From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Aug 05 2002 - 14:28:01 MDT
--- Rafal Smigrodzki <rms2g@virginia.edu> wrote:
> Charles Hixson wrote:
>
> > Here are some google results on the coffee case...
> >
> > > http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
> > >
>
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785
> > >
>
http://www.cooter-ulen.com/tort_liability.htm#McDonald's%20Coffee%20Case
> > > http://www.corleyganem.com/summation.htm
>
> I wasn't there either, but judging by the newspaper
> stories circulating at
> the
> time, the award was partially justified, and
> partially punitive. But the
> case *sounds* so silly, that people keep picking it
> up as an example of a
> bad
> judgement. It doesn't seem to have been one.
>
> ### What's good about this judgement?
Yes, what is so good about it? A couple millions for
some coffee burns? Excuse me? I guess I shoulda sued
Starbucks for serving me a burning hot latte at the
Oakland airport two weeks before this story hit the
headlines. I wasn't able to eat anything hot for a
coupla weeks just because I took a quick sip. I probly
coulda gotten a quick million without ever seeing a courtroom.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:54 MST