Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 134900" data-attributes="member: 3400">Re: EamonThe figures for other coffee places I've seen quoted by the food consultants is a bit less than that. From <a href="http://www.atlanet.org/cjfacts/other/mcdonald.ht#anchor887148:" target="_blank">http://www.atlanet.org/cjfacts/other/mcdonald.ht#anchor887148:</a>"McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.Further, McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degree or above, and that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn."So, based on that sort of evidence, a jury decided that the plaintiff's case had merit and McDonalds should pay the price. Again, not exactly something I would call frivolous.But then, there are many corporations that will fight any lawsuit rather than settle because they have the money to exhaust any private citizen's ability to pay legal fees (like Disney) or who will settle and then impose a gag order, never admitting fault. I recall a local newpaper having a story about that sort of thing involving a truck manufacturer, faulty gear boxes, and a young man getting killed when the truck slipped into gear. After the settlement, the family found out about other similar cases and blew the whistle.But both of those cases involve the sale of a material good while Evercrack's issue (and we've been calling it that since it came out and a few of our friends disappeared into the geeky online haze) is the sale of an experience moreso than a good. Sure, the CD it comes on could be defective but it won't cause significant material harm (barring computer virii). It really sells an experience that is at the user's demand. That's one reason the comparisons in these cases breaks down. That's also why this is different from drugs which can be demonstrated to cause material harm. Whether Evercrack can cause psychological harm? So can your average middle-school gym class. Or watching 36 straight hours of Gilligan's Island....</blockquote>

Verification