.
So, let me get this straight. Since a company followed what could only be logically considered reasonable procedure to brew a cup of coffee, and a customer mishandled it, the company should be liable?
I didn't realize we had so many nanny-state idiots in here, I thought the DIY nature of this forum lent itself to more "no ---- sherlock" type of people.
Show me a coffee maker that doesn't get the water to a boil before brewing.
Reply
0
0
05-25-2012, 09:25 AM
#64
I have to agree with Brad. I have never heard of coffee at temperatures between 135 and 140, atleast not good coffee. I sure as hell know when I am holding a cup of coffee and it feels like it is scalding hot I reasonably assume it will cause serious burns if I spill it on myself. Usually this means I take steps to avoid injury instead of something that is obviously ignorant like open the lid of a wax paper cup between my knees while I am in a car whether it is moving or not. McDonald's coffee may have even been hotter then normal but I don't see 185-190* as being out of the range of acceptable.
Reply
0
0
05-25-2012, 09:41 AM
#66
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
I have to agree with Brad. I have never heard of coffee at temperatures between 135 and 140, atleast not good coffee. I sure as hell know when I am holding a cup of coffee and it feels like it is scalding hot I reasonably assume it will cause serious burns if I spill it on myself. Usually this means I take steps to avoid injury instead of something that is obviously ignorant like open the lid of a wax paper cup between my knees while I am in a car whether it is moving or not. McDonald's coffee may have even been hotter then normal but I don't see 185-190* as being out of the range of acceptable.
Reply
0
0
05-25-2012, 10:13 AM
#67
This BeanFruit Coffee I'm drinking right now is delicious and hot.
In other news, McDonald's apparently didn't really give a ----.
For Savington, Blaen, et al -- it's odd that you guys keep referencing how clear cut the legal case is -- why didn't you mention that dozens of other cases built on the same premise (that 190ish F coffee is dangerous) have been dismissed repeatedly, mostly on these grounds (hah, I kill myself):
Interesting that even in Great Britain, land of pantywaists and milquetoasts, a similar lawsuit was rejected.
In other news, McDonald's apparently didn't really give a ----.
McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[22] relying on more sternly-worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 °F (82 °C) in this case) is not "unreasonably dangerous".
The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 °F [93 °C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 °F [66–71 °C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 °F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.
"If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 °C and 60 °C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 °C and 95 °C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 °C and 60 °C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 °C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled."
Reply
1
1
05-25-2012, 10:15 AM
#68
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Outside Portland Maine
Posts: 2,023
Total Cats: 19
So on the original topic, what is the basis of their charges? I would like to think it wouldn't stick, but I feel like it can't be more ridiculous than the woman winning after she sued a store for tripping over her own kid.
Are they saying this woman knew her boyfriend was driving and continued to text him anyway? That is a stretch at BEST, and the only thing I can think of even worth trying.
Are they saying this woman knew her boyfriend was driving and continued to text him anyway? That is a stretch at BEST, and the only thing I can think of even worth trying.
Reply
0
0
05-25-2012, 10:24 AM
#69
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
So on the original topic, what is the basis of their charges? I would like to think it wouldn't stick, but I feel like it can't be more ridiculous than the woman winning after she sued a store for tripping over her own kid.
Are they saying this woman knew her boyfriend was driving and continued to text him anyway? That is a stretch at BEST, and the only thing I can think of even worth trying.
Are they saying this woman knew her boyfriend was driving and continued to text him anyway? That is a stretch at BEST, and the only thing I can think of even worth trying.
Reply
0
0
05-25-2012, 10:28 AM
#70
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Outside Portland Maine
Posts: 2,023
Total Cats: 19
That one actually seems more reasonable. Not that it's actually reasonable, but it sounds a lot like some other suits that have been won in the past just because you happen to be there when ---- went down. Like some woman who sued a diner because she slipped on spilled soda that she had thrown at her boyfriend immediately before. The store had NOTHING to do with that, but still lost that suit; somehow.
Reply
0
0
05-25-2012, 12:01 PM
#72
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
yeah it's a stretch, but it's totally normal for a victim to try to get compensation from anyone possible in any sort of odd relation to the incident. it'll get thrown out and that will be the end of it. that would be like me suing kayne west, his record label, and his produciton company for getting mugged at his concert, along with my actual attackers.
Reply
0
0
05-25-2012, 12:02 PM
#73
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
This BeanFruit Coffee I'm drinking right now is delicious and hot.
In other news, McDonald's apparently didn't really give a ----.
For Savington, Blaen, et al -- it's odd that you guys keep referencing how clear cut the legal case is -- why didn't you mention that dozens of other cases built on the same premise (that 190ish F coffee is dangerous) have been dismissed repeatedly, mostly on these grounds (hah, I kill myself):
Interesting that even in Great Britain, land of pantywaists and milquetoasts, a similar lawsuit was rejected.
In other news, McDonald's apparently didn't really give a ----.
For Savington, Blaen, et al -- it's odd that you guys keep referencing how clear cut the legal case is -- why didn't you mention that dozens of other cases built on the same premise (that 190ish F coffee is dangerous) have been dismissed repeatedly, mostly on these grounds (hah, I kill myself):
Interesting that even in Great Britain, land of pantywaists and milquetoasts, a similar lawsuit was rejected.
Reply
0
0
05-25-2012, 01:26 PM
#74
Explaining legal concepts such as "Contributory Negligence", "restitutio in integrum", interpretation of willful intent nor any of the other nuanced legal positions involved in the various cases to Mg is an exercise in masochism I'll leave to Sav. If it contradicts what he wants to believe, I learned long ago it's more effective to go smash my ***** with a hammer then try to get Mg to understand nuances in a position - especially considering a quick google search answers his question for him in as much depth as he could ever want, but I cannot recall a time where I have seen him bother to engage in research that opposes his desired view on a topic. It's the same crap Jarednumbers pulls on here all the time. There are huge differences in Bunn-O-Matic and McDonald's that took me all of a few minutes to get a list of elaborating on. Related:
My advice to everyone that is curious about the answer would be to watch the Hot Coffee documentary. It covers this in as much detail as you'd want and then some - as a nice bonus, it makes the whole topic nice, glitzy, and somewhat easily digestible. Did I mention that you don't have to have an in-depth understanding of certain legal concepts? Or that Corporations spent millions on PR for the McDonald's case? Yes, they spent substantially more on PR than even Liebeck was awarded in court.
Trailer for it.
On a sidenote, and related to the OP now:
In our court system, people have to understand you can sue anyone for anything. That's the basis of our civil legal system - and it would be very, very bad if this were not the case*.
However, the vast majority of frivolous cases are thrown out. The majority of these are simply thrown out pre-trial for simply lacking legal merit**. If a case is truly frivolous, it takes a decent attorney at most a few hours to get it thrown out. This is not to say cases that are frivolous never get into court, however, they must either have some legal basis in order to get into court, or the defense attorney sucks *****. If it is the latter, well, with as much as you guys try to argue for personal responsibility, you'd think someone should be able to take personal responsibility for their choice in attorney's.
I would be extremely surprised if the OP actually progresses anywhere legally. Unless there is substantially more that is not being disclosed to the case, I fail to see how it has any legal merit - if one were to compare it to the Coffee cases, it would be the Bunn-O-Matic case, and not the McDonald's case.
*: It has given rise to certain problems, however, these problems either -also- advantage the people who make the laws, or only advantage them, so good luck getting changes. I cannot recall the last time I read about a law passed that resulted in a substantial legal system change to the detriment of our legislators. I will note however that the same legislators whinging about tort reform were also instrumental in putting tort law in the place it is at right now.
**: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/aboutlaw.html for more basic information on our justice system that you won't see covered in most civics courses.
P.S. Time to GTFO, this post took up way too much of my time.
My advice to everyone that is curious about the answer would be to watch the Hot Coffee documentary. It covers this in as much detail as you'd want and then some - as a nice bonus, it makes the whole topic nice, glitzy, and somewhat easily digestible. Did I mention that you don't have to have an in-depth understanding of certain legal concepts? Or that Corporations spent millions on PR for the McDonald's case? Yes, they spent substantially more on PR than even Liebeck was awarded in court.
Trailer for it.
On a sidenote, and related to the OP now:
In our court system, people have to understand you can sue anyone for anything. That's the basis of our civil legal system - and it would be very, very bad if this were not the case*.
However, the vast majority of frivolous cases are thrown out. The majority of these are simply thrown out pre-trial for simply lacking legal merit**. If a case is truly frivolous, it takes a decent attorney at most a few hours to get it thrown out. This is not to say cases that are frivolous never get into court, however, they must either have some legal basis in order to get into court, or the defense attorney sucks *****. If it is the latter, well, with as much as you guys try to argue for personal responsibility, you'd think someone should be able to take personal responsibility for their choice in attorney's.
I would be extremely surprised if the OP actually progresses anywhere legally. Unless there is substantially more that is not being disclosed to the case, I fail to see how it has any legal merit - if one were to compare it to the Coffee cases, it would be the Bunn-O-Matic case, and not the McDonald's case.
*: It has given rise to certain problems, however, these problems either -also- advantage the people who make the laws, or only advantage them, so good luck getting changes. I cannot recall the last time I read about a law passed that resulted in a substantial legal system change to the detriment of our legislators. I will note however that the same legislators whinging about tort reform were also instrumental in putting tort law in the place it is at right now.
**: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/aboutlaw.html for more basic information on our justice system that you won't see covered in most civics courses.
P.S. Time to GTFO, this post took up way too much of my time.
Reply
0
0
05-25-2012, 10:06 PM
#79
Really though, you need to grind your own beans if you want good coffee.
Also, Starbucks coffee sucks because they char the ever living christ out of the beans when they roast them so that it extends the beans' shelf life.
Sorry for the OT.
Reply
0
0
05-25-2012, 11:27 PM
#80
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Boiling water is making your french press coffee taste like ****. Try 195F.
Really though, you need to grind your own beans if you want good coffee.
Also, Starbucks coffee sucks because they char the ever living christ out of the beans when they roast them so that it extends the beans' shelf life.
Sorry for the OT.
Really though, you need to grind your own beans if you want good coffee.
Also, Starbucks coffee sucks because they char the ever living christ out of the beans when they roast them so that it extends the beans' shelf life.
Sorry for the OT.
Is there a place around who doesn't burn the coffee other than McDonalds? I do coffee from Whole Foods and I'm consistently happy with their beans.
Reply
0
0
