really? Again with the hot coffee?

Here's a little refresher- http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-coffee-then-news-media.html?src=me

I think I would call my coffee selection "Irresponsibly Hot Coffee" and put over the top warnings on the cups like KEEP HOT COFFEE FURTHER THAN 50FT FROM LIVING TISSUE.

Atleast the lawsuit filing would be a hilarious read.

Dr. Hess wrote: They left the "Eh?" off that cup, Keith. The current case looks to have more to it than the last case. The article linked to above is a bit thin. This has some more: http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=9308554 It says that the MickyD's employee spilled the coffee on the woman, which makes it a bit more than "the coffee was hot." I think it's reasonable to expect to not have coffee spilled on you by the employee of the restaurant. Guess we'll see where that goes.

Yeah, if the employee spilled the coffee now there's a difference.

But this part:

The New York Times says franchises are now told to keep it between 170 and 180, still as much as 30 degrees higher than coffee brewed at home. Fino's attorney says hotter coffee stays fresh longer, so it saves McDonald's money, while risking more burns.

is bullsh!t. My coffeemaker holds it at about 170-175. I like my coffee really hot so I typically zap it for 20 seconds before adding my foo foo, I bet it's probably 190-195 by then.

Curmudgeon wrote:

z31maniac wrote: ^Are you willing to pour boiling water on your hootus for a million bucks? I'm not. And I seriously doubt that is the motivation for people.

It most definitely is in some cases. I can't find a link, but not terribly long ago there was a guy who hit himself in the face with a hammer, cracking the skull and knocking out some teeth, all so he could file a worker's comp lawsuit. I'll keep looking. Wasn't that long ago an insurance fraud ring was broken up, it worked this way: pull out in front of someone and slam on the brakes, get hit from behind, file lawsuit.

I heard a similar story. They would target commercial trucks or expensive cars for bigger payouts, often involving a third car.

Curmudgeon wrote: But this part: The New York Times says franchises are now told to keep it between 170 and 180, still as much as 30 degrees higher than coffee brewed at home. Fino's attorney says hotter coffee stays fresh longer, so it saves McDonald's money, while risking more burns. is bullsh!t. My coffeemaker holds it at about 170-175. I like my coffee really hot so I typically zap it for 20 seconds before adding my foo foo, I bet it's probably 190-195 by then.

Good coffee is brewed at 195-205 degrees, and should be kept in a thermal carafe at 170+. MickyD's can't help if someone's $10 Wallyworld autodrip machine can't get that.

Nothing to add here except there's a documentary on netflix called "hot coffee" that addresses these issues and torte reform. It takes sides on the issue, but it's still not bad watching.

In reply to Spoolpigeon: Isn't the value in question a 74 Bob Costas?

In reply to bikerbenz:

Yeah. I really should have asked the value of an '81 hootus to see if its worth dumping lava hot coffee on mine

z31maniac wrote: ^You should do some actual research vs reading headlines in regards to the original case.

Yep, but that's not going to stop the trolls and zombies and dittoheads. Never mind the admission of not putting the lid on properly, never mind the many previous warnings and fines for serving overly hot coffee, never mind the corporate documentation of deliberately choosing this, etc. instead, the brain dead will blame the victim.

That's like blaming kids for getting shot because they play in the city.

bikerbenz wrote: In reply to Spoolpigeon: Isn't the value in question a 74 Bob Costas?

Actually, it's a 1938 Bob Costas. A classic prewar with a recent frame off restoration; it could be $2M.

Spoolpigeon wrote: Is $2M the NADA value on a 74 hootus?

Get the Lemons judges under the hood to access the value. All they will need is stirrups and a speculum.

It would probably get a lot of BS penalties (on a 2million claim) since many of the attached accessories are likely non functioning.

In reply to drsmooth:

Thanks for clearing that up for me LOL

Gearheadotaku wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote:

z31maniac wrote: ^Are you willing to pour boiling water on your hootus for a million bucks? I'm not. And I seriously doubt that is the motivation for people.

It most definitely is in some cases. I can't find a link, but not terribly long ago there was a guy who hit himself in the face with a hammer, cracking the skull and knocking out some teeth, all so he could file a worker's comp lawsuit. I'll keep looking. Wasn't that long ago an insurance fraud ring was broken up, it worked this way: pull out in front of someone and slam on the brakes, get hit from behind, file lawsuit.

I heard a similar story. They would target commercial trucks or expensive cars for bigger payouts, often involving a third car.

This is why Russian dash cams are so prevalent now- they had a MASSIVE issue with it. I know i've heard several stories in the US where guys will even REVERSE into the car behind them, and blame that car for the accident. It's he said she said without it. Car behind is always at fault.

I won a lawsuit yrs ago where the parties left one red light side by side and the first car switched lanes in front of my client then bowed up at the next signal claiming a red light a block away. I brought in the traffic engineer to testify that the two redlights were on the same timer and there would have been more than 5 minutes in the sequence. Defendants verdict. Guess Bubba should have researched his accident site better.