Originally posted by hitech
Do you know the details of that suit? It's not as cut and dried as it first appears. They (McDonalds) had a HUGE number of complaints that the coffee was way to hot. They chose to ignore it. THAT is what got them in trouble (and pretty poor attorneys). Now, I still think that McDonalds should have won that suit. After all, what is coffee made from (answer: BOILING water). However, it is not as simple as it seems. They lost because they IGNORED what the jury agreed was a DANGEROUS condition. The attorneys failed to convince the jury that the coffee being dangerous wasn't their client's fault. It would seem simple, Attorney: "What is coffee made from?", plaintiff: "Boiling water?"... I haven't read the transcripts of the trial, but it's never as simple as it seems...
Do you know the details of that suit? It's not as cut and dried as it first appears. They (McDonalds) had a HUGE number of complaints that the coffee was way to hot. They chose to ignore it. THAT is what got them in trouble (and pretty poor attorneys). Now, I still think that McDonalds should have won that suit. After all, what is coffee made from (answer: BOILING water). However, it is not as simple as it seems. They lost because they IGNORED what the jury agreed was a DANGEROUS condition. The attorneys failed to convince the jury that the coffee being dangerous wasn't their client's fault. It would seem simple, Attorney: "What is coffee made from?", plaintiff: "Boiling water?"... I haven't read the transcripts of the trial, but it's never as simple as it seems...
<---Should be banned for circumventing the cuss filter.

whatever
Comment