If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Tony Hill wrote:
Similarly I expect my coffee to be hot, but fully expect that if I dump the thing in my lap it will continue to be hot and burn me. Precisely! If I spill coffee on my lap, I expect to get burned about the same as I was burned last time (typically a few years ago). A first degree burn. I do not expect that the stuff is 30'F hotter so that it will give me a third-degree burn. This is one of the real problems with the "corporate veil", it removes responsibility. However I don't think that the way to fight this is by removing responsibility from consumers as well to the extent that no one is properly responsible for anything. OK, that's fair enough. Then how would you pierce the corporate veil? Jail the employees responsible for deciding the thermostats should be set +30'F? Fine them into penury? No problem, lots more people waiting for management jobs. Competitive churn. Maybe pay them a very little more. In the end, all the money just ends up getting shuffled around into lawyers pockets and neither the corporation or the consumers benefit. I don't much care what happens to the money. Perhaps punative damages should be paid to the state, not the plaintiff. The bigger question is how it changes people's behaviour. The law is all about prevention. Punishment afterward does damn little good. These inflammatory awards do get on the corp risk-managers radar screens. They start to factor in the cost of large awards and the much larger reputational loss (Firestone) into the risks they decide to take every day. I've seen it at work, and believe it results in better decisions for all. -- Robert |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:14:12 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
"Wes Newell" wrote in message news We;re talking coffee here, not SUV's are anything complex. I'm certain most 4 year olds know hot coffe will burn them. If they don't, their parents should be horsewhipped. That's not the issue. The issue is whether the coffee was delivered at a significantly higher temperature than it should have been delivered and whether this 'defect' is responsible for the magnitude of the injury. There was no defect in the coffee. The only defect was in the brain of the stupid old woman that spilled the coffee on herself. The only thing at issue here is wether any reasonable person would expect to get burned if they spilled hot coffee on themselves and then sat there like a moron and let it continue to burn them. Yes, any reasonable person would expect to be burned IMO, and If I'm sitting on the jury, she gets nothing. I can run my hand through a blow torch for a short period of time. Only an idiot would leave it there and not expect to get burned. -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Wes Newell wrote:
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:14:12 -0700, David Schwartz wrote: "Wes Newell" wrote in message newsan.2004.09.02.16.56.51.8860@TAKEOUTverizon .net... We;re talking coffee here, not SUV's are anything complex. I'm certain most 4 year olds know hot coffe will burn them. If they don't, their parents should be horsewhipped. That's not the issue. The issue is whether the coffee was delivered at a significantly higher temperature than it should have been delivered and whether this 'defect' is responsible for the magnitude of the injury. There was no defect in the coffee. The only defect was in the brain of the stupid old woman that spilled the coffee on herself. The only thing at issue here is wether any reasonable person would expect to get burned if they spilled hot coffee on themselves and then sat there like a moron and let it continue to burn them. Yes, any reasonable person would expect to be burned IMO, and If I'm sitting on the jury, she gets nothing. I can run my hand through a blow torch for a short period of time. Only an idiot would leave it there and not expect to get burned. Unfortunately you're also trying to communicate with a bunch of morons. It seems the predominate U.S.A. mentality is they are not responsible for their own action, the government is supposed to provide everything to them free and they don't feel obligated to pay any kind of taxes to support their government, and to sue anybody and everybody for anything they can. And to support all this, we fill our juries with morons that have the same mindset! |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
David Schwartz wrote:
"Tony Hill" wrote in message ... It's a matter of expectations. I expect that my SUV will not roll over under normal driving conditions, but I am fully aware that if I push it to hard that it won't be able to handle it. Similarly I expect my coffee to be hot, but fully expect that if I dump the thing in my lap it will continue to be hot and burn me. I don't think very many people would expect that spilling McDonald's coffee on your lap could result in third degree burns requiring hospitalization for 8 days and skin grafts. There are simple expectations that people should have before purchasing anything. Anyone and everyone who buys coffee should be well aware that it's hot, and even most toddlers know that hot things can burn. Even if McD's coffee had been only 150F or so it could still very easily burn someone if spilled in their lap. That's not the point. The point is that because McDonald's coffee was unusually hot, it caused unusually severe burns. This is one of the real problems with the "corporate veil", it removes responsibility. However I don't think that the way to fight this is by removing responsibility from consumers as well to the extent that no one is properly responsible for anything. That's what we're seeing in this case. McD's hiding behind the corporate veil so that no one will be responsible for their coffee being hotter than other companies coffee, and the woman is hiding behind her apparent right to ignorance that hot coffee can burn. She never said she had no idea hot coffee could burn. She said she had no idea that McDonald's coffee was so hot that it could cause third degree burns. Frankly, I would not have thought that spilled coffee could cause third degree burns either, but I never really thought about the case where very fresh coffee spilled on a person who was in a confined space and so couldn't easily get the hot liquid away from their skin. This is a case about an unusually dangerous product that caused an unusually severe injury. Having coffee slosh over my hand for whatever reason happens once in a while. Everywhere else I've gotten coffee from it has just been a matter of shrugging off a little pain from a mild scalding and ten minutes later there is no visible sign on your hand that anything ever happened. However McDonald's coffee is so much hotter that it caused blistering that took about two weeks to heal. No prolonged exposure was necessary - and it is painful to think about how much worse it would have been if I had spilled it someplace where my clothing would have held the hot liquid in place. My reaction was simply to stop buying McDonald's coffee, but I do have a *lot* of empathy for those who decided to sue. -- Reply to Do not remove anything. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:29:32 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips MyndPhlyp wrote: http://www.liberator.net/articles/Va...nsibility.html Very nice, but I wouldn't consider debridement to be required for "minor burns". Especially not on the vulva (ouch!) IMHO, Wikipedia is a bit more authoratative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case It _is_ an interesting question of responsibility: 1) coffee is customarily served at 150-160'F 2) McD coffee was deliberately served at 180-190'F (presumably for competitive advantage -- staying warm longer or to use cheaper coffee beans) Competative advantage? Perhaps competative pressure. A friend had a Dunkin' Donuts franchise and we were talking about this issue when it hit the presses. They were *required* by franchise agreement to keep their coffee at 180F +/- 3F. The corporate inspectors would show up unnanounced and measure the temperature. They were heavily fined if it was out-of-spec. Contrary to the claims in this thread 180F is not unusual for coffee. 3) who is to blame for the resulting burns? The ass that put the cup in their lap. Dunno about you, but I'm smart enough not to get even 150F water near my johnson! The same question of responsibility arises in lots of cases, tire blowouts, vehicles catching fire, ... One expects hot coffee. One doesn't expect tire blowouts and vehicles catching fire *THESE DAYS*. There was a time where such was reasonable. There has *always* been a time where hot water and private parts don't mix. Maybe people in the computer field accept strict "caveat emptor" because the major software supplier(s) produce buggy products. That much is obvious. The proof is that wee-Willie Gates has a roof over his head. ;-) -- Keith |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:59:10 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:18:39 GMT, Robert Redelmeier wrote: snip Or closer to home -- some motherboards fail prematurely due to low-quality capacitors leaking out. If my motherboard came with a 3 year warranty I would expect that it would last for those 3 years without failing. However I do recognize that after a certain period of time it WILL fail for one reason or another (be it capacitors, blow diodes, fried resistors or severe physical damage by my being frustrated with a slow, outdated computer). If I buy a cheap-ass motherboard that only came with a 1 year warranty and it dies 2 years down the road, I have no one to blame but myself. You equate the length of a warranty with life expectancy? I should expect my truck to fail because the warranty just expired? Are all of these things "caveat emptor"? How would you discourage manufacturers from cutting corners? Is reputation enough? Enough in view of investor short-termism? Do you want a market so paranoid that reputation is everything and hence closed to new entrants? (Europe?) There are simple expectations that people should have before purchasing anything. Anyone and everyone who buys coffee should be well aware that it's hot, and even most toddlers know that hot things can burn. Even if McD's coffee had been only 150F or so it could still very easily burn someone if spilled in their lap. Exactly! I don't much like punitive damages. But there is lots of slop in the legal system, particularly people who suffer in silence or get soaked by lawyers fees (IANAL) or silent because. The threat of punative damages are a counter-weight. How would you keep the corps mindful of the true loss they can cause in the face of a clear duty to maximize profit for shareholders? This is one of the real problems with the "corporate veil", it removes responsibility. However I don't think that the way to fight this is by removing responsibility from consumers as well to the extent that no one is properly responsible for anything. That's what we're seeing in this case. McD's hiding behind the corporate veil so that no one will be responsible for their coffee being hotter than other companies coffee, and the woman is hiding behind her apparent right to ignorance that hot coffee can burn. In the end, all the money just ends up getting shuffled around into lawyers pockets and neither the corporation or the consumers benefit. That is the bigger issue. The littigation lottery costs us all big money. I've been called to sit on civil jurries, but every time they had the good sense to settle out-of-court. ;-) -- Keith |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
keith wrote:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:29:32 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips MyndPhlyp wrote: http://www.liberator.net/articles/Va...nsibility.html Very nice, but I wouldn't consider debridement to be required for "minor burns". Especially not on the vulva (ouch!) IMHO, Wikipedia is a bit more authoratative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case It _is_ an interesting question of responsibility: 1) coffee is customarily served at 150-160'F 2) McD coffee was deliberately served at 180-190'F (presumably for competitive advantage -- staying warm longer or to use cheaper coffee beans) Competative advantage? Perhaps competative pressure. A friend had a Dunkin' Donuts franchise and we were talking about this issue when it hit the presses. They were *required* by franchise agreement to keep their coffee at 180F +/- 3F. The corporate inspectors would show up unnanounced and measure the temperature. They were heavily fined if it was out-of-spec. Contrary to the claims in this thread 180F is not unusual for coffee. There is no excuse for coffee that hot. It will be interesting to see what happens if one of your friend's customers needs a skin graft after spilling his coffee. "I vas chust following orders" is not an acceptable excuse for blatant stupidity so I would expect your friend to be personally liable. 3) who is to blame for the resulting burns? The ass that put the cup in their lap. Dunno about you, but I'm smart enough not to get even 150F water near my johnson! You've never had an accident ? Nobody has ever spilled their coffee on you or caused you to spill yours on yourself ? And 150 or 160 degrees or is no big deal - you scream and cuss and then you go home to change your clothes and the event is soon forgotten. *THAT* is what people expect when they spill their coffee. 180' coffee is an entirely different story. The same question of responsibility arises in lots of cases, tire blowouts, vehicles catching fire, ... One expects hot coffee. 150 to 160 degree is plenty hot for coffee yet safe if you spill it on yourself and that is what people expect. 180 degrees is simply stupid and dangerous and nobody expects that One doesn't expect tire blowouts and vehicles catching fire *THESE DAYS*. There was a time where such was reasonable. There has *always* been a time where hot water and private parts don't mix. Maybe people in the computer field accept strict "caveat emptor" because the major software supplier(s) produce buggy products. That much is obvious. The proof is that wee-Willie Gates has a roof over his head. ;-) -- Reply to Do not remove anything. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message .rogers.com... Lee Waun wrote: Killfiling JK is no proof that you're pro-Intel or anti-AMD. :-) Yousuf Khan Yah but it sure makes the group easier to read. I hope Intel catches up to AMD tech wise but even if they don't I won't buy AMD just to **** JK off. He's making AMDroids wanna go buy a Pentium. Yousuf Khan He he He. Maybe he really is an Intel plant. Makes sense if you really think about it. No one can really be as stupid as he seems to be. It has to be an act to make AMD look bad. It is working too. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Lee Waun" wrote in message news:Hun_c.104545$X12.53884@edtnps84... No one can really be as stupid as he seems to be. Genius has its limitations, while stupidity knows no boundaries. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 21:06:01 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote: On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:37:36 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Wes Newell wrote: BS, Any coffee drinker knows that the water is boiling when brewed. I'd assume it to be freshly brewed at 212F, I wouldn't want to drink any of your coffee! I don't drink coffee, but that doesn't mean I've never brewed it or seen it brewed. And if I know it's hot as hell, she sure as hell should have. She was just plain stupid and didn't deserve a dime. http://www.coffeeresearch.org/coffee/brewing.htm The water might _start_ out boiling, but the beans, apparatus and contact with air cool it quite a bit. So that's why there's a burner underneath the coffeepot, to cool it off. Christ man, you're making a fool of yourself. I said it was freshly brewed at 212F, not served at 212F. Freshly served, I'd expect what she got ,180-190F. Since you have admitted you don't drink coffee, it naturally follows that you don't have a clue about making and drinking it: it should *not* be brewed at 212F... something which seems to be done by the cheap coffee joints to extract the maximum of what are actually undesirable components from the cheap over-roasted beans they use. Good coffee requires a water temp of ~195F max for the extraction step and by the time it's passed through the apparatus used to prepare it and hit a cool jug it should be close to the perfect drinking temp of 135-140F or preferably cooler... for me personally. If "burners" are used to keep it hotter, they have nothing to do with good coffee. The fact is that, as admitted by the sellers, they are assuming that the buyer is intending to take the just purchased coffee to an office where it will be drunk 10-20mins later... apparently by someone who doesn't care about the taste and likely thinks that slurping as a form of in-line cooling is err, OK! Personally, I'm sick to death of finding that the coffee I buy at a highway-stop is served scalding hot and in a styrofoam cup which only serves to extend the waiting period before it becomes drinkable... as a poor substitute for the real item. The only question here is whether a cup of coffee as purchased is fit for drinking, in fact not dangerously and unnecessarily hot... never mind spilling, without risk of *serious* injury - obviously not! Nope - McD's et.al. needs to err, cool it. Why don't they get the umm, message?... insufficient economic penalty for their sins?? Hell the woman only wanted her medical costs paid initially. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Windows XP 64bit 1218 is ready to download at Microsoft | Ugly Mugly | AMD x86-64 Processors | 32 | August 22nd 04 05:22 AM |
Will Windows Power the Living Room? | Ablang | General | 31 | July 8th 04 05:34 AM |
Freedom: Coming to a Windows Box Near You | Ablang | General | 0 | June 30th 04 03:04 AM |
Valid Points 101: 2x P4 Xeons + Hyperthreading + Windows XP Professional / W2K / NT4 / *Nix (long post!) | Duncan, Eric A. | General | 7 | February 3rd 04 05:06 PM |
Machine seems slow. | [email protected] | General | 12 | January 20th 04 12:13 PM |