From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Aug 05 2002 - 14:48:51 MDT
Rafal Smigrodzki 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?
>
>Rafal
>
>
>
I didn't say that it was a particularly good judgement. But spilling
your coffee shouldn't send you to the hospital. If it does, the matter
needs to be addressed. Personally, I don't buy MacDonalds coffee, since
it's terrible, so it doesn't affect me much. But this got their
attention, and they'd been ignoring the problem when others had reported it.
P.S.: Someone who remembered a bit more said that this was just a
preliminary judgement. That the judge reduced it. That both sides
appealed. And that they then settled out of court for "an undisclosed
amount". So it did what needed to be done, and they probably agreed to
some reasonable amount.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:54 MST