>Kristi wrote: "I don't think you could sue if someone put air in your tires
>and then you
>had a blowout down the road, but then I wouldn't of thought you could sue
>Mickey D's for a hot coffee spill and I sure was wrong there"
>
>My comment- Recently(within the past few months) the British courts threw
>out a lawsuit against McDonalds regarding warnings, etc. on coffee as
>without merit(or such) because one should have the understanding that such
>items are inherently hot, and that the purchaser should know this to start
>with; that it is not the restaurant's responsibility to point out the
>obvious.
>
>Too bad American courts lack the fortitude to tell people that they are
>responsible for their actions, and that the obvious should generally be
>regarded as present fact: i.e.: that coffee is served HOT, and to Be
>Careful! That is why warnings are required on McDonalds coffee here. I'm
>waiting for warnings on each individual match that read to the effect
>"Caution! Flame is hot and should not be applied directly or indirectly to
>the skin. Flame may cause severe burns and/or cause fires"
>
>Scott(with singed fingers...lol)
LMAO!!! Not at your singed fingers, but at the comments...let me see-where
have I heard them before...? Greg R.-have any idea?
Since this is getting off the topic of Spitfires and LBCs, might I take this
opportunity to invite you to take this conversation where it *really*
belongs-the ASML! (Al Stewart Mailing List) Where we've been discussing the
very thing for 5 days!
LOLOLOL
Laura G.
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
/// spitfires@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|