Sure...apart from that is not true. They had never been warned and the coffee was not particularly hotter than their rivals at all. They had settled previously but that is not relevant. Businesses settle things all the time they are not liable for; it's just easier and good cost-effective practice.
Coffee today is exactly the same temperature range as it was at the time of the case in question or hotter. No judge has ever ruled a similar judgement.
Might be wise to actually research your statements.
You have been voted down but what they have failed to add is the following -
Mcdonalds have not changed the temperature of their coffee and the legal precedence has not been replicated. Probably because hot coffee causes injuries when spilled and the case was, as McDonalds maintain, a legal fluke. She got lucky.
In McMahon v. Bunn Matic Corporation (1998), Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic, finding that 179 °F (82 °C) hot coffee was not "unreasonably dangerous".[21]
In Bogle v. McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd. (2002), a similar lawsuit in England failed when the court rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving coffee at a lower temperature.[22]
Since Liebeck, major vendors of coffee, including Chick-Fil-A,[23] Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, Burger King,[24] hospitals,[25] and McDonald's [26] have been defendants in similar lawsuits over coffee-related burns. The courts in these lawsuits did not find hot coffee unreasonably dangerous or defectively manufactured.
Judge Easterbrook: "The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 °F [93 °C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 °F [66–71 °C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 °F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further."
Judge Field of the Queen's Bench wrote: "If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C [149 °F] will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 °C and 60 °C. [131–140 °F] But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 °C and 95 °C. [185–203 °F] Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 °C and 60 °C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 °C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled." Bogle & Ors v McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd. [2002] EWHC 490, at 33
Virginia Record (Madison County Record, Inc). Retrieved 2013-03-22.
The article fails to realise that in most of the anecdotes retold; today the state would intervene at the behest of a neighbour and "I read it in the New York Times" will not really prevent the investigation into why you allowed your child to play with knives, live for 3 days at the top of a slag heap of rubble or hold a loaded handgun.
Also - teenage mortality has reduced drastically[1]. It's hard to argue that could be a bad thing.
It is probably because we don't let them (wherever possible) carry out activities that might kill themselves.
I am a parent of 3; I will happily take my children mountain climbing, skiing, snowboarding, trekking, wild swimming. In a few years we plan to trek to Everest Base Camp and they are coming with me to the Andes.
We engage in controlled risk. If they break a limb skiing then they break a limb skiing. They pushed beyond their abilities in some way. I don't need to give them wrappers of cocaine from a criminal and a handgun to be a better parent.
There is also a very real risk of the "Tom Sawyer" bias. Each generation thinks their generation took greater risks and had more vivid adventures than the one previous. The cognitive dissonance curiously avoids the higher levels of child abuse, abduction, injury, poisoning, asphyxiation, malnutrition and disease. My father used to have great adventures playing as a child in asbestos riddled houses. You can talk to his friends about it sometimes...well the few that have not died before 60.
Oh look here is a group of kids that used lethal asbestos as chalk. [2] They really learned a valuable lesson about ad-hoc citizenry there.
Is your argument that certain crimes are not crimes in your eyes?
You must see how that is completely incompatible with any functioning society. You have decided arbitrarily, in opposition to the majority of society according to our legal and civic models, that you are going to ignore the law regarding DRM?
That is fine. But you would be the first to call the police if people decided to ignore the law and it negatively impacted you. Your hypocritcal attitude is equalling breathtaking and juvenile.
Ultimately you believe "the law should stand except when I want something; then I should be allowed to steal it because the internetz and copyright is slaveries and yada yada...
The basis of the components do not matter. We make judgements on the whole.
In the UK a shotgun is simply a series of tubes with some minor metallic parts. Does not mean because tubes and hammers are legal you are allowed to build one and own it.
Seriously; this is like arguing with a child. Stick to technology and leave the law to actual lawyers and Judges. You don't have the reasoning for it.
It's not a slippery slope at all. It's quite clear cut.
If a shop was distributing fenced goods or human traffic we wouldn't allow it to remain in business because they also distribute free and legitimate groceries.
Do you see how slippery the slope is? You have left from the tiny tiny tiny niche use of file transfer for free content to the massive industrious downloading of intellectual property.
As long as you are still being paid your salary though...easy to have a faux-morally superior position when it is not your efforts being ripped off.
Yes. Unless you think someone should be allowed to post videos of themselves breaking into your house and raping your family?
A crime is a crime. That's it. If you don't like copyright then advocate it's removal but we live in a consensus based society so if you lose you shut up about it.
^^ This is exactly why you are supremely unqualified to understand or debate the issue. Honestly. Your comment was simply stupid.
The takedown request was not because the screenshots are copyrighted. That is not the infringement. If you don't understand that then you might want to read a bit more before becoming involved with the grown-ups.
It is common sense that pedestrians should stay out of streets. And for many years in the UK the pedestrian had the right of way; right up until a Judge was smart enough to realise it is easier for a pedestrian not to step into high moving traffic than it is for a 2000 kilogram lump of metal hurtling along at 30-40MPH to accomodate such idiots.
So now, the law is balanced again. Pedestrians are given safe crossing points but the roads belong to vehicles.
It was never common sense that cigarettes didn't cause harm. It was a lack of medical research.
It is common sense that piracy is theft. You the deprivation argument is utter bullshit. Otherwise you won't mind if I make copies of all of your house keys; car keys and private documentation. After all; I am not depriving you of the originals and they are just a series of atoms. No biggie.
Actually it shouldn't. It has been proven that the only use of Popcorn Time is to facilitate copyright infringement.
It is designed explicitly for that use. Hence banned.
Mainly because Judges are not stupid and Developers are not as clever as they think they are. Good with math sure; not so good with the finer points of the law despite their astoundingly arrogant perception of themselves.
I absolutely love that the majority of this thread are claiming all sorts of legal protections for Popcorn Time - all the way from free speech to ludicrous comparisons with screenshotting screenshots.
So you guys love the law - right up until Crawford posted MGM vs Grokster as the binding ruling and now suddenly it's all...
"The law is wrong and archaic!"
Honestly. You sound like teenagers throwing a tantrum. Just grow up and admit you want to steal content you didn't pay for. I would have a lot more respect for you than you. When you try and justify it you sound like a moron.
One poster below even went so far as to insinuate theft is OK because the movie publishing houses have so much money. Is that the standard we apply is it? If a company is successful it becomes OK to pirate their stuff?
Moron. Downvote away, it doesn't make the attitude any less moronic.
Coffee today is exactly the same temperature range as it was at the time of the case in question or hotter. No judge has ever ruled a similar judgement.
Might be wise to actually research your statements.
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-16/business/fi-39457_1_h...