The Upgrade Company

[mep]

Well, what you just posted would appear to be an argument in favor of Ms. Liebeck and against McDonald's, isn't it? I mean, that container which you deem unsuitable by a sensible person standard is one which Ms. Liebeck and her nephew purchased at a drive-through window.

You are clouding the issue Ron. The cup had nothing to do with the lawsuit did it? The lawsuit was over the temperature of the coffee as it was served by McDonalds. And how you dragged the Republicans into the coffee caper escapes me. Did the Republicans tell McDonalds at what temperature to serve their coffee? Is there a law that says you can't serve coffee over a certain temperature at the drive-through window? Do we need to enact and enforce more laws to protect us from ourselves? How about food police? Maybe we should have food police stationed inside fast food places like McDonalds so they can run off the obese before they add to their fat caloric food intake. "Sir, step away from the hamburger. Put the fries down now." Now the stun gun comes out in order to blow them off of their hamburger and fries. They die from the result of the stun gun and the family sues but the stun gun maker says they had a pre-existing heart condition and that's what caused their death, it wasn't getting shocked that stopped their heart.
And the Republicans have done their job yet again.

[Ron Party]

Did you read my post? The term *frivolous lawsuits* as it is used in the public debate is code. Period. One who understands the legal system we have also understands there are remedies for those who are the subject of such lawsuits. Now in that public debate, who is using the term?

[mep]

Sure Ron, I read your post. So you are saying that anytime someone in Washington discusses frivolous lawsuits it would always be Republicans? If so, I didn't know that. I don't consider myself to be either Republican or Democrat because at the end of the day, it's all crap. Remember the guy who sued Hooters because they wouldn't hire him to be a waiter? Our federal government jumped in on this one (EEOC I believe) and tried to force Hooters to hire the guy. Do you think that guy really wanted to work at Hooters or do you think he was looking for a discrimination lawsuit payoff? And what's the remedy for a frivolous lawsuit? Another lawsuit? And how much money is a corporation going to collect out of some dolt that brought a frivolous lawsuit against them?

[Gregadd]

I can't provide proof but the scuttlebut was higher tempartures provided a greater yeild of coffee.

[Ron Party]

It is a talking point of the party. Has been for years.

[vinylphilemag]

Well, what you just posted would appear to be an argument in favor of Ms. Liebeck and against McDonald's, isn't it? I mean, that container which you deem unsuitable by a sensible person standard is one which Ms. Liebeck and her nephew purchased at a drive-through window.

Umm, no. The container was up to the job (of holding hot liquid), but the sides are flexible, so using it in such a precarious manner is inviting trouble.

[vinylphilemag]

Did you read my post? The term *frivolous lawsuits* as it is used in the public debate is code. Period.

Huh? What code? Perhaps I'm using the term improperly. When I say frivolous lawsuits, I mean that the lawsuit is over a minor thing, which the plaintiff could probably have avoided if they used some common sense.

The gene pool is dilute enough; cases like this (and the whole hand-holding culture it engenders) only makes matters worse.

[mep]

From what Ron said, I took it to mean that whenever frivolous lawsuits are brought up it's Republican "code" for protecting big business. I had never heard of this "code" before either, but apparently Ron runs in different political circles than I do.

[Gregadd]

Umm, no. The container was up to the job (of holding hot liquid), but the sides are flexible, so using it in such a precarious manner is inviting trouble.

I think the issue was the liquid was too hot not the cup was defective. If spilling the too hot liquid was reasonably foreseeable than the entire class of "spillers" deserve protection." Suppose the spill was the result of a rear end collision. That would mean the victim exercised due care. Injury would be avoided by having the coffee at a benign temperature.

[JackD201]

Wow we've run seriously off topic and I'm afraid it's my fault!

Can we split the thread though? It's quite interesting especially since I was a legislator.