Jump to content

Spark scooters/rollerskates.

Incredulity

By Incredulity
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

Incredulity

Incredulity 11683

Posted
Posted (edited)

I am totally against the a-holes who have sued McD’s because their coffee is too hot and so forth.

That being said how in the world are sparking toys a big item in today’s world?  Specifically in the aftermath of the most recent wildfires.

Edited by Incredulity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ERhine

ERhine 1907

Posted
Posted
I am totally against the a-holes who have sued McD’s because their coffee is too hot and so forth.
That being said how in the world are sparking toys a big item in today’s world?  Specifically in the aftermath of the most recent wildfires.


Ignoring the second “paragraph” which makes no sense, I’ve still come to the conclusion you’re a fucking idiot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

And if you actually bothered to read the facts of that infamous coffee case you’d find it wasn’t a frivolous lawsuit at all.

The lobbyists for tort reform misrepresented the facts of it and use it as a rallying cry because the shorthand of “Dumbass spilt hot coffee on herself and got millions” sounds ridiculous.

And low info folks lap it up.

But tell me more about these sparkly toys.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11683

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

And if you actually bothered to read the facts of that infamous coffee case you’d find it wasn’t a frivolous lawsuit at all.

The lobbyists for tort reform misrepresented the facts of it and use it as a rallying cry because the shorthand of “Dumbass spilt hot coffee on herself and got millions” sounds ridiculous.

And low info folks lap it up.

But tell me more about these sparkly toys.

 

Please enlighten us with facts that make it not frivolous.

Guess what, McDonalds still serves coffee at the same temperature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deej

Deej 76928

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

And if you actually bothered to read the facts of that infamous coffee case you’d find it wasn’t a frivolous lawsuit at all.

The lobbyists for tort reform misrepresented the facts of it and use it as a rallying cry because the shorthand of “Dumbass spilt hot coffee on herself and got millions” sounds ridiculous.

And low info folks lap it up.

But tell me more about these sparkly toys.

All she had to do was use a balm. 

giphy.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 11052

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Incredulity said:

 

Guess what, McDonalds still serves coffee at the same temperature.

 

I, like many people, have burned my tongue on hot coffee. I've also burned my fingers a time or two. By "burned" I don't mean I had to go to the emergency room and get skin grafts, and spend a week in the hospital recovering.

And she got less than a million.

You want to argue about the outcome of the case, that's fine. Please don't argue from a position of ignorance. It just makes you look stupid.

Took 2 seconds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

 

The trial took place from August 8–17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott.[17] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. They presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was all served at a temperature at least 20°F (11°C) lower than what McDonald's served. Liebeck's lawyers also presented the jury with expert testimony that 190 °F (88 °C) coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 3 seconds and 180 °F (82 °C) coffee may produce such burns in about 12 to 15 seconds.[2] Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[2] However, it came to light that McDonald's had done research which indicated that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.[3]

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[2] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[18]

 

OP, go stick your dick into 180 degree water and report back please.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11683

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I, like many people, have burned my tongue on hot coffee. I've also burned my fingers a time or two. By "burned" I don't mean I had to go to the emergency room and get skin grafts, and spend a week in the hospital recovering.

And she got less than a million.

You want to argue about the outcome of the case, that's fine. Please don't argue from a position of ignorance. It just makes you look stupid.

Took 2 seconds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

 

The trial took place from August 8–17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott.[17] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. They presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was all served at a temperature at least 20°F (11°C) lower than what McDonald's served. Liebeck's lawyers also presented the jury with expert testimony that 190 °F (88 °C) coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 3 seconds and 180 °F (82 °C) coffee may produce such burns in about 12 to 15 seconds.[2] Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[2] However, it came to light that McDonald's had done research which indicated that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.[3]

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[2] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[18]

 

OP, go stick your dick into 180 degree water and report back please.

From the same wiki article  dickwad

 

Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee at 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[33] 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.[

 

Hot coffee should be served hot.

 

fist yourself.

 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 11052

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

From the same wiki article  dickwad

 

Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee at 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[33] 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.[

 

Hot coffee should be served hot.

 

fist yourself.

 

Hot, yes. Hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, no. There is a difference, you know.

She got less than a million. Probably way less because McD was going to appeal, and the parties agreed on a non-disclosed sum.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11683

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Hot, yes. Hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, no. There is a difference, you know.

She got less than a million. Probably way less because McD was going to appeal, and the parties agreed on a non-disclosed sum.

 

 

The amount of the settlement is irrelevant.  The lawsuit was frivolous.  

Coffee by definition is made with near boiling water.  

 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27783

Posted
Posted (edited)

Imagine that, immortal and incredulity not understanding the facts of an issue and talking out of their ass! Click the spoiler image to see the burn caused by the coffee that was submitted as evidence. It's NSFL.

Spoiler

 

imgur

 

 

She had originally sued for $20,000 to cover her SKIN GRAFTS that were required from the coffee being served at a dangerous temperature. Micky Dee's fought it and the jury even found that the woman was liable for some of the risk of buying the coffee. The majority of damages awarded were punitive to force them to make a change and reevaluate their policy because they were reducing permanently disfigured people to a number.

In a story about the case published shortly after the verdict was delivered in 1994, one of the jurors said over the course of the trial he came to realize the case was about “callous disregard for the safety of the people.” Another juror said “the facts were so overwhelmingly against the company.”

EDIT: For some reason surly mangles imgur inline pictures. Don't click the for-some-reason hyperlinked text unless you want to see the NSFL picture.

Edited by Captainant
  • Like 3
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 26122

Posted
Posted
On 12/3/2018 at 7:57 AM, Bama Chick said:

And if you actually bothered to read the facts of that infamous coffee case you’d find it wasn’t a frivolous lawsuit at all.

The lobbyists for tort reform misrepresented the facts of it and use it as a rallying cry because the shorthand of “Dumbass spilt hot coffee on herself and got millions” sounds ridiculous.

And low info folks lap it up.
 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/darryl-s-weiman-md-jd/the-mcdonalds-coffee-case_b_14002362.html

Here's some money quotes.

Quote

She suffered full thickness burns to her thighs, buttocks, groin and genital area amounting to what the surgeons described as six percent of her total body surface area.

Ms. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days for treatment of the burns. She had to have debridement and local wound care. The areas which had full thickness injury had to have skin grafts for coverage. Ms. Liebeck brought a suit against McDonalds and was apparently willing to settle for $20,000 but McDonalds made a strategic decision to fight the claim.

...

During the discovery phase of the litigation... previous claims showed that McDonalds knew, or should have known, about the danger associated with the high temperatures of the coffee.

...

The most damaging testimony against McDonalds actually came from its own quality assurance manager who testified that McDonalds required their restaurants to keep the coffee pot temperature at 185 degrees. He admitted that a burn risk existed for any food (or drink) served at over 140 degrees and that the coffee poured into the cups was not yet fit for consumption since it was well above that temperature.

 

For those of you who prefer movies to reading:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

Thanks for the assist!

I usually browse Surly on my phone on Tapa and it’s a pain to link and copy and paste stuff.

And I’m not about to jump on here on my work computer lol. I like my job and wouldn’t want to get fired for breaking some IT rule.

It truly was the exact opposite of a frivolous lawsuit and the tort reform lobbyists did a great job in branding it as such because the “facts” seem like what they say it is. And people who don’t bother to look past the soundbites have bought that message. Now“Dumb Lady Who Doesn’t Know Coffee Is Hot and Sued McDonald’s For No Reason” is literally the shorthand for frivolous lawsuits as illustrated in the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/3/2018 at 4:35 PM, Captainant said:

Imagine that, immortal and incredulity not understanding the facts of an issue and talking out of their ass! Click the spoiler image to see the burn caused by the coffee that was submitted as evidence. It's NSFL.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

imgur

 

 

She had originally sued for $20,000 to cover her SKIN GRAFTS that were required from the coffee being served at a dangerous temperature. Micky Dee's fought it and the jury even found that the woman was liable for some of the risk of buying the coffee. The majority of damages awarded were punitive to force them to make a change and reevaluate their policy because they were reducing permanently disfigured people to a number.

In a story about the case published shortly after the verdict was delivered in 1994, one of the jurors said over the course of the trial he came to realize the case was about “callous disregard for the safety of the people.” Another juror said “the facts were so overwhelmingly against the company.”

EDIT: For some reason surly mangles imgur inline pictures. Don't click the for-some-reason hyperlinked text unless you want to see the NSFL picture.

Lol I made no comment one way or the other about the regarded coffee debate. I merely said ignore cloakroomers, which is always the best option. Now carry on with your coffee talk, you stupid cunt

Edited by immortal13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bat Guano

Bat Guano 359

Posted
Posted

So the OP imagines that a scooter that creates sparks when the rider pushes some metal part into contact with the pavement will:

1. be able to be ridden on dirt trails with lots of flammable material;

2. be able to produce sparks on such a trail; and

3. those sparks will be sufficient to start a fire.

Seems unlikely.  OP seems dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...