Slashdot Mirror
JBoss Offers Lawsuit Indemnification
prostoalex writes "JBoss Group offered its customers indemnification from potential legal problems related to patent violations and copyright lawsuits. According to Bob Bickel, JBoss VP, the move is intended to give customers more peace of mind when deciding whether to go with open-source software." The article also mentions Jboss' legal challenge to Apache Geronimo, of which Bickel said "...the letter to the Apache Software Foundation was never intended to be made public and said the conflict has been blown out of proportion."
Not quite.
McFact #1: The coffee was 180-190 degrees. It would have been quickly vaporized at 270.
McFact #3: She initially tried to settle for $20,000 -- her medical costs. McDonald's ignored her.
McFact #4: She received 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body. How did you think she would have spilled a cup of coffee over most of her body? Did she pour it over her head?
She was awarded $160,000 in actual damages. She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equates to 2 days of McDonald's coffee sales. The $2.7 million was further reduced to $480,000.
McFact #5: Since the lawsuit, McDonald's has reduced the temperature of their coffee from 185 degrees to 158 degrees. They knew 185 wasn't safe before, but served the coffee at those temperatures anyway. This is precisely why we have punitive damages.
- James
McFact #1: The coffee the lady bought was over 270 degrees. That is dangerous.
270 degree water? Wow. McDonalds has magic coffee beans that raise the boiling point of water to 270 degrees?
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.
Excerpt from: Courtesy Legal News and Views, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers
Also see Van O'Steen and Partners
Newsaic : Mirrow Law
>McFact #5: Since the lawsuit, McDonald's has
> reduced the temperature of their coffee from 185
> degrees to 158 degrees. They knew 185 wasn't safe
> before, but served the coffee at those
> temperatures anyway. This is precisely why we
> have punitive damages.
If 185 degrees isn't safe, then I don't want safe coffee. 158 is way too cool. According to the Specialty Coffee Association of America, the optimal water temperature for coffee is 92 - 96C (197.6 - 204.8F).
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country in which chainsaws and nail guns are outlawed and everyone drinks luke warm coffee and uses plastic knives. Some things I buy I can hurt myself with; I accept this risk as a part of life. It's not the government's job to protect me from my own stupidity.
Bleh, if you're going to use a source, at least make sure it supports your argument . . .
The link answers the question "What is the best temperature to brew coffee?" Not "What is the best temperature to serve coffee?"
According to this study most of the subjects liked their coffee at ~140F.
This review of coffee machines (scroll down to the end of the page and look at "2 Temperature") states "Also, to maintain your coffee at the ideal drinking temperature of 160 degrees, preheat your cup for about ten seconds using steam or hot water." (emphasis added)
So, while you may have a higher pain threshold than many, and like to risk burns, I think it's reasonbale to ask providers not to serve a product which "can cause third-degree burns (the worst kind) in two to seven seconds." (Quotation from the bottom of this article)
My parent post is no more off-topic than the harvard know-it-all's incorrect parent post, to which I responded.
You mods are on fucking crack. Besides, my comment was valid.
.sigs are for post^Hers.