The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://msn.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/ news/top_story.html?in_review_id=513556
(Remove space)
-----
Am I the only person who thinks that this is a joke?
"All the claims for damages arise out of hot tea or coffee being spilt on McDonald's customers, the majority of whom were children, the High Court has heard."
a) Why are you giving tea or coffee to a young child anyway?
b) Surely if you give a young child a hot drink without first checking the temperature, you are being negligent as a parent?
"In a preliminary trial expected to last two weeks, Mr Justice Field will be asked to decide whether:
• McDonald's was serving drinks at too high a temperature"
Do they not understand the meaning of the term 'hot drink'?
"• There was a duty to sell drinks that were cooler"
They're called 'cold drinks'. How many times have you, or someone you know, taken a 'hot drink' back because it was not hot enough?
"• Cups used in the restaurants were so inadequate that it amounted to negligence"
They hold the drink, and stop it burning your hand. How is that inadequate? Does the cup make you spill the drink?
"• There was a duty to warn customers of the risk of scalding"
For me, that is an obvious risk of having a hot drink.
"He said that children were particularly at risk from this type of injury - at least 16 of the claimants were aged four or under at the time of their accidents."
My opinion is that you should not me giving children of that age tea or coffee anyway. The fact that you give a hot drink to a child without first checking exactly how hot it is makes you a negligent parent, as far as I am concerned.
"He said that most members of the public did not realise that a drink served at McDonald's was at a far higher temperature than they were often used to at home"
So water 'at home' obviously boils at a lower temperature than at McDonalds then. Or could it be that, at home, parents actually let their child's drink cool before giving it to them. In which case, why not do the same at McDonalds?
"Mr Horlock said that McDonald's was aware of that danger and was negligent in not taking measures to protect the public."
They put it in polystyrene cups which prevent burning of the hands. I fail to see how McDonalds can be held responsible for the clumsiness and/or stupidity of their customers.
We're getting more like America every day.
(Remove space)
-----
Am I the only person who thinks that this is a joke?
"All the claims for damages arise out of hot tea or coffee being spilt on McDonald's customers, the majority of whom were children, the High Court has heard."
a) Why are you giving tea or coffee to a young child anyway?
b) Surely if you give a young child a hot drink without first checking the temperature, you are being negligent as a parent?
"In a preliminary trial expected to last two weeks, Mr Justice Field will be asked to decide whether:
• McDonald's was serving drinks at too high a temperature"
Do they not understand the meaning of the term 'hot drink'?
"• There was a duty to sell drinks that were cooler"
They're called 'cold drinks'. How many times have you, or someone you know, taken a 'hot drink' back because it was not hot enough?
"• Cups used in the restaurants were so inadequate that it amounted to negligence"
They hold the drink, and stop it burning your hand. How is that inadequate? Does the cup make you spill the drink?
"• There was a duty to warn customers of the risk of scalding"
For me, that is an obvious risk of having a hot drink.
"He said that children were particularly at risk from this type of injury - at least 16 of the claimants were aged four or under at the time of their accidents."
My opinion is that you should not me giving children of that age tea or coffee anyway. The fact that you give a hot drink to a child without first checking exactly how hot it is makes you a negligent parent, as far as I am concerned.
"He said that most members of the public did not realise that a drink served at McDonald's was at a far higher temperature than they were often used to at home"
So water 'at home' obviously boils at a lower temperature than at McDonalds then. Or could it be that, at home, parents actually let their child's drink cool before giving it to them. In which case, why not do the same at McDonalds?
"Mr Horlock said that McDonald's was aware of that danger and was negligent in not taking measures to protect the public."
They put it in polystyrene cups which prevent burning of the hands. I fail to see how McDonalds can be held responsible for the clumsiness and/or stupidity of their customers.
We're getting more like America every day.
Page:
Just heard on the Radio...
In court they have said Mcdonalds dont have to tell customers that a hot drink is hot. Nobody will be sueing them...thank God.
In court they have said Mcdonalds dont have to tell customers that a hot drink is hot. Nobody will be sueing them...thank God.
Probably come under due care and attention or something, same as driving while using mobile phones etc. So what you do is you chat away while your driving and drive into the back of someone and then you sue Nokia for making the phone. No worries !!
nh wrote:
> Another case of somebody sueing for their own ignorance - Would you drive with a
> cup of hot coffee between your legs ? Surely that must come down to some kind of
> driving offence ?
Um, it doesn't say in the Highway Code that you can't drive with hot drinks between your legs.
Probably an omission because they didn't think anyone could be that daft?
> Another case of somebody sueing for their own ignorance - Would you drive with a
> cup of hot coffee between your legs ? Surely that must come down to some kind of
> driving offence ?
Um, it doesn't say in the Highway Code that you can't drive with hot drinks between your legs.
Probably an omission because they didn't think anyone could be that daft?
Another case of somebody sueing for their own ignorance - Would you drive with a cup of hot coffee between your legs ? Surely that must come down to some kind of driving offence ?
You are correct, that did indeed happen (apparantly)
Your Honour wrote:
> I saw someone have a McDonalds cup of tea at lunch time, and it's got CAUTION
> HOT! Printed repeatedly over the cup.
> What more do people want?!?
Wasnt that printed on there (and the temperature of the tea and coffee lowered) because some woman in America successfully sued McDonalds?
(apparently she put the coffee between her legs as she was driving away from McDonalds, when stopping at the traffic lights, some of the coffee spilt over her legs slightly buring her... or something like that?)
> I saw someone have a McDonalds cup of tea at lunch time, and it's got CAUTION
> HOT! Printed repeatedly over the cup.
> What more do people want?!?
Wasnt that printed on there (and the temperature of the tea and coffee lowered) because some woman in America successfully sued McDonalds?
(apparently she put the coffee between her legs as she was driving away from McDonalds, when stopping at the traffic lights, some of the coffee spilt over her legs slightly buring her... or something like that?)
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
if you thought you could sue McDonalds and make a couple of hundred
> grand, you'd do it wouldn't you?
Exactly, money is money...
if you thought you could sue McDonalds and make a couple of hundred
> grand, you'd do it wouldn't you?
Exactly, money is money...
Typical, by the time I get here everything has been said.
But think about this - if you thought you could sue McDonalds and make a couple of hundred grand, you'd do it wouldn't you?
But think about this - if you thought you could sue McDonalds and make a couple of hundred grand, you'd do it wouldn't you?
I'm telling you, this (along with everything else, heh) is America's fault!
You can sue someone for looking at you funny over there
You can sue someone for looking at you funny over there
Page: