The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
(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.
At a guess... cold coffee!
Yup.
But I bet they'd be the first to complain if they did get a cup of cold coffee though...
> Judging from the comments of nh and Meka, I feel justified in my
> comments.
You are totally justified Wookiee - this is just a scam by the solicitors that will get no where but they will earn money from. With the education and training that they have they should be above this kind of rubbish.
It's costing us the taxpayers to put these guys through Uni and it's costing us again to pay to bring these cases. It makes the law look a complete ass.
> What more do people want?!?
At a guess... cold coffee!
What more do people want?!?
Responsible parents take care when giving hot drinks to young children. Which can only mean that those suing McDonalds are irresponsible.
Of particular interest was nh's comment about parents not taking responsibility for their children. With juvenile crime on the increase, I'd have to agree. If parents were punished along with the kids, it may make them considerably more interested in what 'Little Johnny' is getting up to when he's not at home with them. Though that is a different argument altogether...
When I give Malibu tea, I make it with lots of milk, so as to not burn her. Doing anything else would just be stupid.
I don't get what these people want McDonalds to do, test the drinks for them?
People see stuff happening in America, and say "If they can sue and get money, we can do the same"
If this place ever ends up as bad as America - I'm moving to Jersey