Re: McDonald's coffee

Subject: Re: McDonald's coffee
From: Bob Morrisette <writer -at- SABU -dot- EBAY -dot- SUN -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 23:06:51 GMT

In article 114566608 -at- aol -dot- com, HEP2 -at- aol -dot- com writes:
> >This is apparently why MacDonald's had to pay so much to that old lady who
> >spilled coffee in her lap--because the coffee did not say "Warning: Coffee
> is
> >hot!" (the cups now say this).

> This is not the reason for the huge jury award against McDonald's. On the
> surface it looks like a ludicrous award that the jury gave. But there must
> have been some reason, and there was. And it was a very good one.

> Here is the actual reason, and it had nothing to do with a lack of a warning
> label. See whether or not this changes your opinion about the jury award.

> We all know coffee is hot, or at least most people expect it to be. But there
> are limits to how hot it should be. Scalding is too hot and a company
> shouldn't be selling coffee exceptionally hot. So, why would McDonald's heat
> up their coffee beyond any drinkable limits and then hand it to someone?
> Simple. Profit. You see if you make coffee by super heating the water you can
> make more coffee from the package of beans. So, you get more coffee for less
> cost = more profit. Well, what if you manage to sell hundreds of millions of
> cups of coffee every year and can get 25% more product without spending any
> more money just by heating it up a lot hotter than most people expect.

> Most people when they order a cup of coffee expect to be able to hold the cup
> without it being so hot that you can't even hold the cup when it is handed to
> you. It was unclear whether or not the person dropped the cup after it was
> handed to them, or whether the person at the window handing out the coffee
> couldn't keep hold of it. The result was that the person received a splash of
> coffee that wasn't just hot, but was hotter than the hottest coffee you've
> ever held in your hand. And the coffee didn't land in her hand. And it was
> that hot on purpose. Considering those facts the jury found that McDonald's
> was in great error when they served that patron. And I agree with the jury
> completely and don't think the jury award was in the least unfair.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
You must be a lawyer. The reason the jury awarded a huge amount to
the lady was because McDonald's is a famous company with $billions
in sales. If the lady had sued Joe's Drive-In for the same thing,
she would not receive anything.

Why are we discussing this in a tech writer's list?

Sabu
writer -at- sabu


Previous by Author: Finally! A Solution for Using Word 6.0 to Produce Long, Multi-Chapter, Technical Documents
Next by Author: Re: FrameMaker Book Question
Previous by Thread: Re: McDonald's coffee
Next by Thread: McDonald's Coffee


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads