On 8/20/2015 3:12 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , John McWilliams
wrote:

This situation is an example of somebody suing without there being any
valid basis for the suit. The point is that in this case the plaintiff
_can_ sue but they won't get very far.

I think I will file suit for mental distress over the pain and suffering
the woman endured when she clenched a cup of coffee from MacDonald's and
ended up scalding herself in a delicate region. O, the horror! (No, I
don't think the accident was amusing, just the lawsuit.)

you clearly don't understand that lawsuit at *all*.

basically, mcdonald's knowingly sold foot that was unfit for human
consumption and had a callous disregard for human safety.

at the trial, mcdonald's own testimony showed that the temperature at
which the coffee was served can cause 3rd degree burns within seconds,
that customers were not warned of the risks, that over 700 other people
including children had been burned in the previous ten years with some
as serious as ms. leibeck (roughly one incident every 5 days), that
mcdonald's considered 700 burn victims out of millions of cups of
coffee to be no big deal, that mcdonald's intentionally served it as
hot as they did because the aroma generated more sales and that
mcdonald's did not give a **** and had no intention of changing
anything.

that's why they lost.


Nope. They lost because of arrogance. Read the case in Arizona where a
cockroach was found in a bottle of Pepsi. Pepsi defended on the grounds
that a cockroach is edible and not deleterious under Arizona law. To
prove it, the brilliant defense attorney then swallowed one. The whole
jury got sick and Pepsi lost. the point is arrogance.

--
PeterN