Re: OT Humour, The Stella Awards


"Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11a6d5l1empjk48@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Bill wrote:
>> "Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:11a5h78e4uk3qde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>>Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>Bob wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Appropriate is a value judgement that you may make for yourself, but
>>>>>*everybody* selling coffee does it the ways I've described. You don't
>>>>>have to like it and you don't have to agree with it. But you also are in
>>>>>a trivially small minority. The vast preponderance of coffee drinkers
>>>>>(and tea drinkers where boiling water is used to make tea) have no
>>>>>difficulties with hot coffee as delivered by the foodservice industry.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This seems to be one:
>>>
>>>This seems to be one what? Non sequiturs seem to be your M.O.
>
> The sentence immediately above relates to nothing preceding it. That makes
> it a noon sequitur. Definition. It doesn't *follow*.
>

Absoulety not true it related to the following paragraph above it which the 2
paragraphs following elaborated on:

> *All* commercial brewers of coffee make it in accordance with National
> Coffee Institute standards. Commercial coffee makers all come set to those
> standards. In 30 years of operating restaurants, I haven't seen any such
> machines with dials that let the owner set the temperature. No big black
> dial with numbers next to it. No little chrome dials with letters next to
> it. None has ever had such an adjustment where owners can reach over and
> change the temperatures at which they operate. When you go into Starbuck's
> and other such coffee operations and they make coffee with steamed milk,
> it's very nearly at the boiling point of water when it's passed over the
> counter.

>
>> Do you not understand that the following is a coffee maker? Why do you find
>> this a non sequitur?
>>
>>
>>>>Shown with 1.5 gallon Thermofresh Servers (sold separately). Brews .5, 1,
>>>>or 1.5 gallon batches. Stores individual coffee recipes so operator can
>>>>easily brew many different varieties. Coffee extraction controlled with
>>>>pre-infusion and Pulse-BrewT, digital temperature control, and large
>>>>sprayhead; coffee strength controlled with variable by-pass Operate any
>>>>combination of equipment error-free with wireless brewer-grinder interface
>>>>through the Smart Funnel. Example: G92T HD DBC Reduce accidents with
>>>>safety features like the SplashGardT funnel that decreases hot splashes.
>>>>Eliminate brewing when funnel is not present and lock the funnel in place
>>>>while brewing. (optional). Make brewing simpler with easy-to-use membrane
>>>>switches and alphanumeric display. Troubleshoot all switches and
>>>>electrical components from the front panel with advanced diagnostic
>>>>service tools. Black and Stainless models available. 35.7" H x 21.8" W x
>>>>20.2" D. Brewing capacity is 18.9 gallons/hour.
>>>
>>>You neglected to indicate where this copy came from, but since ThermoFresh
>>>is a Bunn product line, I went to their site. Here's what I found for
>>>specs. Couple different models.
>>
>>
>> It came from:
>>
>> http://www.abestkitchen.com/store/coffee.html
>>
>>
>>>Coffee brewers with *portable servers* [emphasis mine]
>>>. Brews 16.3 to 18.9 gallons (61.7 to 71.5 liters) of perfect coffee per
>>>hour.
>>>. Brews 1/2, 1, or 11/2 gallon (1.9, 3.8 or 5.7 liter) batches.
>>>. Patented server heat control automatically shuts off once target
>>>temperature is reached. Can be set to 175°-190°F (79.4-87.8°C).
>>>. Electronic grinder interface instructs grinder on exact amount of coffee
>>>for selected brew batch size.
>>>. Remote 1 or 2 server docking stations for additional satellite coffee
>>>serving.
>>>. Safety-Fresh® patented brew-through lid with vapor seal and spill
>>>prevention.
>>>. Variable batch selector knob lets you brew large batches or small
>>>servings.
>>>. International electrical configurations available.
>>>
>>>And another one:
>>>
>>>BrewWISE® Dual SH DBC
>>>BrewWISE Dual Soft Heat® Brewer with Smart Funnel & Docking System
>>> * Brews 18.9 gallons (71.5 litres) of perfect coffee per hour.
>>> * Brews .5, 1, or 1.5 gallon (1.9, 3.8 or 5.7 litre) batches.
>>> * Stores individual coffee and ?avor pro?les using adjustable water
>>> volume, bypass percentage, Pulse-BrewT, and pre-infusion timing.
>>> * Operate any combination of BrewWISE® equipment error-free with
>>> wireless brewer-grinder interface via Smart Funnel. Example: MHG or G92T
>>> HD DBC grinders.
>>> * Reduce accidents with safety features that eliminate brewing when
>>> funnel or server is not present and decrease hot splashes with our
>>> SplashGard® funnels.
>>> * Troubleshoot all switches and electrical components from the front
>>> panel with advanced diagnostic service tools.
>>> * Consistently brew perfect coffee using Digital Brewer Control with
>>> BUNN patented Pulse-Brew.
>>> * Simplify installation and calibration by creating your own recipe
>>> cards and dedicated funnels with the BrewWISE Recipe Writer using your PC
>>> (Windows® compatible).
>>> * International electrical con?gurations available.
>>>
>>>See, yes, the *serving* the temperature can be set.
>>
>>
>> Which contridicts your previous statement:
>>
>> "In 30 years of operating restaurants, I haven't seen
>> any such machines with dials that let the owner set the temperature. No
>> big black dial with numbers next to it. No little chrome dials with
>> letters next to it. None has ever had such an adjustment where owners
>> can reach over and change the temperatures at which they operate. "
>>
>> Which was the point.
>
> Nice try, Bill. You know very well that I was talking about coffee *makers*
> not coffee *servers*. This is another example of your inability to stay to
> topic.
>

This describes a maker not a server. It explicity says the servers a sold
seperately.

>>>Brewing temperature is their standard 200°F (spec *** says 60°F incoming
>>>water with 140°F rise. That brings it to 200°F). The **minimum**
>>>temperature for *serving* is 175°F. Minimum temperature. On up to 190°F
>>>*serving* temperature.
>>><http://www.bunnomatic.com/pdfs/commercial/specsheets/a27.pdf>
>>><http://www.bunnomatic.com/pages/commercl/related/rel_sh_servers.html>
>>>
>>>>This comes from:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.consumersearch.com/www/kitchen/coffee-maker-reviews/fullstory.html
>>>>
>>>>There are plenty of ways to make a cup of coffee, but most of the sources
>>>>in our All The Reviews Reviewed chart (which include Good Housekeeping and
>>>>Consumer Reports) agree that the drip method is the most convenient and
>>>>can produce a wonderful-tasting brew. Cook's Illustrated says when the
>>>>coffee beans are ground to the correct size (not too fine), the water
>>>>temperature is right (195 to 205 degrees for brewing, 155 to 175 for
>>>>serving), and brewing is fast enough (four to six minutes), the drip
>>>>method results in a rich flavor.
>>>
>>>And this isn't a commercial coffee maker discussion. It's about home units.
>>>And note that the temperatures are right in line with National Coffee
>>>Institute standards for brewing as shown with the commercial units above.
>>>Still in 3rd degree burn territory. And way higher than the erroneous
>>>testimony about serving temperatures you keep quoting from the McD's trial.
>>>
>> That's a fair point.
>>
>>>>And we have this from:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.qualitykitchen.com/regal.htm
>>>
>>>Did you even go look at this one? It's designed for self-service coffee or
>>>hot water pouring. It's no good for coffee service in a restaurant or fast
>>>food operation. Too slow to pour and way too slow to brew. Not a useful
>>>example for what you're trying to demonstrate. It's for long-term holding
>>>of coffee. Holding it at a reduced temperature reduces oxidation and
>>>changes in coffee oils so it doesn't have that "burned" taste you get with
>>>pots of coffee sitting on heater plates. These units are for meetings,
>>>large gatherings where individual pots would be impractical and for
>>>long-time availability. We had several of them in my last hotel restaurant
>>>operation. Make the coffee at 7 am and have it still be palatable near
>>>noon. But useless for coffee service in any other application.
>>>
>>>They say about their own products, "3 convenient sizes for everything from
>>>a small dinner party to a large social gathering." But not for table
>>>service or take-out.
>>>
>> I will take your word for it.
>
> Oh, bull***. It's *their* word for *their* product. All it demonstrates is
> that you didn't bother to read the whole thing before hastily posting
> another blunder.
>
>

Boy. You won't even let me trust you. I'm saying I trust you that this can not
be used in a commercial setting. And you attack me for this.

>>
>>
>>>>Regal Ware's commercial stainless steel coffee urns offer the elegant look
>>>>of durable stainless steel coupled with the speed that only the insulating
>>>>qualities of stainless steel provide.
>>>>
>>>> The heater/boiler is made of durable stainless steel to prevent
>>>> oxidation and has a puck style element that is easy to clean and will not
>>>> break as cal rod elements do.
>>>>
>>>> The infinite switch is adjustable from 140° F to boiling. The units
>>>> have grounded commercial plugs, are CUL and NSF listed, and are available
>>>> in 45 cup and 90 cup sizes.
>>>
>>>This shows you also don't know anything about commercial coffee making. In
>>>spite of my efforts to teach you about them so you could at least make a
>>>stab at supporting your wobbly positions. Your obvious confusions cripple
>>>your capacity to make *any* valid points.
>>>
>>>You may go now.
>>>
>>>Pastorio
>>
>> You have addressed essentially nothing in my response including the many
>> statements that Coffee is served at a lower temp.
>
> Coffee poured from coffee pots - which is how it's done at McD's because
> they don't have time to fiddle with the kinds of brewers you've cited - will
> be at the standard temperatures.

It would be a one time adjustment. And they are obliged to keep various other
things up to standard.

> Period. There's nothing more to talk about with this.

Only in your mind, because you really are not open to thoughts that may
contridict your own.

>The units you cite are *not* used for the kind of service in question.
>

That I accept. I really looked and othen than finding the temperature could be
adjusted I could not find the range on other units.

I have cited instances where the coffee was found well below 180. I have not
found examples to prove your case or mine concerning either whether lower
temp. makers are available (nothing either way is mentioned on the sites I
found) or the current standards at FF
restaurants. But the lack of information does not prove your case.

> > I'll repeat it for you with
>> the issues you addressed left out.
>
> Bob wrote:
>>>You raised the question of whether McD's was deliberately setting their
>>>coffee machines too hot.
>
> Bill:
>> Not exactly. I did not say they were turning them up. I said they should
>> have
>> turned them down - from the factory settings.
>
> Bob:
>>>I gave you references that says they were exactly in line with *all*
>>>foodservice standards.

Yes. With with coffee standards assoc. With those people who want to set
things for best taste. But, for example, I cited McD's quality control person
who said anything above 140 was too hot.

> You raised the issue of drive-through coffee
>>>temperatures and I gave you citations that said that *all* coffee brewed
>>>with commercial machines operated in the same narrow temperature range. You
>>>cited the false information that coffee at home is served at 130-140°F and
>>>I cited the appliance manufacturers' association that said it wasn't true.

Here is what you wrote:


>Standards set by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers require
>brewing temperatures to fall between 170 degrees and 205 degrees Fahrenheit
>and holding temperatures to be at least 130 degrees

This contridicts your statement. Note further I think we agreed that there is
perhaps a drop of 15 degrees with pouring. It may be more with China than a
plastic cup. (Also you have more ability to cool it.)

> Bill:
>> On temp. I'll just repeat what I said in a recent post that you have not
>> replied to.
>>
>>>>This was from the trial:
>>>>
>>>>"McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard
>>>>exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that
>>>>McDonald's
>>>>coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and
>>>>throat."
>>>>
>>>>So perhaps you are right on the 140 degree standard.
>
> Dispensed with.
>

Incorrect.

> Bill:
>>>>This also came out at the trial:
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>> a.. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures
>>>>than at McDonald's.
>>>> b.. Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
>
> Bob:
>>>These three points have already been dealt with. You're shabbily dishonest
>>>to keep bringing them up when the first "a" is what *everybody* does
>>>because the coffee makers come pre-set to correct brewing and holding
>>>temperatures from the factory,
>
> Bill:
>> So are you saying 1. this can not be adjusted. 2. that all major coffee
>> makers
>> come at the same temp. If so, you have a valid point. If not, the point
>> remains - other places could serve at lower temps. and it was in McD's
>> power
>> to do so.
>
> Bob:
>>>the second "a" is unproven and patently false and the "b" is likewise false
>>>and has been so demonstrated.
>>
>> How is it patently false? I honestly don't recall how you have demonstrated
>> that b is false.
>
> I've shown that coffee dispensed from the kind of machines McD's uses have
> no temperature controls. And that only the ones used for banquets and other
> *catering* applications do - and these types are too slow to brew and too
> slow to dispense for restaurant service.
>

No you have not. What you have shown is that I have not found examples. And
the reason is that nothing about temperature control is stated in the product
descriptions.

>> And you have not addressed the question of what the McD's quality control
>> person said.
>
> Jeezus, Bill. A few inches up you concede that I do.

I honestly don't understand. Not trying to be belligerient.

>
> Quoting from above:
> >>>"McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard
> >>>exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and
> that McDonald's
> >>>coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and
> >>>throat."
> >>>
> >>>So perhaps you are right on the 140 degree standard.
>
>
>>>>>>There was testimony that coffee at
>>>>>>home is served typically at 140 or below
>>>>>
>>>>>And I've offered you indisputable refutation of that untruth. Why do oyu
>>>>>persist in *only* quoting that bad information that corroborates what you
>>>>>think you konw but have demonstrated that you don't? Coffee at home is
>>>>>brewed at temperatures in the range of that which was served to Stella.
>>>>>The heater plate on home units is designed to keep coffee at lower
>>>>>temperatures because to put in a plate that works like professional units
>>>>>would cost too much for the manufacturers. I've also given you the
>>>>>industryt references for that. You keep saying the same things, ignoring
>>>>>new information that you don't like.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I honestly don't recall that. Please help me out by giving me the
>>>>reference again - home coffee is not typically served below 140 degrees.
>>>
>>>Bill, I've given it to you at least two times already. Once again so you
>>>remember...
>>>
>>>" [The] executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America .
>>>. . is called upon frequently in similar cases . . . . [He] says the
>>>McDonald's defense erred by not challenging the figures cited for home
>>>coffee brewers, which were incorrect. Standards set by the Association of
>>>Home Appliance Manufacturers require brewing temperatures to fall between
>>>170 degrees and 205 degrees Fahrenheit and holding temperatures to be at
>>>least 130 degrees. [¶] The coffee industry has even higher standards. . . .
>>>They set a minimum water temperature of 195 degrees and a maximum of 205
>>>degrees. To maintain flavor, coffee must be held at 185 degrees to 190
>>>degrees. The temperature drops by as much as 15 degrees when coffee is
>>>poured and loses up to 10 degrees when creaming agents are added. . . . [¶]
>>>"To be pleasing as a hot beverage, coffee, tea or soup must be served in a
>>>range between 155 degrees to 175 degrees," he says. "You have to boil soup
>>>to break down the fat, and you must boil [sic] tea and coffee to extract
>>>flavor, but, obviously, you don't serve at boiling temperature." [¶] "Home
>>>appliance manufacturers," he notes, "would have set higher standards, but
>>>doing so would require expensive parts which would have prevented them from
>>>being able to sell coffee makers at retail for about $30. So, we in the
>>>industry are giving consumers a better cup of coffee than they can make at
>>>home."
>>><http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/rbrill/TORTS-FALL2002/evening/sup_mat/coffee.html>
>>>
>> And I have refuted that.
>
> Bill, to *refute* it, you have to prove it erroneous in some matter. The
> citation is a compilation of *facts* used by the industry. You've offered
> your own questions about whether it should or should not be that way and
> it's a pointless exercise. It *is* that way. No refutation of facts is
> possible.
>

OK. I agree refute is the wrong word. I responded to them and attempt to show
how they do not make the case that 185 degrees was an appropriate serving
temperature. I repeat that below.

> " [The] executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America .
> . . is called upon frequently in similar cases . . . . [He] says the
> McDonald's defense erred by not challenging the figures cited for home
> coffee brewers, which were incorrect. Standards set by the Association of
> Home Appliance Manufacturers require brewing temperatures to fall between
> 170 degrees and 205 degrees Fahrenheit and holding temperatures to be at
> least 130 degrees.

Ok. That really does not contridict the statement that at home the temp. at
which coffee is served is typically between 135 and 140 degrees. As I
understand it the holding temp. at McD was 180+. Also note the statement on
pouring below.

> [¶] The coffee industry has even higher standards. . . . They set a minimum
> water temperature of 195 degrees and a maximum of 205 degrees. To maintain
> flavor, coffee must be held at 185 degrees to 190 degrees. The temperature
> drops by as much as 15 degrees when coffee is poured and loses up to 10
> degrees when creaming agents are added. . . .

OK. This does not say McD could not do a trade-off between safety and taste.
Since she was trying to open the container there was probably no cream. He
says "up to" So we could say 15 degree drop.


[¶] "To be pleasing as a hot beverage,
> coffee, tea or soup must be served in a range between 155 degrees to 175
> degrees," he says. "You have to boil soup to break down the fat, and you
> must boil [sic] tea and coffee to extract flavor, but, obviously, you don't
> serve at boiling temperature."

OK. you could go toward the lower end of that for safety. Apparently McD did
not do that.




>> No I have responded to them. Also, you have not really delt with the
>> evidence
>> at the trial other than to say you have different evidence. But I also
>> agreed
>> to conceed the point that evidence at the trial was faulty, for the
>> purposes
>> of our discussion, if you can demonstrate that any two similar facilities
>> (e.g. BK and Wendys but not Starbucks) serve coffee today at drive thrus at
>> around 185 degrees.
>
> They *all* use carafe-pot coffee brewing and holding systems because they're
> fast enough to keep up with demand and easy to handle. Mostly Bunn products,
> but the industry standards are built in to all such machines. Coffee pots
> for pouring (carafes to the trade) are all done the same way. They don't
> have separate coffee brewing or holding equipment at drive throughs. I've
> asserted this from the beginning. You question it without offering anything
> but guesswork. Think it's not so? Go find the evidence to prove your
> position.
>

Its a question who has the burden of proof. I don't want to recover all the
ground above. But you have not proven that essentialy all such pots must be
held at the same temp. because they are made that way or that most major
chains require that. And you have not at all addressed the following:

We have this:

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local
Albuquerque McDonald's had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.

from

http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

And this

McDonalds has since lowered the temperature on their coffee.

from:

http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonalds.htm

>>>>>Obviously, you have *no* experience with any sort of legal system. You
>>>>>don't have any idea how much leeway judges have and oyu don't understand
>>>>>that judges are virtually never instructed what their decisions must be.
>>>>>The law dictates how proceedings must go and what rules of operation are
>>>>>in effect. The whole job of a judge is to, well, judge. Otherwise, they'd
>>>>>be called "blind followers."
>>>>>
>>>>That is simply untrue. A judge may find some that there are some
>>>>boarder-line cases between murder and manslaughter.
>>>
>>>Bill, this is too absurd to even comment on.
>>
>> You had argued this in general did you not. Not in specific kinds of cases.
>>
>>>You clearly don't understand that the McD's case wasn't a criminal
>>>proceeding
>>
>> Accually I did. The question was the role of a judge. You are just avoid
>> the
>> question.
>>
>>>and has no relation to your preposterous example.
>>
>> Again you are just avoiding the question. Are you saying the judge does not
>> have to follow the law in tort cases because they would be blind followers?
>
> The law in tort cases is exactly what was followed in McD's trial. And it's
> exactly what the supreme court in Nevada was dealing with when they threw it
> out of court. Judges have the discretion to agree with, disagree with and
> change, or void jury decisions. Or not hear a case.
>
>> You thus avoid the question of whether the judge has to follow the law
>> under
>> tort law. Instead you critisize the example. This is a constant pattern.
>> You
>> don't answer the question. You say I've answered this before yet ignore
>> previous responses. You answer different questions. And you ridicule me.
>> All
>> to avoid the question.
>
> The judge has to follow tort law. But for you to cite a *criminal* example
> to try to assert similarity is pure ignorance.

I understood the difference when I gave the example. I choose it because it
was a simple example of judging. Why do keep trying to take us of the track by
making an issue of this?

> And your insistence about the judge's helplessness in the face of tort law
> is to show you know nothing about it.

I never said the judge was helpless.

>There are no *charges* as there are in criminal law. There are no mandatory
>conclusions as would be the case with mandatory sentences with certain
>crimes. Tort law is all about judging wrong, wrongfulness, liability (and
>what kind), settlements, penalties and lots of other elements of doctrine,
>none of which are put down in detailed mandates.
>
> The judge can make decisions that expand or contract or change the customary
> bases of tort law. That's what precedents are - new ways of looking at a
> question. Or a new question not before considered - in which case the
> guidelines are vague and need to be formulated in the particular case. There
> was nothing new about McD's case. It conformed to many other such cases of
> purported liability. The *news* is what happened in Nevada and England where
> virtually duplicate cases were dismissed without hearing. Both asserted that
> liability ended when the buyer had control. Stella's case was a precedent
> that was immediately discarded by other judges, here and abroad.
>

I am trying to make the point that Stella's case was irrelavant to both
because a. The circumstances were different. b. Different laws apply.
Obviously, if the buyer has control of an unsafe product liability may not end
there.

>>>>But there are laws that specify which
>>>>is which and he simply can not take something that is clearly manslaughter
>>>>under the law and turn it into murder. Other wise there would not be a lot
>>>>of sense in having these laws.
>>>
>>>"These laws" that you understand nothing about. Again, the reason there are
>>>judges is to judge. To make decisions in the cases where such clarity
>>>doesn't prevail. Otherwise there would be no need for appeals courts or the
>>>supreme court. Don't try to play a lawyer, Bill, you're not knowledgeable
>>>enough to do so.
>>>
>> Here is what you previously said:
>>
>> "The law dictates how proceedings must go and what rules of operation are
>> in effect. The whole job of a judge is to, well, judge. Otherwise,
>> they'd be called "blind followers." "
>>
>> My point was that the role of law goes beyond proceedings and operations.
>> You
>> are now changing the subject. Do you still maintain that position?
>
> Not changing the subject. Trying to explain a complex subject to you in
> simple terms. It's not working, still too complicated for you.
>
> Try this:
> "On the conventional view, the difference between fault and strict liability
> is that in strict liability, but not in fault liability, a defendant can be
> liable even if he has done nothing wrong. The common understanding, then, is
> that strict liability is liability without wrong, and fault liability alone
> is liability based on the injurer's wrong. But then the conventional view
> seems incompatible with the claim that all torts involve wrongs."
>
> You hold the *conventional* view. Got it? You believe that McD's is liable
> even though they haven't done anything wrong.

Absoulutely not. I am reluctant to throw barbs - but you have not been
listening. I have repeatedely said that there is shared fault between both
parties. This is precisely the opposite of what I have been saying. Here is
something I said previously.


" Under
the concept of joint liability, if you are at fault is not substantially
related to whether the other person is at fault too. That is, it is irrelevant
whether Stella was at fault in determining whether McD was at fault. (But it
is relevant when determing the award.)"


> Coffee temperature is inherently a neutral question with no demonstrable
> rightness or wrongness. It has no moral issue, no legal issue and no issue
> of propriety attached. The temperature of the coffee was usual and customary
> for such situations. And "the danger is open and obvious."
>

Well there is a resonable case that it can be too hot for a given situation.
You are simply asserting a conclusion.

>>>>>And if your mistaken notion were even remotely valid, the case where The
>>>>>Nevada supreme court threw out the same kind of complaint couldn't
>>>>>happen. Remember this?
>>>>
>>>>Yes. But it is not relevant unless you show that the cases are
>>>>substantially similar.
>>>
>>>They're this similar: it was about being burned by spilling coffee on
>>>themselves, just like Stella's case. The judge said they should have known
>>>better and the danger was obvious. Case dismissed.
>>>
>> The case was not dismissed - or are you saying the judge was at fault for
>> not
>> doing that.
>
> The *Nevada* case was dismissed. Try to keep up.
>

I thought that was another one of your barbs. And you were referring to
Stella's case.

> We're done here, Bill. You seem unable to stick with the lines of discourse
> and when you can't follow, you assert that the subject was changed. It's
> really that you can't follow the logic, the events and the rationales.
>

You just claim you are right and walk away because you can not respond to the
clear evidence that contridicts you.

Bill

>> Here is a key point you continue to not understand:
>>
>> The temperature of the coffee and the situation matters. In some cases
>> there
>> may be liablitiy and in other cases not.
>>
>> Do you agree or disagree with that.
>
>>>>>July 18 -- "Court says warning about hot coffee unnecessary". It makes a
>>>>>contrast to the famed McDonald's case: the Nevada Supreme Court,
>>>>>upholding a lower court's decision, has dismissed a lawsuit against a
>>>>>restaurant and its suppliers alleging negligent failure to warn about the
>>>>>dangers of hot coffee. Lane Burns had sued the Turtle Stop restaurant
>>>>>after spilling coffee on his leg and suffering burns, but District Judge
>>>>>Gene Porter ruled that the "danger is open and obvious." That differs
>>>>>from the sentiments of the judge and jury in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
>>>>>where octogenarian Stella Liebeck won a $2.9 million judgment against the
>>>>>fast-food chain, which was later reduced to $480,000 and settled for an
>>>>>undisclosed sum. (Cy Ryan, "Court says warning about hot coffee
>>>>>unnecessary", Las Vegas Sun, July 11).
>>>>><http://overlawyered.com/archives/00july2.html>
>
> Here's a site for you to read. I have small hope you'll understand, but
> maybe it'll keep you off the streets for a while.
> <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tort-theories/>
>
> Pastorio


.