Would this have happened in the U.S.?

Now that he has the bottle, you no longer have evidence that might be used
to sue them.

Of course, that is more the kind of thinking here in the US. Japan may be
different.

Yes, that sounds like the US way of thinking. What a shame it has gotten
like that.

Curt

"Cubit" wrote in message .com...
Now that he has the bottle, you no longer have evidence that might be used
to sue them.

Sue them for what?

I drink mostly mineral water and green tea, but also partake of a bottle
of
Diet Coke about once a week.

Usually it is very refreshing, but the bottle I bought yesterday tasted
funny. So for the first time ever I phoned the Coca Cola free-dial number
on
the bottle.

Within an hour an executive from Coca Cola was at my house apologizing,
taking my bottle for examination and giving me two new bottles in
exchange.

Somehow I can't imagine getting the same service in the U.S.


Hmm. I'll bet they would ask where the bad ones were purchased and then
send me coupons for free Coke.

*

"Lee" wrote in message
om...
"Cubit" wrote in message
.com...
Now that he has the bottle, you no longer have evidence that might be
used
to sue them.

Sue them for what?

Incase there is something wrong with the product. Keep in mind we are
talking about the US where people sue if coffee is too hot and people sue if
restaurants serve fattening food and they gained weight. What is even
sadder, is the people win and make loads of money on these lawsuits. So in
the US, it is sue or be sued.

Enjoy,
Curt

On Tue, 11 May 2004 20:43:01 GMT, "curt"
announced in front of God and everybody:

Keep in mind we are
talking about the US where people sue if coffee is too hot ...

Happy to jump back on this long-dead horse ...

The case you snidely refer to, against McDonalds, has been used as an
example of frivolous lawsuits for years. While I agree that too many
people are far too litigation prone over the slightest thing, this is
a bad example:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious
injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the
past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never
so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very
serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and
buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk
who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have
brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not
dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the
case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously
hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post
warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most
customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's
was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company.
When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's
had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and
rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The
equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation
generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the
sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a
fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997,
indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when
a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that
McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still
approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third
degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds,
requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that
cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent
disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many
months, and in some cases, years.

(as helpfully listed he http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm )

Dawn

Dawn Taylor

writes:

Keep in mind we are
talking about the US where people sue if coffee is too hot ...

Happy to jump back on this long-dead horse ...

snip

Thanks for posting the facts on this, Dawn. It always irks me that people
don't realize this was a very serious case.

Daria
166/144/140
sugar-free since 2/1/04
low-carb since 2/17/04

Dawn Taylor wrote:

[snip]

:: McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997,
:: indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when
:: a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that
:: McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still
:: approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third
:: degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds,
:: requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that
:: cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent
:: disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many
:: months, and in some cases, years.

McFact No. 9: McDonald's coffee is now served at a temperature that is too
low. (IMO)

Exactly. I guess Japanese businessmen don't care about actually fixing
the problem. Typical if you ask me, with where that country is headed. Yeah,
that must be it. Somehow, I can't imagine getting the same low level of
service in the U.S.

-Chad

"freeborn" wrote in message
news:2Oaoc.17701$k24.10234@fed1read01...
I drink mostly mineral water and green tea, but also partake of a bottle
of
Diet Coke about once a week.

Usually it is very refreshing, but the bottle I bought yesterday tasted
funny. So for the first time ever I phoned the Coca Cola free-dial
number
on
the bottle.

Within an hour an executive from Coca Cola was at my house apologizing,
taking my bottle for examination and giving me two new bottles in
exchange.

Somehow I can't imagine getting the same service in the U.S.


Hmm. I'll bet they would ask where the bad ones were purchased and then
send me coupons for free Coke.

*

Gosh, Dawn, you are always trying to confuse people with the facts. G


In ,
Dawn Taylor stated
| Happy to jump back on this long-dead horse ...
|
| The case you snidely refer to, against McDonalds, has been used as an
| example of frivolous lawsuits for years. While I agree that too many
| people are far too litigation prone over the slightest thing, this is
| a bad example:
|
| McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with
| the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much
| hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
|
| McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious
| injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the
| past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never
| so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
|
| McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very
| serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and
| buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
|
| McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk
| who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have
| brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not
| dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
|
| McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the
| case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously
| hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post
| warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most
| customers wouldn't think it was possible.
|
| McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's
| was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company.
| When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's
| had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and
| rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The
| equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation
| generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the
| sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
|
| McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a
| fact not widely publicized in the media.
|
| McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997,
| indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when
| a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that
| McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still
| approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third
| degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds,
| requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that
| cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent
| disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many
| months, and in some cases, years.
|
| (as helpfully listed he http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm )
|
| Dawn

"DG511" wrote in message
...

Thanks for posting the facts on this, Dawn. It always irks me that people
don't realize this was a very serious case.

Yes, the woman was seriously burned, and the coffee was very hot. I do think
it's a shame. Yet I also think someone who holds a steaming hot cup of
coffee between their thighs to either open it, or hold it, deserves at least
a bit if contributory negligence.

Debbie