Once again, Syn, you are only hearing one side of the story. This reminds me of the hype surrounding the famed McDonalds Coffee Case wherein internet writers tried to stir up sympathy for McDonalds because a jury awarded a woman damages for burning herself on their coffee.
http://www.hurt911.org/mcdonalds.html
The real facts of the case, which went to the jury, substantially effect the outcome and make McDonalds look like a bunch of twats.
http://www.hurt911.org/mcdonalds.html
The real facts of the case, which went to the jury, substantially effect the outcome and make McDonalds look like a bunch of twats.
Quote:McDonald's representatives lied to the court and jury about the existence of other claims, but documents showing that they knew of more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992 were admitted in to evidence. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of the intentionally created hazard. McDonald's even ignored a request from the Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati to turn down the temperature of its coffee. McDonald's also said that based on a consultants 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.
