McDonalds' lawsuit...and tool safety.

I've had the same thing happen. Won't say the brand name, but it was
yellow.. I still have (and use) the sander but I make sure it's actually off
and I also flip it on it's back when I put it on the bench.

Rob

--

Remove CC for email and please visit our web site:
http://www.robswoodworking.com

"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How many of you unplug your power tools when yer done usin' them? I'm
> talkin' about the tools we use on a regular basis...table saw, orbital
> sander, etc.
>
> I don't. I don't have any young kids around anymore...and no young
> kids can get into my work area. So I always keep things plugged
> in...'cause I might use them again soon...especially if I'm on a large
> project.
>
> A few months ago, I was doin' some sanding with my orbital sander. I
> had just turned it off...at the switch...and had gone to my other
> workbench to check on some of the work I had taken over there.
>
> A few minutes later, I heard a weird noise coming from over my right
> shoulder. I turned...and saw my sander dancing all over the
> workbench! I went over quickly and grabbed it...and turned it off
> again.
>
> What had happened...
>
> The switch has a dust protector boot over it. I think the switch had
> actually not seated to the off position...it must've teetered in the
> middle position...then finally flopped over to the on position again.
>
> I wrote to the manufacturer...they immediately called me...sent me a
> replacement...and asked me to send the bad one to them for inspection.
> They paid for all the shipping, of course...and they sent me an
> upgraded sander for my trouble.
>
> But early in the conversation...when they thought my call might
> actually be to get some money out of them...I was told that tools
> should always be unplugged when done using them.
>
> I wasn't done using the tool, of course. But, even so...I have never
> unplugged a power tool when done. I always keep them plugged
> in...sitting on the workbench. But my work area has never been
> accessible to anyone but me and other adults.
>
> I honestly never gave any thought to the fact that a tool turned off
> could spontaneously restart. I wonder what might have happened if
> that sander had been jumpin' around by itself for a few hours...while
> I was out doing errands.
>
> Just a heads-up...and some food for thought...after reading all the
> stuff about the woman with the hot coffee.
>
>
>
> Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
>
> Trent

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:50:09 -0700, Grandpa <jsdebooATcomcast.net>
wrote:

>Trent© wrote:
>
><snip>
>> How was this woman to know that the hot coffee from Mickey D was
>> actually hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns? When you turn on the
>> HOT water in someone's house, how hot IS it?
>
>Common sense tells you to test it first, doesn't it? Not stick your
>hands in it for 5 seconds to see. Do you gulp hot coffee or sip it to
>see how hot it is? All I'm saying is I don't believe she used
>reasonable precautions to keep herself from being burned. As I rememebr
>they dropped the temp from 185º to 165º and were she to do the same
>again, I believe it would burn her again.
>

And the jury AGREED with you. She DIDN'T get all she asked for in
ACTUAL damages...because they felt she contributed to the
accident...just as you say.

The bulk her initial award was for PUNITIVE damages. And the jury
simply took into account the many other accidents of this nature that
happened with Mickey D hot coffee.


Have a nice week...

Trent

Dyslexics of the world ... UNTIE !

T. <[email protected]> wrote:

> If someone dumped hot coffee in my lap (which, to my understanding
> did not happen in the McDonald's case), then I might consider suing.
> But, if I got hot coffee, then proceeded to dump it into my own lap, I
> would take the blame. It's not my fault, I have a mental illness, a
> long time ago I was diagnosed as having a strong sense of right and
> wrong, to me, it would be wrong to blame someone else for my screwup.

You shouldn't complain about the sander then.

Why is it that your "sense of right and wrong" does not include
accurately relating the issues involved?

George E. Cawthon <[email protected]> wrote:

> > http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785
> >
> > Its not as cut and dried as you suggest.


> Sure it is. When a person does something stupid, they
> shouldn't blame it on someone else.

Hey, maybe there is hope for you. You must be thinking of some other
lawsuit, perhaps one of the many fake stories that are propagated.

> The only reason we
> have such suits is because of faults in the legal system.

Really? Like what?

> Sleazy lawyers exploits those faults to make money instead
> of trying to get the faults corrected.

Now you've really got me interested. This must be big.

> Most of these suits
> are so obviously faulty that any reasonable person would
> call them fraud.

Name a couple. Better yet give us some information from transcripts or
briefs and above all refer to the tort in question.

> Until someone has an upclose look at the
> system they may be entirely unaware of how much injustice is
> done. If it partly due to the adversarial system we have,
> and it is, then changes should be made.

You're opposed to the adversarial system?

And you say "if"? I thought you knew the faults and had the answers.

> However, our legal
> system doesn't see capable of monitoring itself.

Lawyers, like doctors, are self-regulating. I would call both a failure,
but the legal system's great handicap are the legislatures. How is it
you think it should be "monitered"? Perhaps religious leaders givings
edicts?
>
> I don't know about you, but I like my coffee hot and I
> expect it to be hot. If it is not hot enough to burn you,
> then it isn't worth drinking.

You drink coffee that burns?

> I've read what happened

I don't believe you.

and
> it is not the fault of McDonald's.

You should read what happened...

George E. Cawthon <[email protected]> wrote:

> > >I don't know about you, but I like my coffee hot and I
> > >expect it to be hot.
> >
> > The problem is...DEFINE hot.

Nothing here?

> I'm not sure who's fault it was. If the switch is at fault,
> it is the fault of the manufacture.

Why do you assume that? You just want to condemn some manufacturer based
on your feelings and assumptions. Thank goodness there are courts to
protect manufacturers from people like you.

> If you just half-assed
> turned the switch off, then one could say it was your fault,

What is "half-assed turned"?

> but if you really tried to turn it off,

What?

> the switch is
> faulty which makes it the fault of the tool manufacturer.



> You can reasonably assume that the switch will work and it
> is unreasonable to assume that you must also unplug the
> tool.

Hmmmm... reasonable assumptions.

> You can reasonably expect the tool to stay off once
> you turn the switch to off.

Oh, and now reasonable expectations... you sure have done a 180.

> This is not like the McDonald
> lady.

Yeah, she is not allowed to have reasonable expectations or assume
anything. She should assume she is being handed a weapon.
> >
> > Should the McDonald's lady have known that HOT at one restaurant is
> > not the same temperature at another restaurant? Should all the others
> > that got burned before her have known also?
>
> Yes. It is HOT coffee. Is it reasonable to assume that
> coffee spilled on you will not burn? No it is not.

I've spilled coffee hundreds of times and never received a burn. Given
your bizarre arguments, you must have many burn scars. Why not post
some?

> How
> stupid must a 70 year old be to not have figured out that
> spilling hot liquid on you burns you.

Well, your presentation of the facts shows you haven't read anything
about the case. Are you man enough to admit at this point that you
haven't or will you be dishonest?

> coffee at 125 F is considered tepid, not hot.

lol...
> >
> > McDonald's paid off many people before her. In essence, by doing so,
> > they admitted they were in the wrong. It was just the DEGREE of wrong
> > doing that they disagreed on with her. So...she took them to
> > court...to find out what the proper amount should be! lol
>
> McDonald's erred in paying off. They knew they were right
> and the suit was wrong, but they went with the cheapest
> alternative.

Lots o' ASSumptions. The legal costs were insignificant, surely you know
that. The potential for punishment under the tort laws that help define
civilization and maintain a rule of law carried much more hazard as well
as the negative publicity of not taking responsibility for negligent
behavior and screwing some old lady a second time.

> The alleged offender often pays off, because
> they get hurt less than by going to court and having an
> ignorant, uneducated and immoral jury be swayed by scuzzy
> lawyers and judges putting final to such activities.

If it were frivolous, a jury would never hear it. There are also a
variety of opportunities which McDonald's had and used which would have
kept a jury from having any say. Were you "ignorant" of that?

Which lawyers are you condemning as "scuzzy"?

> There
> are a lot of problem and faults in the legal system but most
> fault belong to the court officers including the lawyers and
> the judges. Consider the silicone implant case. There is
> no scientific evidence that silicone implants caused the
> problems attributed to silicone.

"No scientific evidence"? Whewwww...

Where are you getting this from? C'mon, be honest. Is this all just
National Review/corporate propaganda?

> But lawyers swayed juries
> to say that silicone implants did cause those problems. The
> problem is that the courts are no place to decide scientific
> knowledge because the courts don't use the scientific
> method, but rely on entirely different rules.

LMAO. Just one facet of your completely incorrect little rant, is that
courts rely on scientists to decide science.

> Hell, the
> major participants usually know little about science.

You mean like the definition of tepid?

> Courts often decide fact that in contrast to prove
> scientific knowledge.

Not sure what to make of that sentence.
> >
> > Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...

I don't believe you.

CW <[email protected]> wrote:

> If you can't see the difference, you've got a problem.

I didn't say they were identical. If you can't see similarities in
issues, you have a problem.
>
>
> "p_j" (Persistant jerk?) wrote in message

Awww, you're trying to be a jerk and you stuck your foot in your mouth.
Do you do that persistantly?

Kevin Craig <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > If someone dumped hot coffee in my lap (which, to my understanding
> > > did not happen in the McDonald's case), then I might consider suing.
> > > But, if I got hot coffee, then proceeded to dump it into my own lap, I
> > > would take the blame. It's not my fault, I have a mental illness, a
> > > long time ago I was diagnosed as having a strong sense of right and
> > > wrong, to me, it would be wrong to blame someone else for my screwup.
> >
> > You shouldn't complain about the sander then.

Edit: "He"
> >
> > Why is it that your "sense of right and wrong" does not include
> > accurately relating the issues involved?
>
> You really need to learn to follow threads and ascribe thoughts to the
> proper authors.

A single word wrong and nothing to contribute re the real issues or
conversation...

Scott Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:

> I there have been cases reported here in the rec about magnetic
> switches on table saws turning on when struck by an object. Struck on
> the side of the box that is- not the start button. Doesn't seem very
> likely, but if you had a board or a long clamp nearby slip at the
> wrong moment and strike the switch your saw could come alive...

As well as a variety of actions and conditions that could degrade the
switch...

In article <1g54lpq.rifmg150fp90N%[email protected]>, p_j
<[email protected]> wrote:

> T. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If someone dumped hot coffee in my lap (which, to my understanding
> > did not happen in the McDonald's case), then I might consider suing.
> > But, if I got hot coffee, then proceeded to dump it into my own lap, I
> > would take the blame. It's not my fault, I have a mental illness, a
> > long time ago I was diagnosed as having a strong sense of right and
> > wrong, to me, it would be wrong to blame someone else for my screwup.
>
> You shouldn't complain about the sander then.
>
> Why is it that your "sense of right and wrong" does not include
> accurately relating the issues involved?

You really need to learn to follow threads and ascribe thoughts to the
proper authors.

Kevin

Thu, Nov 27, 2003, 10:24pm [email protected] (Trent=A9) wants to
know:
How many of you unplug your power tools when yer done usin' them? <snip>

I do. However, I'm in a more unique situation than most of you. I
have a small shop, one line running into it, I use a power surge strip
to take power. My light, bandsaw, radio, and fan are all that are
permanently plugged. I have an extension cord I plug whatever tool I am
using into, and I always unplug whatever tool, when I leave the shop. I
unplug the line outside. Like I said, I have a pretty unique situation.
But, even if I had a more permanent setup, it's quite likely I would
still unplug the tools when I wasn't using them. You see, I'm scared of
them. If they're unplugged, I know they aren't going to start up on
their own, maybe with my fingers in the whirley parts.

after reading all the stuff about the woman with the hot coffee. <snip>

If someone dumped hot coffee in my lap (which, to my understanding
did not happen in the McDonald's case), then I might consider suing.
But, if I got hot coffee, then proceeded to dump it into my own lap, I
would take the blame. It's not my fault, I have a mental illness, a
long time ago I was diagnosed as having a strong sense of right and
wrong, to me, it would be wrong to blame someone else for my screwup.

JOAT
I suffer from Sumtimes Syndrome. Sumtimes I remember, sumtimes I...
What?

Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 27 Nov 2003.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/

So McDonalds is supposed to be responsible for the idiots of the world?
"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
They KNEW
> that scores of other people ALSO didn't realize that HOT actually
> meant SCALDING. They KNEW all this...and took no action to rectify
> the problem.

"Trent©" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 23:33:56 -0500 (EST), [email protected]
> (T.) wrote:
>
> > If someone dumped hot coffee in my lap (which, to my understanding
> >did not happen in the McDonald's case), then I might consider suing.
> >But, if I got hot coffee, then proceeded to dump it into my own lap, I
> >would take the blame. It's not my fault, I have a mental illness, a
> >long time ago I was diagnosed as having a strong sense of right and
> >wrong, to me, it would be wrong to blame someone else for my screwup.
>
> Here's some good reading, Joat...
>
> http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785
>
> Its not as cut and dried as you suggest.
>
> Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
>
> Trent

Sure it is. When a person does something stupid, they
shouldn't blame it on someone else. The only reason we
have such suits is because of faults in the legal system.
Sleazy lawyers exploits those faults to make money instead
of trying to get the faults corrected. Most of these suits
are so obviously faulty that any reasonable person would
call them fraud. Until someone has an upclose look at the
system they may be entirely unaware of how much injustice is
done. If it partly due to the adversarial system we have,
and it is, then changes should be made. However, our legal
system doesn't see capable of monitoring itself.

I don't know about you, but I like my coffee hot and I
expect it to be hot. If it is not hot enough to burn you,
then it isn't worth drinking. I've read what happened and
it is not the fault of McDonald's.

"Trent©" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:21:38 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I don't know about you, but I like my coffee hot and I
> >expect it to be hot.
>
> The problem is...DEFINE hot.
>
> >If it is not hot enough to burn you,
> >then it isn't worth drinking. I've read what happened and
> >it is not the fault of McDonald's.
>
> At least 13 people disagree with you. lol
>
> But...and here's the reason I posted this query...answer this question
> for me...
>
> If I had left the house...instead of going to the other
> workbench...and the sander had started and ultimately burned down the
> house...
>
> Would that have been MY fault? After all, if I had unplugged the
> sander, the fire could not have happened from the sander.
>
> This is the first time this has ever happened to me. And, to be quite
> honest, I had NO idea that a tool could restart after you switch it
> off. Should I have known that I should unplug the tool when not in
> use? Again...that's why I asked the question...because it looks like
> many of us don't unplug them when done for the day.

I'm not sure who's fault it was. If the switch is at fault,
it is the fault of the manufacture. If you just half-assed
turned the switch off, then one could say it was your fault,
but if you really tried to turn it off, the switch is
faulty which makes it the fault of the tool manufacturer.
You can reasonably assume that the switch will work and it
is unreasonable to assume that you must also unplug the
tool. You can reasonably expect the tool to stay off once
you turn the switch to off. This is not like the McDonald
lady.
>
> Should the McDonald's lady have known that HOT at one restaurant is
> not the same temperature at another restaurant? Should all the others
> that got burned before her have known also?

Yes. It is HOT coffee. Is it reasonable to assume that
coffee spilled on you will not burn? No it is not. How
stupid must a 70 year old be to not have figured out that
spilling hot liquid on you burns you. Anyone that stupid
should not be driving a car. Consumers are constantly
warned to not move the temp on water heaters above 125 F
because water above that temperature will burn you. But
coffee at 125 F is considered tepid, not hot.
>
> McDonald's paid off many people before her. In essence, by doing so,
> they admitted they were in the wrong. It was just the DEGREE of wrong
> doing that they disagreed on with her. So...she took them to
> court...to find out what the proper amount should be! lol

McDonald's erred in paying off. They knew they were right
and the suit was wrong, but they went with the cheapest
alternative. The alleged offender often pays off, because
they get hurt less than by going to court and having an
ignorant, uneducated and immoral jury be swayed by scuzzy
lawyers and judges putting final to such activities. There
are a lot of problem and faults in the legal system but most
fault belong to the court officers including the lawyers and
the judges. Consider the silicone implant case. There is
no scientific evidence that silicone implants caused the
problems attributed to silicone. But lawyers swayed juries
to say that silicone implants did cause those problems. The
problem is that the courts are no place to decide scientific
knowledge because the courts don't use the scientific
method, but rely on entirely different rules. Hell, the
major participants usually know little about science.
Courts often decide fact that in contrast to prove
scientific knowledge.
>
> Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
>
> Trent

Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:45:05 -0500, Silvan
> <[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:
>
> >George E. Cawthon wrote:
> >
> >> because water above that temperature will burn you. But
> >> coffee at 125 F is considered tepid, not hot.
> >
> >I gotta wonder at this. Do coffee drinkers just burn off all the cells on
> >the inside of their mouths and develop a layer of scar tissue that allows
> >them to consume liquids this hot?
>
> There may be a few like that, but most of us don't. We learn how
> to sip it so cold air cools it to the temp we like, then we swallow
> it. By making coffee hot and learning how to sip, the last gulp is
> still hot. Stomachs don't like superheated foods/bevs, either.
>
> >I don't drink coffee (doesn't agree with my stomach *at all*) but I notice
> >that commercial hot chocolate comes out of the nozzle HOT. I have to let
> >it cool for at least half an hour before I can think about putting any of
> >it in my mouth. I never buy hot chocolate anywhere because by the time the
> >damn stuff has cooled off enough to actually drink, I'm way past being
> >thirsty for it.
>
> Stroll on over to the soda refill station and drop a chunk of ice
> into it. Stir for 30 seconds and drink. Not a prob.
>
> >Maybe I'm just a freak, because from where I sit, it seems like the vast
> >majority of the world is completely nuts WRT food/beverage temperature.
>
> Ditto here. I drink my water at room temp, thanks. No gallon Icee or
> 210° coffee for me, thanks. I'll cool my cuppajoe with creamer.
>
> ==========================================================
> CAUTION: Do not use remaining fingers as pushsticks!
> ==========================================================
> http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

Good you cool your food, but for the rest of us that like
hot stuff hot, how are we going to get it from luke warm to
hot? Stuff cools naturally but it doesn't heat up
naturally, so the only way to prepare it for all customers
is to make it hot and those that like it cooler can add
water or just wait. That's what is bad about these stupid
law suits, it forces everyone to live like the lower half
need to. Maybe McDonald's and others need to lines, one
that says stupids and the other that say others. But then
the lawyers would say that the stupids are too stupid to
read the signs.

Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> In article <lt7yb.256116$ao4.901244@attbi_s51>,
> CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> >reasonable people know that pouring hot coffe on themselves is not a good
> >idea.
>
> "Reasonable people" also do not expect THIRD DEGREE BURNS as a result
> thereof, either.
((skipped))

Reasonable people expect to get burned and reasonable people
do not consider whether the burn is going to be 1st degree
or third degree. You expect them to say, well it's just 2nd
degrees so I guess I'll go ahead and get burned? That's the
kind of argument you would expect from a lawyer anticipating
a big pay off, not from a person that has any sense.

In the case of the McDonald lady, if she had jumped out of
the car and torn her clothes off, she would not have had 3rd
degree burns. Was it reasonable for her to do so? You,
bet. Life is full of choices and some people make bad
choices.

p_j wrote:
>
> George E. Cawthon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785
> > >
> > > Its not as cut and dried as you suggest.
>
> > Sure it is. When a person does something stupid, they
> > shouldn't blame it on someone else.
>
> Hey, maybe there is hope for you. You must be thinking of some other
> lawsuit, perhaps one of the many fake stories that are propagated.
>
> > The only reason we
> > have such suits is because of faults in the legal system.
>
> Really? Like what?
>
> > Sleazy lawyers exploits those faults to make money instead
> > of trying to get the faults corrected.
>
> Now you've really got me interested. This must be big.
>
> > Most of these suits
> > are so obviously faulty that any reasonable person would
> > call them fraud.
>
> Name a couple. Better yet give us some information from transcripts or
> briefs and above all refer to the tort in question.
>
> > Until someone has an upclose look at the
> > system they may be entirely unaware of how much injustice is
> > done. If it partly due to the adversarial system we have,
> > and it is, then changes should be made.
>
> You're opposed to the adversarial system?
>
> And you say "if"? I thought you knew the faults and had the answers.
>
> > However, our legal
> > system doesn't see capable of monitoring itself.
>
> Lawyers, like doctors, are self-regulating. I would call both a failure,
> but the legal system's great handicap are the legislatures. How is it
> you think it should be "monitered"? Perhaps religious leaders givings
> edicts?
> >
> > I don't know about you, but I like my coffee hot and I
> > expect it to be hot. If it is not hot enough to burn you,
> > then it isn't worth drinking.
>
> You drink coffee that burns?
>
> > I've read what happened
>
> I don't believe you.
>
> and
> > it is not the fault of McDonald's.
>
> You should read what happened...

You must be a lawyer. Only a lawyer wouldn't know that our
court system is broken.

Go sit in any traffic court which usually handles a
multitude of stuff not traffic related, and you will be
appalled at what goes on and the injustices done and the way
judges handle trials. Did you watch the OJ trial? That was
enough to make any intelligent person puke, regardless of
whether you believe he did or did not do the deed. It was
the subject of derision by most people for months, and that
doesn't suggest that something is wrong?

Most of what goes on in a court room is just posturing and
emotion building by lawyers. Prosecutor spend great amounts
of time on how heinous a crime is which has no bearing on
whether a specific individual did or did not commit the
crime. It's just passion building to get the jury pissed
and find somebody, anybody, guilty. What's the nonsense of
a prosecutor charging the defendant with 80 different crimes
when he murders someone? Yea, legislatures are to blame,
they should immediately remove the status of doctors and
lawyers to be self governing. But legislatures have exerted
little control over trial conduct.

You want examples? A lawyer runs over two kids that are off
the highway because she has been drinking but claims the sun
was in her eyes. It's established that she has had at least
6 drinks in the hour and one-half before the "accident."
She is found guilty of the most minor offense and given 40
hours of public service. Claims it would be a hardship and
never receives any punishment. You think maybe it was
because she worked on the prosecutors staff?

How about silicon breast implants? We know how that ended
and the big bucks involved. However, leading scientists
generally agree that there is no evidence that silicone
caused the women's complaints. Oh and if you don't like
that one. Take the tobacco case. Anyone who has ever
smoked, knows that smoking is bad for you. What the hell do
you think caused all that hacking and coughing. And the
packs say right on them that they will kill you. So what
reasonable person would smoke them. You may not like
tobacco and you may not like the tobacco companies, but who
is at fault, the tobacco company or the individual that
smokes even though he can barely get through the first
cigarette? And apportioning fault is total bullshit. No
one forced anyone to smoke, and if you stupid enough to ever
smoke the 2nd or more cigarette, it's all your fault.

Want to improve the court system. Easy, pass a law that a
lawyer may not receive more than 5 percent or $100,000 of a
settlement which ever is lower. Then pass a law that civil
suits can't be ganged together. And, pass a law that
lawyers and judges may not be elected a representative or a
senator, because it is a conflict of interest and violation
of the separation of power. And finally, make judges
accountable by undergoing period review (not less that every
3 years) with the potential for being removed permanently
from the bench by a board that is not composed of lawyers.

In article <czqyb.370010$Tr4.1086886@attbi_s03>,
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>Look again twit, it was posted several times. Don't blame me for your lack
>of comprehension. Now, quit being an idiot and crawl of to my twit file like
>a good little looser.
>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>

Oh my. ad hominems. In lieu of facts. Must be he doesn't *have* any
facts.

I'm *so* flattered. *snicker*

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:49:49 GMT, Howard <[email protected]> wrote:

>Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>If it is not hot enough to burn you,
>>>then it isn't worth drinking. I've read what happened and
>>>it is not the fault of McDonald's.
>>
>>At least 13 people disagree with you. lol
>
>*Every* other person in the world could disagree, and still be wrong.
>The 13 people mentioned here were also wrong, period. If you don't
>want to spill hot coffee in your lap, don't engage in behaviour that
>might lead to spilling hot coffee in your lap. Suing McDonalds
>because the coffee was hot was just plain stupid.

You guys are looking at the wrong part of the issue.

She got VERY LITTLE for the fact that she spilled the coffee in her
lap. Actually, IIRC, she only got 75% of what she asked for on that
part of the settlement. The jury decided that she was partially
responsible for what happened to her.

Its the PUNITIVE part of the judgment...the PUNISHMENT phase...that
was devastating to Mickey D. They KNEW of the other cases. They KNEW
that scores of other people ALSO didn't realize that HOT actually
meant SCALDING. They KNEW all this...and took no action to rectify
the problem.

So the court PUNISHED (punitive) Mickey D...for PAST, REPETITIVE
transgressions. For her ACTUAL damages, the woman got very little.

>This brings to mind a more meaningful response to a lawsuit brought by
>some idiot who cut his throat on a fishbone. The judge who (rightly!)
>threw this frivolous lawsuit out included in his statement, "Fish has
>bones, and if you eat fish, you need to exercise care when doing so."
>This is the sort of response that the McDonalds suit deserved.

How do you KNOW fish has bones? Seriously. How do you know that fish
has bones? Didn't you LEARN that?...somehow?

How was this woman to know that the hot coffee from Mickey D was
actually hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns? When you turn on the
HOT water in someone's house, how hot IS it?

Her lawsuit...for ACTUAL damages...was reduced because of her
contribution to the accident. The balance she received was PUNITIVE
damages...to punish Mickey D and get them to change their practice.

Which they promptly did...after the suit. They DIDN'T before the
suit...they had no incentive. So roughly 80 people were injured
before her.

>Stupidity is a crime against nature which occasionally carries the
>death penalty, and there is no way to repeal this natural law.

Repeal...no. Amend...you bet! Happens every day.

We now have a blade guard on circular saws...and on table saws, too.
We have a lock on the circular saw trigger button...so you can't lift
the saw and accidentally have it turn on. And many saws have a brake
on them now...immediately stopping them when you let up on the
trigger.

When was it that you learned that you don't hafta actually touch an
electrical high-tension line to have it jump out to you...and possibly
kill you?

Stupidity is one thing...but ignorance is another.

>Along that same line...
>
>I just finished a semi-interesting book by Peter Drucker, "Managing in
>Times of Great Change". I say semi-interesting, because he spent a
>lot of ink on psychobabble, interspersed with occasional deep
>insights. One in particular was the workplace *cannot* be made
>completely safe, and any attempt to do so is wasted effort.

Pure BUNK! We should ALWAYS be striving to make the workplace safer.

I have several friends my age with some fingers missing...they worked
a punch press when we were kids. That kind of accident seldom happens
anymore. There's many more examples of how safety has progressed over
the years...and only because of 'attempts'.

> What is
>needed is an entirely different definition of 'safety', namely, safe
>_behaviour_. Unsafe behaviour should be considered an
>accident/violation, regardless of whether it resulted in injury.

But you've gotta know the DIFFERENCE. And the people that have that
important information have gotta TEACH us.

Mickey D HAD the information...that the degree of 'hot' for their
coffee was actually 'scalding'...and dangerous if you spill it on
yourself...NOT just uncomfortable. They didn't tell us (or her)
that...in more than 80 instances...NOT just with her.

So, for those 80+ cases, the jury decided they should be punished.

>This dovetails nicely with the premise of another book, "The Death of
>Common Sense" by P.K. Howard.
>
>There is a limit to how safe a tool can be made, and it still be
>useful. Things that have sharp teeth that move rapidly are inherently
>dangerous. Electricity is inherently dangerous. Etc. Therefore,
>workplace safety must be primarily a process that occurs between the
>ears.

Workplace safety must occur BEFORE the ears...and before the
eyes...and before ALL the senses. Its called education.

People first hafta be TAUGHT safe and unsafe practices. Only THEN
will they be able to decide for themselves how to act.

If it wasn't for frivolous lawsuits, we'd probably still be living in
the dark ages. Remember...they're only frivolous if you loose.

If you win...they become law! lol



Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...

Trent

Oh crap! Now I remember.

It was the Ryobi detail sander that I had given to me that was recalled with
the same switch problem.



"Rossco in Oshawa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Give this site a good look...
>
> http://www.safetyalerts.com/rcls/category/appl.htm#tools
>
> You may find your particular tool in the recall list ecause it sounds
> familiar...
>
>
>
> "Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > How many of you unplug your power tools when yer done usin' them? I'm
> > talkin' about the tools we use on a regular basis...table saw, orbital
> > sander, etc.
> >
> > I don't. I don't have any young kids around anymore...and no young
> > kids can get into my work area. So I always keep things plugged
> > in...'cause I might use them again soon...especially if I'm on a large
> > project.
> >
> > A few months ago, I was doin' some sanding with my orbital sander. I
> > had just turned it off...at the switch...and had gone to my other
> > workbench to check on some of the work I had taken over there.
> >
> > A few minutes later, I heard a weird noise coming from over my right
> > shoulder. I turned...and saw my sander dancing all over the
> > workbench! I went over quickly and grabbed it...and turned it off
> > again.
> >
> > What had happened...
> >
> > The switch has a dust protector boot over it. I think the switch had
> > actually not seated to the off position...it must've teetered in the
> > middle position...then finally flopped over to the on position again.
> >
> > I wrote to the manufacturer...they immediately called me...sent me a
> > replacement...and asked me to send the bad one to them for inspection.
> > They paid for all the shipping, of course...and they sent me an
> > upgraded sander for my trouble.
> >
> > But early in the conversation...when they thought my call might
> > actually be to get some money out of them...I was told that tools
> > should always be unplugged when done using them.
> >
> > I wasn't done using the tool, of course. But, even so...I have never
> > unplugged a power tool when done. I always keep them plugged
> > in...sitting on the workbench. But my work area has never been
> > accessible to anyone but me and other adults.
> >
> > I honestly never gave any thought to the fact that a tool turned off
> > could spontaneously restart. I wonder what might have happened if
> > that sander had been jumpin' around by itself for a few hours...while
> > I was out doing errands.
> >
> > Just a heads-up...and some food for thought...after reading all the
> > stuff about the woman with the hot coffee.
> >
> >
> >
> > Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
> >
> > Trent
>

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:21:38 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I don't know about you, but I like my coffee hot and I
>expect it to be hot.

The problem is...DEFINE hot.

>If it is not hot enough to burn you,
>then it isn't worth drinking. I've read what happened and
>it is not the fault of McDonald's.

At least 13 people disagree with you. lol

But...and here's the reason I posted this query...answer this question
for me...

If I had left the house...instead of going to the other
workbench...and the sander had started and ultimately burned down the
house...

Would that have been MY fault? After all, if I had unplugged the
sander, the fire could not have happened from the sander.

This is the first time this has ever happened to me. And, to be quite
honest, I had NO idea that a tool could restart after you switch it
off. Should I have known that I should unplug the tool when not in
use? Again...that's why I asked the question...because it looks like
many of us don't unplug them when done for the day.

Should the McDonald's lady have known that HOT at one restaurant is
not the same temperature at another restaurant? Should all the others
that got burned before her have known also?

McDonald's paid off many people before her. In essence, by doing so,
they admitted they were in the wrong. It was just the DEGREE of wrong
doing that they disagreed on with her. So...she took them to
court...to find out what the proper amount should be! lol



Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...

Trent

In article <[email protected]>,
George E. Cawthon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>
>> In article <lt7yb.256116$ao4.901244@attbi_s51>,
>> CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >reasonable people know that pouring hot coffe on themselves is not a good
>> >idea.
>>
>> "Reasonable people" also do not expect THIRD DEGREE BURNS as a result
>> thereof, either.
>((skipped))
>
>Reasonable people expect to get burned and reasonable people
>do not consider whether the burn is going to be 1st degree
>or third degree. You expect them to say, well it's just 2nd
>degrees so I guess I'll go ahead and get burned?

No. that is -not- what a 'reasonable person' would do. and you
know it.

A reasonable person _would_ regard 1st and 2nd degree burns as a
'reasonable consequence' of having hot coffee spilled on them.
Third degree burns are _excessive_.

> That's the
>kind of argument you would expect from a lawyer anticipating
>a big pay off, not from a person that has any sense.

since you misrepresent the argument, your subsequent conclusion
is "not from a person that has any sense", itself.

>In the case of the McDonald lady, if she had jumped out of
>the car and torn her clothes off, she would not have had 3rd
>degree burns.

I do believe that there were polyester garments involved. And
the coffeee was so hot it *melted* the clothing onto her body.

In that scenario, your proposed actions *would*not*have*mattered*.

> Was it reasonable for her to do so?

Available evidence does _not_

> You,
>bet.

"Assumes facts not in evidence". Vehicle was _in_motion_ at the
time. *HOW*FAST* was it moving? Too fast to make a safe exit?

> Life is full of choices and some people make bad
>choices.

No argument. In the cited instance there were *multiple* bad
choices made. And McDonalds made the most egregious ones.

The lady was _not_ "held blameless",

In article <DI9yb.355190$HS4.2979707@attbi_s01>,
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>They don't? Do a survey on here and find out how many people think it is
>safe to pour hot coffee on themselves.

You're already known to be illiterate -- proven by your inability to provide
any cite for 'antiques' required to be 100+ years old, and that it there is
*nothing* in the law where you said it exists, to support your claim -- and
you're demonstrating it *again*.

I didn't say it was 'safe' -- nor did I claim that a 'reasonable person'
would consider it safe.

The issue _is_ a matter of "degree", to pun a phrase.

"Reasonable people" _do_ expect to get 1st and 2nd degree burns if/when they
come in contact with "hot coffee".

"Reasonable people *do*not* expect CHARRING of the flesh as a result thereof.



> Coffee can be at up to 212 degrees.
>Keep this in mind.

At temperatures in that vicinity, it is not "safe for human consumption",

Serving it _at_those_temperatures_, *for*consumption*, WITHOUT WARNINGS,
violates the implied warranty of merchantability that _is_ part and parcel
of *every* object offered for sale in the jurisdiction where the suit
was brought. On that basis _alone_, McDonalds was liable.

> Since you are making this argument, apparently you are
>one of those that don't know better so I will tell you right now, DON'T POUR
>HOT COFFEE ON YOURSELF.

I've *never* done it deliberately. Neither had the plaintiff.


Plaintiff was _not_ "blameless".

McDonalds was *NOT* "blameless".

The legal standard, in such situations is "comparative negligence".

McDonalds, "deliberately and knowingly" served drive-up coffee that was
'UNDRINKABLY HOT' _as_served_. They were advised as to the potential for
_serious_ injury, and the advisability of displaying a "warning", *by* *in-
house* *experts*. Nonetheless, they consciously _chose_ *NOT* to display
any cautionary notices.

This was found, by the jury, and the appellate court, to be "gross indifference
and grossly negligent" with regard to the safety of the customers.


>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <lt7yb.256116$ao4.901244@attbi_s51>,
>> CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >reasonable people know that pouring hot coffe on themselves is not a good
>> >idea.
>>
>> "Reasonable people" also do not expect THIRD DEGREE BURNS as a result
>> thereof, either.
>
>

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:51:01 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:

>Good you cool your food, but for the rest of us that like
>hot stuff hot, how are we going to get it from luke warm to
>hot?

Carry a 12v water hotter in your vehicle for the fast food places,
and ask the waitress at real restaurants to nuke your food to make
it REALLY HOT before she brings it to you. Be sure to take along some
signed waivers to give to the cook so he knows you won't sue him.
<sigh>


>Stuff cools naturally but it doesn't heat up
>naturally, so the only way to prepare it for all customers
>is to make it hot and those that like it cooler can add

I firmly agree.


>water or just wait. That's what is bad about these stupid
>law suits, it forces everyone to live like the lower half
>need to. Maybe McDonald's and others need to lines, one

I still can't believe a stupid judge let that one into court.
It's THEIR fault, you know. Frivilous suits have been brought
to court since it was first developed but the judges just tossed
the stupid ones out and fined the lawyer who brought it into his
courtroom. Why aren't they doing that any more? They're overbooked
and overburdened by not-so-obviously-dumb stuff already.


>that says stupids and the other that say others. But then
>the lawyers would say that the stupids are too stupid to
>read the signs.

And the bastids would still get their cuts to say that.

I'm still awed by the idiot who lost half an arm when he leaned
down beneath his new log chipper to pull the stuck log through.
Can you imagine how stupid someone has to be to reach up inside
a running chipper? And how dumb a jury has to be to make the
poor chipper manufacturer to pay for his stupidity?

The chipper mfg then had to put warning signs INSIDE and out on
the bottom of the damned things. Go freakin' figure!


==========================================================
CAUTION: Do not use remaining fingers as pushsticks!
==========================================================
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:07:38 -0500, "Rossco in Oshawa"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Give this site a good look...
>
>http://www.safetyalerts.com/rcls/category/appl.htm#tools
>
>You may find your particular tool in the recall list ecause it sounds
>familiar...

Thanks for the link, Rossco.

The company is there...and one of the sanders. Its not the model I
had...and the one I had was a recent manufacture.

It looks like they're still havin' problems...and on more than one
model evidently.



Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...

Trent

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:24:44 -0500, Trent© <[email protected]>
wrote:

>How many of you unplug your power tools when yer done usin' them?

If it hasn't got either two switches, or a proper contactor, then it
_always_ gets unplugged if it's not being used for more than 10
minutes. at the end of the day (or before coffee breaks) I check the
workshop.

Friend of mine leaves everything plugged in and hot, and it drives me
mad - especially the angle grinder on the junk-piled workbench. I've
seen that start up unexpectedly a couple of times, when things move
the pile.


--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:22:33 -0700, "George M. Kazaka"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I really like to be polite on this list but any person that changes a router
> >bit with the router plugged in is a damn fool in plain and simple english.
> >Anyone changing a sawblade without shutting the power off is a bigger fool.
>
> Sawblade on what ? I trust my sawbench not to start unexpectedly, for
> it has a real starter and isolator, but I _know_ that a slight slip
> when handling the router is likely to catch the switch and turn it on
> - I've had it happen plenty of times (no big deal, I always unplug it
> first).
>
> I'd regard router bit changing as one of the most likely situations
> for this sort of "unexpected start" injury.

Andy,

I there have been cases reported here in the rec about magnetic
switches on table saws turning on when struck by an object. Struck on
the side of the box that is- not the start button. Doesn't seem very
likely, but if you had a board or a long clamp nearby slip at the
wrong moment and strike the switch your saw could come alive...

Scott

"jduprie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I leave mine plugged in until Iput them away (usually when that phase of
the
> project is done). having said that, I also change router bits with the
> router plugged, do the same with tablesaw blades, etc.



The chances of a tool starting up are really, really slim, but it can
happen. I do unplug when changing blades and bits. Otherwise, all my tools
are plugged and ready to go.

I've seen recommendations to unplug all appliances and TV;s when leaving the
house for an extended time also. Never did.

I do wear seatbelts also.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

And some idiots put LOADED rifles, etc. away in their cases or cabinets.
There's no accounting for BAD HABITS or complacency developed over the
years.

I'd rather be accused of being paranoid, anal, or an 'old worry wart', thank
you very much, as I still have ALL my appendages and ALL my firearms.

Regards,
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
SNIP
> Friend of mine leaves everything plugged in and hot, and it drives me
> mad - especially the angle grinder on the junk-piled workbench. I've
> seen that start up unexpectedly a couple of times, when things move
> the pile.
>
>
> --
> Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

They don't? Do a survey on here and find out how many people think it is
safe to pour hot coffee on themselves. Coffee can be at up to 212 degrees.
Keep this in mind. Since you are making this argument, apparently you are
one of those that don't know better so I will tell you right now, DON'T POUR
HOT COFFEE ON YOURSELF.


"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <lt7yb.256116$ao4.901244@attbi_s51>,
> CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> >reasonable people know that pouring hot coffe on themselves is not a good
> >idea.
>
> "Reasonable people" also do not expect THIRD DEGREE BURNS as a result
> thereof, either.

In article <[email protected]>, "NoJointerHere" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:a042c$3fc91b84
>
>> McDonalds _drive-up_ coffee was:
>> a) not just 'hot', but *dangerously* hot
>
>And this temperature had been determined by asking customers what THEY
>preferred. It wasn't just some guy that decided to make it hot. Customers
>told MCD they wanted it that hot.

No, this is false. The facts in the case showed that that specific McDonald's
franchise had received numerous complaints from previous customers that their
coffee was too hot. Yet they did nothing. _That_ is why they were held liable.
>
>> b) some 20 degrees F hotter than that which was dispensed _inside_ the
>> McDonalds.
>
>Then the inside temp was wrong. MCD specified the temp was to be 185 +/-5
>degrees. Today, thanks to the lawsuit, it's 155. Starbucks will make coffee
>hot (185) if you request it.
>
>> c) served _so_hot_as_to_be_undrinkable_, *according*to*McDonalds*
>
>Again, because customers that buy coffee generally had a long commute the
>higher temp was needed to esnure it stayed warm. It was a reasonable thing
>for MCD to do.

Not in the face of repeated complaints, it wasn't reasonable.

>
>> d) lacking any notice that it was 'excessively hot'.
>
>The cup did have a "reminder" that the coffee was very hot.

Nope. Those warnings didn't appear on McD's coffee cups until *after* the
lawsuit.

>
>> What got McDonalds in trouble was the fact that they *knowingly* served
>> drive-up coffee at *excessively*hot* temperatures _WITHOUT_NOTICE_ of the
>> associated risk.
>
>McDonalds asked customers what they wanted, and then prepared it as they
>requested.

Again, false. Customers of that specific franchise had complained
previously that it was too hot.


--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

As a Risk Management Consultant, my clients pay me to point out liability
issues at their work sites and other premises.

I was doing a walk thru at a large retail nursery the other day and there
was a "handyman" doing some minor carpentry in the interior area of the
retail showroom. He had a circular saw and some sacrificial 2 x4 s outside
a side door along the side of the building ( an area where "outdoor" retail
items were being displayed.

This is where he was "making a mess" with cutting his materials. Needless to
say, he had the saw plugged in while he was several hundred feet away inside
installing some of his handy work. As you will find in most retail
locations, there were adults shopping with children of their's wondering
around on their own. You can imagine where I am going with this....... the
potential is there for that curious child to grab that trigger with the
first thing heard; the sound of the saw and then the scream of terror.......
Of course this is only what COULD happen in this situation, which is
probably why OSHA requires "Unattended" power tools to be unplugged when not
being actively used. And I am not saying that those same adults SHOULD be
responsible for their unattended children, but you know that the ambulance
chasing lawyers will sue not only the handyman, but my deep pocket business
owner.

Food for Thought,

Dennis Slabaugh, Hobbyist Woodworker
www.woodworkinghobby.com




"jduprie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:tXHxb.337777$Fm2.341054@attbi_s04...
> I leave mine plugged in until Iput them away (usually when that phase of
the
> project is done). having said that, I also change router bits with the
> router plugged, do the same with tablesaw blades, etc. On the jobsite
(when
> I'm doing cosntruction type work), I leave the compressor on and tools
> plugged in (both electric and air) as long as I'm at the jobsite.
Everything
> gets unhooked/unplugged when I go home for the night (My sites are usually
> ones where I can leave my tools overnight without worry).
>
> some folks would call it lazy, but I find it a lot more efficient to be
able
> to just grab the tool I need, and not have to dink around with cords or
air
> hoses before I can use it.......
>
> --JD
>
>
> "Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > How many of you unplug your power tools when yer done usin' them? I'm
> > talkin' about the tools we use on a regular basis...table saw, orbital
> > sander, etc.
> >
> > I don't. I don't have any young kids around anymore...and no young
> > kids can get into my work area. So I always keep things plugged
> > in...'cause I might use them again soon...especially if I'm on a large
> > project.
> >
> > A few months ago, I was doin' some sanding with my orbital sander. I
> > had just turned it off...at the switch...and had gone to my other
> > workbench to check on some of the work I had taken over there.
> >
> > A few minutes later, I heard a weird noise coming from over my right
> > shoulder. I turned...and saw my sander dancing all over the
> > workbench! I went over quickly and grabbed it...and turned it off
> > again.
> >
> > What had happened...
> >
> > The switch has a dust protector boot over it. I think the switch had
> > actually not seated to the off position...it must've teetered in the
> > middle position...then finally flopped over to the on position again.
> >
> > I wrote to the manufacturer...they immediately called me...sent me a
> > replacement...and asked me to send the bad one to them for inspection.
> > They paid for all the shipping, of course...and they sent me an
> > upgraded sander for my trouble.
> >
> > But early in the conversation...when they thought my call might
> > actually be to get some money out of them...I was told that tools
> > should always be unplugged when done using them.
> >
> > I wasn't done using the tool, of course. But, even so...I have never
> > unplugged a power tool when done. I always keep them plugged
> > in...sitting on the workbench. But my work area has never been
> > accessible to anyone but me and other adults.
> >
> > I honestly never gave any thought to the fact that a tool turned off
> > could spontaneously restart. I wonder what might have happened if
> > that sander had been jumpin' around by itself for a few hours...while
> > I was out doing errands.
> >
> > Just a heads-up...and some food for thought...after reading all the
> > stuff about the woman with the hot coffee.
> >
> >
> >
> > Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
> >
> > Trent
>
>

Give this site a good look...

http://www.safetyalerts.com/rcls/category/appl.htm#tools

You may find your particular tool in the recall list ecause it sounds
familiar...



"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How many of you unplug your power tools when yer done usin' them? I'm
> talkin' about the tools we use on a regular basis...table saw, orbital
> sander, etc.
>
> I don't. I don't have any young kids around anymore...and no young
> kids can get into my work area. So I always keep things plugged
> in...'cause I might use them again soon...especially if I'm on a large
> project.
>
> A few months ago, I was doin' some sanding with my orbital sander. I
> had just turned it off...at the switch...and had gone to my other
> workbench to check on some of the work I had taken over there.
>
> A few minutes later, I heard a weird noise coming from over my right
> shoulder. I turned...and saw my sander dancing all over the
> workbench! I went over quickly and grabbed it...and turned it off
> again.
>
> What had happened...
>
> The switch has a dust protector boot over it. I think the switch had
> actually not seated to the off position...it must've teetered in the
> middle position...then finally flopped over to the on position again.
>
> I wrote to the manufacturer...they immediately called me...sent me a
> replacement...and asked me to send the bad one to them for inspection.
> They paid for all the shipping, of course...and they sent me an
> upgraded sander for my trouble.
>
> But early in the conversation...when they thought my call might
> actually be to get some money out of them...I was told that tools
> should always be unplugged when done using them.
>
> I wasn't done using the tool, of course. But, even so...I have never
> unplugged a power tool when done. I always keep them plugged
> in...sitting on the workbench. But my work area has never been
> accessible to anyone but me and other adults.
>
> I honestly never gave any thought to the fact that a tool turned off
> could spontaneously restart. I wonder what might have happened if
> that sander had been jumpin' around by itself for a few hours...while
> I was out doing errands.
>
> Just a heads-up...and some food for thought...after reading all the
> stuff about the woman with the hot coffee.
>
>
>
> Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
>
> Trent

I'm not worried about leaving things plugged in or not, but thanks for a
really good idea for getting upgrades to handheld power tools hehe

Mike

In article <[email protected]>, Grandpa
<jsdebooATcomcast.net> says...
> You're right, nobody dumped the coffee. This old swamp hag stuck the cup
> between her legs and drove off, the coffee spilled and burned her thighs
> and she won because the coffee was 'too hot'. About as smart as
> dropping a running dremel in ones lap.
>

Even better, she put it between her legs with the lid on while her grand
kid drove off. I don't know about you, but when someone else is
controlling the car, and I don't know what might be happening, I'm extra
careful.

Ask any fire man the cause of most fires it will be from extention cords and
items plugged into them
I have seen the arcing from a loose plug.

Leavin tools plugged in during the workday or night or whatever time is okay
but when shuting down for the night it is a wise practise to unplug them.

I have never been accused of being the safest worker around I think back on
some of the shit i have done and wonder how the hell i still can count to
ten without taking my shoes off.

I really like to be polite on this list but any person that changes a router
bit with the router plugged in is a damn fool in plain and simple english.
Anyone changing a sawblade without shutting the power off is a bigger fool.
This is one area that i would tend to yell at anyone in my employee the
first time the second time it goodbye to that person.

"jduprie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:tXHxb.337777$Fm2.341054@attbi_s04...
> I leave mine plugged in until Iput them away (usually when that phase of
the
> project is done). having said that, I also change router bits with the
> router plugged, do the same with tablesaw blades, etc. On the jobsite
(when
> I'm doing cosntruction type work), I leave the compressor on and tools
> plugged in (both electric and air) as long as I'm at the jobsite.
Everything
> gets unhooked/unplugged when I go home for the night (My sites are usually
> ones where I can leave my tools overnight without worry).
>
> some folks would call it lazy, but I find it a lot more efficient to be
able
> to just grab the tool I need, and not have to dink around with cords or
air
> hoses before I can use it.......
>
> --JD
>
>
> "Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > How many of you unplug your power tools when yer done usin' them? I'm
> > talkin' about the tools we use on a regular basis...table saw, orbital
> > sander, etc.
> >
> > I don't. I don't have any young kids around anymore...and no young
> > kids can get into my work area. So I always keep things plugged
> > in...'cause I might use them again soon...especially if I'm on a large
> > project.
> >
> > A few months ago, I was doin' some sanding with my orbital sander. I
> > had just turned it off...at the switch...and had gone to my other
> > workbench to check on some of the work I had taken over there.
> >
> > A few minutes later, I heard a weird noise coming from over my right
> > shoulder. I turned...and saw my sander dancing all over the
> > workbench! I went over quickly and grabbed it...and turned it off
> > again.
> >
> > What had happened...
> >
> > The switch has a dust protector boot over it. I think the switch had
> > actually not seated to the off position...it must've teetered in the
> > middle position...then finally flopped over to the on position again.
> >
> > I wrote to the manufacturer...they immediately called me...sent me a
> > replacement...and asked me to send the bad one to them for inspection.
> > They paid for all the shipping, of course...and they sent me an
> > upgraded sander for my trouble.
> >
> > But early in the conversation...when they thought my call might
> > actually be to get some money out of them...I was told that tools
> > should always be unplugged when done using them.
> >
> > I wasn't done using the tool, of course. But, even so...I have never
> > unplugged a power tool when done. I always keep them plugged
> > in...sitting on the workbench. But my work area has never been
> > accessible to anyone but me and other adults.
> >
> > I honestly never gave any thought to the fact that a tool turned off
> > could spontaneously restart. I wonder what might have happened if
> > that sander had been jumpin' around by itself for a few hours...while
> > I was out doing errands.
> >
> > Just a heads-up...and some food for thought...after reading all the
> > stuff about the woman with the hot coffee.
> >
> >
> >
> > Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
> >
> > Trent
>
>

I don't unplug tools after use necessarily (I do unplug routers when
changing bits though.) What I did years ago was wire my shop so that
all circuits into which any tool can be plugged pass through a single
shut-off switch ahead of the shop sub-panel so that I can shot off and
lock everything down when there are kids (and sometimes fully grown
idiots) in my shop.

It's as much self defense as safety.

B

Trent© wrote:

> How many of you unplug your power tools when yer done usin' them? I'm
> talkin' about the tools we use on a regular basis...table saw, orbital
> sander, etc.
>
> I don't. I don't have any young kids around anymore...and no young
> kids can get into my work area. So I always keep things plugged
> in...'cause I might use them again soon...especially if I'm on a large
> project.
>
> A few months ago, I was doin' some sanding with my orbital sander. I
> had just turned it off...at the switch...and had gone to my other
> workbench to check on some of the work I had taken over there.
>
> A few minutes later, I heard a weird noise coming from over my right
> shoulder. I turned...and saw my sander dancing all over the
> workbench! I went over quickly and grabbed it...and turned it off
> again.
>
> What had happened...
>
> The switch has a dust protector boot over it. I think the switch had
> actually not seated to the off position...it must've teetered in the
> middle position...then finally flopped over to the on position again.
>
> I wrote to the manufacturer...they immediately called me...sent me a
> replacement...and asked me to send the bad one to them for inspection.
> They paid for all the shipping, of course...and they sent me an
> upgraded sander for my trouble.
>
> But early in the conversation...when they thought my call might
> actually be to get some money out of them...I was told that tools
> should always be unplugged when done using them.
>
> I wasn't done using the tool, of course. But, even so...I have never
> unplugged a power tool when done. I always keep them plugged
> in...sitting on the workbench. But my work area has never been
> accessible to anyone but me and other adults.
>
> I honestly never gave any thought to the fact that a tool turned off
> could spontaneously restart. I wonder what might have happened if
> that sander had been jumpin' around by itself for a few hours...while
> I was out doing errands.
>
> Just a heads-up...and some food for thought...after reading all the
> stuff about the woman with the hot coffee.
>
>
>
> Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
>
> Trent

Mcdonalds paying someone off has nothing to do with admission of guilt. They
know, as does every slimeball lawyer, that juries tend to take the attitude
that "the big, bad, mean ol' corperations" should be screwd for any and all
reasons. So the typical action is, here's a few bucks, FO pest.

"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:21:38 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> McDonald's paid off many people before her. In essence, by doing so,
> they admitted they were in the wrong. It was just the DEGREE of wrong
> doing that they disagreed on with her. So...she took them to
> court...to find out what the proper amount should be! lol

If you can't see the difference, you've got a problem.


"p_j" (Persistant jerk?) wrote in message

>> You shouldn't complain about the sander then.
>
> Why is it that your "sense of right and wrong" does not include
> accurately relating the issues involved?

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:HWjyb.13274$P%

>>And this temperature had been determined by asking customers what THEY
>>preferred. It wasn't just some guy that decided to make it hot. Customers
>>told MCD they wanted it that hot.

> No, this is false. The facts in the case showed that that specific
McDonald's
> franchise had received numerous complaints from previous customers that
their
> coffee was too hot. Yet they did nothing. _That_ is why they were held
liable.

Hmm. Google kicks ass.

See http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm "The actual facts about the
McDonalds' Coffee Case"

"McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. "


> >Again, because customers that buy coffee generally had a long commute the
> >higher temp was needed to esnure it stayed warm. It was a reasonable
thing
> >for MCD to do.
>
> Not in the face of repeated complaints, it wasn't reasonable.

They had 700 claims that the coffee was too hot over 10 years the website
says. They serve over 1M meals per day. If 10% order coffee, then that is
36.5M orders of coffee they served over 10 years. 700 complained, which is
about 0.01% complaint rate. That's insignificant.

> >> d) lacking any notice that it was 'excessively hot'.
> >
> >The cup did have a "reminder" that the coffee was very hot.
>
> Nope. Those warnings didn't appear on McD's coffee cups until *after* the
> lawsuit.

Website sez it did note the coffee was hot.

> >> What got McDonalds in trouble was the fact that they *knowingly* served
> >> drive-up coffee at *excessively*hot* temperatures _WITHOUT_NOTICE_ of
the
> >> associated risk.
> >
> >McDonalds asked customers what they wanted, and then prepared it as they
> >requested.
>
> Again, false. Customers of that specific franchise had complained
> previously that it was too hot.

And certainly at 155 degrees some would complain it was too cold. Your
point?

Makes you move real fast.


"Grandpa" <jsdebooATcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Only if you're still talking in a really high voice<G>. I almost did
> once <embarrassed to admit it>.
>
> CW wrote:
>
> > I've done that. Should I have sued?
> >
> >
> > "Grandpa" <jsdebooATcomcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > . About as smart as
> >
> >>dropping a running dremel in ones lap.
> >
> >
> >
>

Trent© <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>How many of you unplug your power tools when yer done usin' them? I'm
>talkin' about the tools we use on a regular basis...table saw, orbital
>sander, etc. <snip>


From days when kds were little, all outlets in shop are switched with
switches at 7ft height.Now that the kids are in their 20's they can reach
them ...damn! Tools stay plugged in but all switches off when you leave the
shop. Tools get unplugged for blade or bit changes.

Jerry

In article <lt7yb.256116$ao4.901244@attbi_s51>,
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>reasonable people know that pouring hot coffe on themselves is not a good
>idea.

"Reasonable people" also do not expect THIRD DEGREE BURNS as a result
thereof, either.

"Third degree burns" is NOT mere reddening of the skin, nor is it 'blisters'.
"Third Degree burns" is _charring_ of the skin.

In the particular instance, the burns were so extensive as to require
reconstructive surgury. That is not a 'minor' burn injury.

McDonalds _drive-up_ coffee was:
a) not just 'hot', but *dangerously* hot
b) some 20 degrees F hotter than that which was dispensed _inside_ the
McDonalds.
c) served _so_hot_as_to_be_undrinkable_, *according*to*McDonalds*
d) lacking any notice that it was 'excessively hot'.

What got McDonalds in trouble was the fact that they *knowingly* served
drive-up coffee at *excessively*hot* temperatures _WITHOUT_NOTICE_ of the
associated risk.

The 'consequences' of "accidental" exposure to the coffee, _as_served_,
were *far*in*excess* of what the proverbial "reasonable person" _could_expect_
to 'reasonably occur', even in a worst-case scenario. Which is _why_
McDonald's was held liable.


The original jury award _was_ excessive, and was reduced more than 90%
on review.


> The trditional way of making coffee involves boiling or nearly so
>water. That should be a clue. I would have told her to get lost too. It was
>her fault, plain and simple.
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:r_5yb.13178$P%[email protected]...
>> In article <2d5yb.355558$Fm2.355616@attbi_s04>, "CW"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >So McDonalds is supposed to be responsible for the idiots of the world?
>>
>> The point is that, while reasonable people reasonably expect coffee to be
>hot,
>?
>
>

"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:a042c$3fc91b84

> McDonalds _drive-up_ coffee was:
> a) not just 'hot', but *dangerously* hot

And this temperature had been determined by asking customers what THEY
preferred. It wasn't just some guy that decided to make it hot. Customers
told MCD they wanted it that hot.

> b) some 20 degrees F hotter than that which was dispensed _inside_ the
> McDonalds.

Then the inside temp was wrong. MCD specified the temp was to be 185 +/-5
degrees. Today, thanks to the lawsuit, it's 155. Starbucks will make coffee
hot (185) if you request it.

> c) served _so_hot_as_to_be_undrinkable_, *according*to*McDonalds*

Again, because customers that buy coffee generally had a long commute the
higher temp was needed to esnure it stayed warm. It was a reasonable thing
for MCD to do.

> d) lacking any notice that it was 'excessively hot'.

The cup did have a "reminder" that the coffee was very hot.

> What got McDonalds in trouble was the fact that they *knowingly* served
> drive-up coffee at *excessively*hot* temperatures _WITHOUT_NOTICE_ of the
> associated risk.

McDonalds asked customers what they wanted, and then prepared it as they
requested. A few customers didn't quite understand the danger inherent to
the product they were asking for and were injured by it. Several folks have
been injured from eating a MCD apple pie because the filling comes out of
the frier at about 200 degrees.

I had a friend lose a finger because he stuck it under a Honda lawnmower
that was running BUT the power drive had been disengaged. He though that
when the drive was disengaged the blade stopped even though the motor was
going. To hear him tell the story it's still a mystery to him why the blade
keeps spinning even if the drive is stopped. He was certain the blade was
stopped. Honda cut him a check for about $3K without even really contesting
it as I recall.

Both accidents (coffee and mower) are unfortunate. Both accidents will
always happen because folks don't quite understand what they are dealing
with. Corporations will always have to pay for this, which means we'll
always have to pay for this in the end. It all kind of works out in the
wash.

"George M. Kazaka" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I really like to be polite on this list but any person that changes a router
>bit with the router plugged in is a damn fool in plain and simple english.
>Anyone changing a sawblade without shutting the power off is a bigger fool.

Hear, hear.

When I use my saw, I don't plug it in until I have done my layouts &
setups, and I am immediately ready to cut (and I've checked the
position of the cord!). When I finish using my saw, I set it down,
then unplug it. After I've unplugged it, I'll pick it up and depress
the switch to make sure I unplugged the right thing. If the next cut
requires re-positioning the work, I unplug between cuts.

I don't change blades unless the power plug is in plain view.

Same basic behaviour when I use our rotary meat slicer or the electric
knife.

Basically, I'm respectful of sharp things that move quickly.

Could be I'm overdoing it, but I've still got all my fingers, and I
try to keep them in good working order, since I also like to play the
violin.

And I like my coffee hot. So, I don't drink coffee while driving.

--
Howard Lee Harkness
Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor
www.CHL-TX.com
[email protected]
Low-cost Domain Registration and Hosting! www.Texas-Domains.com

But my work area has never been
> accessible to anyone but me and other adults.

My wife was helping me tidy up after some work in the house when she picked
up my circular saw by the handle, hitting the switch as she did so. The
thing started giving her quite a fright and a lesson.
My workshop is off limits to children, pets and women.

John

Oh believe me if the insurer can find away out of paying then it most
definitely would of been your fault

just my cynical tuppence worth

"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:21:38 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I don't know about you, but I like my coffee hot and I
> >expect it to be hot.
>
> The problem is...DEFINE hot.
>
> >If it is not hot enough to burn you,
> >then it isn't worth drinking. I've read what happened and
> >it is not the fault of McDonald's.
>
> At least 13 people disagree with you. lol
>
> But...and here's the reason I posted this query...answer this question
> for me...
>
> If I had left the house...instead of going to the other
> workbench...and the sander had started and ultimately burned down the
> house...
>
> Would that have been MY fault? After all, if I had unplugged the
> sander, the fire could not have happened from the sander.
>
> This is the first time this has ever happened to me. And, to be quite
> honest, I had NO idea that a tool could restart after you switch it
> off. Should I have known that I should unplug the tool when not in
> use? Again...that's why I asked the question...because it looks like
> many of us don't unplug them when done for the day.
>
> Should the McDonald's lady have known that HOT at one restaurant is
> not the same temperature at another restaurant? Should all the others
> that got burned before her have known also?
>
> McDonald's paid off many people before her. In essence, by doing so,
> they admitted they were in the wrong. It was just the DEGREE of wrong
> doing that they disagreed on with her. So...she took them to
> court...to find out what the proper amount should be! lol
>
>
>
> Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
>
> Trent

Look again twit, it was posted several times. Don't blame me for your lack
of comprehension. Now, quit being an idiot and crawl of to my twit file like
a good little looser.
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

In article <ugwyb.267229$9E1.1408511@attbi_s52>,
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>Youl didn't read it the first time, dip, so why post it again?

You lie. You *didn't* post any actual references regarding antiques.
You the closest you came was when you claimed it was "in the U.S.
customs laws".

"Title 39 United States Code" contains _all_ the customs *laws*. The
word 'antique' does *NOT* appear in it anywhere. verifiable at
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/19.html>

In the Code of Federal Regulations, implementing those laws, there are
thirteen occurrences of antique/antiques/antiquity:
THREE are table-of-contents items,
NINE are "antiques of an age exceeding 100 years" or "antiques of an age
specified in 9707.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States", or "antiques as described in 10.53" (and section 10.53 uses the
'antiques of an age specified in 9707.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule)
The last entry, in it's entirety: "antiques imported in good faith, but
rejected as unauthentic".
Verifiable at <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cfr/>

The "Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States", contains precisely
*one* reference, in section 9707.00.00, which specified:

"Antiques of an age exceeding 100 years"

as exempt from duty.




Oh yeah, I've got a 1939 Croseley table-top radio that U.S. CUSTOMS has
officially recognized as an antique



>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <czqyb.370010$Tr4.1086886@attbi_s03>,
>> CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Look again twit, it was posted several times. Don't blame me for your
>lack
>> >of comprehension. Now, quit being an idiot and crawl of to my twit file
>like
>> >a good little looser.
>> >"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> Oh my. ad hominems. In lieu of facts. Must be he doesn't *have* any
>> facts.
>>
>> I'm *so* flattered. *snicker*
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Only if you're still talking in a really high voice<G>. I almost did
once <embarrassed to admit it>.

CW wrote:

> I've done that. Should I have sued?
>
>
> "Grandpa" <jsdebooATcomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> . About as smart as
>
>>dropping a running dremel in ones lap.
>
>
>

Trent© wrote:

<snip>
>
> Should the McDonald's lady have known that HOT at one restaurant is
> not the same temperature at another restaurant? Should all the others
> that got burned before her have known also?

Doesn't make a rats ass either way. Common sense tells you not to put
hot stuff near your crotch as it'll burn the hell out of you whether its
165º or 185º. So McNastys lowered the temp of their coffee. If the old
bitch does it again the lowered temp will still burn her snatch. Yeah,
I'm partial to this arguemwnt as it happened in my hometown.

As for the tools, thats interesting that they can do this. I wonder if
perhaps all power tools should maybe have a removable 'key' like
Craftsman uses on their bigger stuff.

George E. Cawthon wrote:

> because water above that temperature will burn you. But
> coffee at 125 F is considered tepid, not hot.

I gotta wonder at this. Do coffee drinkers just burn off all the cells on
the inside of their mouths and develop a layer of scar tissue that allows
them to consume liquids this hot?

I don't drink coffee (doesn't agree with my stomach *at all*) but I notice
that commercial hot chocolate comes out of the nozzle HOT. I have to let
it cool for at least half an hour before I can think about putting any of
it in my mouth. I never buy hot chocolate anywhere because by the time the
damn stuff has cooled off enough to actually drink, I'm way past being
thirsty for it.

When I make it (hot chocolate) at home, I aim to get it hot enough to melt
marshmallows, but not so hot that I can't drink it immediately. I also
find that I tend to let foods cool down a good while before eating them.
Delivery pizza is usually at the right temperature, restaurant pizza needs
to sit there for at least 20 minutes to reach a point where it won't turn
the roof of my mouth into a dangling lump of burnt tissue.

It doesn't seem to just be a matter of getting used to being burnt. Hot
pizza still physically burns me after all these years, so it isn't an
acclimatzation thing.

Maybe I'm just a freak, because from where I sit, it seems like the vast
majority of the world is completely nuts WRT food/beverage temperature.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

"Ron Magen" <[email protected]> wrote:

>And some idiots put LOADED rifles, etc. away in their cases or cabinets.
>There's no accounting for BAD HABITS or complacency developed over the
>years.

This is a misconception generated by disinformation from gun-haters,
the same idiots that brought you trigger locks. (I'll start using a
trigger lock the day that all police officers are required to use
them.)

An unloaded rifle is just a stick, except less useful. I always
consider a firearm loaded unless I have personally cleared it, so
there is no point to having one that isn't actually loaded. That's
not complacency. If your firearm isn't loaded, then you might as well
not have one.

I unload only in circumstances that absolutely require it.

(When the grandkids visit, the firearms are locked in the safe, or
concealed on my person at all times, so that they are completely
inaccessible to anyone but me. But they are still loaded.)

Firearm safety, like workplace safety, is a matter of behaviour. For
instance, you should never point a firearm at anything you aren't
willing to destroy. Similarly, when operating a bandsaw, you need to
pay close attention to where your fingers are.

--
Howard Lee Harkness
Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor
www.CHL-TX.com
[email protected]
Low-cost Domain Registration and Hosting! www.Texas-Domains.com

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:28:14 -0500, "Dennis Slabaugh, Hobbyist
Woodworker" <[email protected]> wrote:

>As a Risk Management Consultant, my clients pay me to point out liability
>issues at their work sites and other premises.
>
>I was doing a walk thru at a large retail nursery the other day and there
>was a "handyman" doing some minor carpentry in the interior area of the
>retail showroom.

The area wasn't at least roped off, Dennis. This is REALLY lax on the
stores part.

> He had a circular saw and some sacrificial 2 x4 s outside
>a side door along the side of the building ( an area where "outdoor" retail
>items were being displayed.

He should at least have strung some 'caution' ribboning.

>This is where he was "making a mess" with cutting his materials. Needless to
>say, he had the saw plugged in while he was several hundred feet away inside
>installing some of his handy work.

A 'corded' saw? What a contractor! lol

>As you will find in most retail
>locations, there were adults shopping with children of their's wondering
>around on their own. You can imagine where I am going with this....... the
>potential is there for that curious child to grab that trigger with the
>first thing heard; the sound of the saw and then the scream of terror.......

That could happen, of course. But most kids that know how to by-pass
the trigger guard also know the dangers of using the saw. But your
point is well taken.

>Of course this is only what COULD happen in this situation, which is
>probably why OSHA requires "Unattended" power tools to be unplugged when not
>being actively used. And I am not saying that those same adults SHOULD be
>responsible for their unattended children,

*I* am!!! lol

> but you know that the ambulance
>chasing lawyers will sue not only the handyman, but my deep pocket business
>owner.

And they'd probably win, Dennis.



Wishing you and yours a happy holiday season...

Trent

Proud member of the Roy Rogers fan club!

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:22:33 -0700, "George M. Kazaka"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I really like to be polite on this list but any person that changes a router
>bit with the router plugged in is a damn fool in plain and simple english.
>Anyone changing a sawblade without shutting the power off is a bigger fool.

Sawblade on what ? I trust my sawbench not to start unexpectedly, for
it has a real starter and isolator, but I _know_ that a slight slip
when handling the router is likely to catch the switch and turn it on
- I've had it happen plenty of times (no big deal, I always unplug it
first).

I'd regard router bit changing as one of the most likely situations
for this sort of "unexpected start" injury.


--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

reasonable people know that pouring hot coffe on themselves is not a good
idea. The trditional way of making coffee involves boiling or nearly so
water. That should be a clue. I would have told her to get lost too. It was
her fault, plain and simple.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:r_5yb.13178$P%[email protected]...
> In article <2d5yb.355558$Fm2.355616@attbi_s04>, "CW"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >So McDonalds is supposed to be responsible for the idiots of the world?
>
> The point is that, while reasonable people reasonably expect coffee to be
hot,
?

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sawblade on what ? I trust my sawbench not to start unexpectedly, for
> it has a real starter and isolator, but I _know_ that a slight slip
> when handling the router is likely to catch the switch and turn it on
> - I've had it happen plenty of times (no big deal, I always unplug it
> first).
>
> I'd regard router bit changing as one of the most likely situations
> for this sort of "unexpected start" injury.

Funny, I do the exact opposite.

My table saw has a rocker switch, covered by a faceplate. I still unplug
it.

My router has a shaft lock that includes a power switch interconnect.
There's no way that a simple bump will unlock the shaft lock. If the
interlock fails, the shaft is locked anyways, so it shouldn't do any damage.
Probably should unplug it anyways, though.

Now, the tool that *really* annoys me from a safety point is the pc 557
biscuit joiner. It's so easy to hit the trigger while just picking it up
:-( Damn things makes a racket, too, if you do that.

--randy

"Grandpa" <jsdebooATcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You're right, nobody dumped the coffee. This old swamp hag stuck the cup
> between her legs and drove off, the coffee spilled and burned her thighs
> and she won because the coffee was 'too hot'. About as smart as
> dropping a running dremel in ones lap.

Ya know, of course, that the "old swamp hag" wasn't driving, she was the
passenger. And this occured while the car was not even in motion. And that
the coffee was so hot it wasn't even safe to drink it?

Or, more likely, you're just spouting off, repeating what you heard
elsewhere?

--randy

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 23:33:56 -0500 (EST), [email protected]
(T.) wrote:

> If someone dumped hot coffee in my lap (which, to my understanding
>did not happen in the McDonald's case), then I might consider suing.
>But, if I got hot coffee, then proceeded to dump it into my own lap, I
>would take the blame. It's not my fault, I have a mental illness, a
>long time ago I was diagnosed as having a strong sense of right and
>wrong, to me, it would be wrong to blame someone else for my screwup.

Here's some good reading, Joat...

http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785

Its not as cut and dried as you suggest.



Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...

Trent

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:57:27 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <2d5yb.355558$Fm2.355616@attbi_s04>, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>So McDonalds is supposed to be responsible for the idiots of the world?
>
>The point is that, while reasonable people reasonably expect coffee to be hot,
>nobody expects it to be hot enough to cause _third_ degree burns. That's not
>reasonable.
>
>A point frequently overlooked in regard to this case is that the little old
>lady didn't file suit immediately. The only thing she asked for at the
>beginning was reimbursement of her medical bills. They told her to buzz off,
>and _that's_ when she filed the suit.

>Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
>How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

At least SHE stuck to her word!

Hi, Dougie!...again!! lol

BTW...both points of your tag line are bogus.

You should go to the site where you got it...and tell them.

We often vote for more than 2 people for President (you did mean the
President of the United States, didn't ya? If so, that should be a
capital P).

And they always choose from more than 50 candidates for Miss America.

I find it interesting...that you chose to capitalize 'Miss
America'...and not President! lol

'Bye, Dougie!


Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...

Trent


Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...

Trent

Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:

>>If it is not hot enough to burn you,
>>then it isn't worth drinking. I've read what happened and
>>it is not the fault of McDonald's.
>
>At least 13 people disagree with you. lol

*Every* other person in the world could disagree, and still be wrong.
The 13 people mentioned here were also wrong, period. If you don't
want to spill hot coffee in your lap, don't engage in behaviour that
might lead to spilling hot coffee in your lap. Suing McDonalds
because the coffee was hot was just plain stupid.

This brings to mind a more meaningful response to a lawsuit brought by
some idiot who cut his throat on a fishbone. The judge who (rightly!)
threw this frivolous lawsuit out included in his statement, "Fish has
bones, and if you eat fish, you need to exercise care when doing so."
This is the sort of response that the McDonalds suit deserved.

Stupidity is a crime against nature which occasionally carries the
death penalty, and there is no way to repeal this natural law.

Along that same line...

I just finished a semi-interesting book by Peter Drucker, "Managing in
Times of Great Change". I say semi-interesting, because he spent a
lot of ink on psychobabble, interspersed with occasional deep
insights. One in particular was the workplace *cannot* be made
completely safe, and any attempt to do so is wasted effort. What is
needed is an entirely different definition of 'safety', namely, safe
_behaviour_. Unsafe behaviour should be considered an
accident/violation, regardless of whether it resulted in injury.

This dovetails nicely with the premise of another book, "The Death of
Common Sense" by P.K. Howard.

There is a limit to how safe a tool can be made, and it still be
useful. Things that have sharp teeth that move rapidly are inherently
dangerous. Electricity is inherently dangerous. Etc. Therefore,
workplace safety must be primarily a process that occurs between the
ears.


--
Howard Lee Harkness
Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor
www.CHL-TX.com
[email protected]
Low-cost Domain Registration and Hosting! www.Texas-Domains.com

I've done that. Should I have sued?


"Grandpa" <jsdebooATcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
. About as smart as
> dropping a running dremel in ones lap.

In article <2d5yb.355558$Fm2.355616@attbi_s04>, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>So McDonalds is supposed to be responsible for the idiots of the world?

The point is that, while reasonable people reasonably expect coffee to be hot,
nobody expects it to be hot enough to cause _third_ degree burns. That's not
reasonable.

A point frequently overlooked in regard to this case is that the little old
lady didn't file suit immediately. The only thing she asked for at the
beginning was reimbursement of her medical bills. They told her to buzz off,
and _that's_ when she filed the suit.

>"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
> They KNEW
>> that scores of other people ALSO didn't realize that HOT actually
>> meant SCALDING. They KNEW all this...and took no action to rectify
>> the problem.
>
>

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

Randy Chapman wrote:
> "Grandpa" <jsdebooATcomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>You're right, nobody dumped the coffee. This old swamp hag stuck the cup
>>between her legs and drove off, the coffee spilled and burned her thighs
>>and she won because the coffee was 'too hot'. About as smart as
>>dropping a running dremel in ones lap.
>
>
> Ya know, of course, that the "old swamp hag" wasn't driving, she was the
> passenger. And this occured while the car was not even in motion. And that
> the coffee was so hot it wasn't even safe to drink it?
>
> Or, more likely, you're just spouting off, repeating what you heard
> elsewhere?

Is that your neck or a circumcision scar RANDY? It doesn't matter who
was driving or if the sun was out, if a speed bump was in the road or if
she got her correct change. Putting a HOT cup of coffee between your
legs is STUPID! Unlike you, I think willful ignorance should be
painful, not rewarded! Perhaps you're Stella's relative?

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:45:05 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:

>George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>> because water above that temperature will burn you. But
>> coffee at 125 F is considered tepid, not hot.
>
>I gotta wonder at this. Do coffee drinkers just burn off all the cells on
>the inside of their mouths and develop a layer of scar tissue that allows
>them to consume liquids this hot?

There may be a few like that, but most of us don't. We learn how
to sip it so cold air cools it to the temp we like, then we swallow
it. By making coffee hot and learning how to sip, the last gulp is
still hot. Stomachs don't like superheated foods/bevs, either.


>I don't drink coffee (doesn't agree with my stomach *at all*) but I notice
>that commercial hot chocolate comes out of the nozzle HOT. I have to let
>it cool for at least half an hour before I can think about putting any of
>it in my mouth. I never buy hot chocolate anywhere because by the time the
>damn stuff has cooled off enough to actually drink, I'm way past being
>thirsty for it.

Stroll on over to the soda refill station and drop a chunk of ice
into it. Stir for 30 seconds and drink. Not a prob.


>Maybe I'm just a freak, because from where I sit, it seems like the vast
>majority of the world is completely nuts WRT food/beverage temperature.

Ditto here. I drink my water at room temp, thanks. No gallon Icee or
210° coffee for me, thanks. I'll cool my cuppajoe with creamer.


==========================================================
CAUTION: Do not use remaining fingers as pushsticks!
==========================================================
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

Trent© wrote:

<snip>
> How was this woman to know that the hot coffee from Mickey D was
> actually hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns? When you turn on the
> HOT water in someone's house, how hot IS it?

Common sense tells you to test it first, doesn't it? Not stick your
hands in it for 5 seconds to see. Do you gulp hot coffee or sip it to
see how hot it is? All I'm saying is I don't believe she used
reasonable precautions to keep herself from being burned. As I rememebr
they dropped the temp from 185º to 165º and were she to do the same
again, I believe it would burn her again.

I leave mine plugged in until Iput them away (usually when that phase of the
project is done). having said that, I also change router bits with the
router plugged, do the same with tablesaw blades, etc. On the jobsite (when
I'm doing cosntruction type work), I leave the compressor on and tools
plugged in (both electric and air) as long as I'm at the jobsite. Everything
gets unhooked/unplugged when I go home for the night (My sites are usually
ones where I can leave my tools overnight without worry).

some folks would call it lazy, but I find it a lot more efficient to be able
to just grab the tool I need, and not have to dink around with cords or air
hoses before I can use it.......

--JD


"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How many of you unplug your power tools when yer done usin' them? I'm
> talkin' about the tools we use on a regular basis...table saw, orbital
> sander, etc.
>
> I don't. I don't have any young kids around anymore...and no young
> kids can get into my work area. So I always keep things plugged
> in...'cause I might use them again soon...especially if I'm on a large
> project.
>
> A few months ago, I was doin' some sanding with my orbital sander. I
> had just turned it off...at the switch...and had gone to my other
> workbench to check on some of the work I had taken over there.
>
> A few minutes later, I heard a weird noise coming from over my right
> shoulder. I turned...and saw my sander dancing all over the
> workbench! I went over quickly and grabbed it...and turned it off
> again.
>
> What had happened...
>
> The switch has a dust protector boot over it. I think the switch had
> actually not seated to the off position...it must've teetered in the
> middle position...then finally flopped over to the on position again.
>
> I wrote to the manufacturer...they immediately called me...sent me a
> replacement...and asked me to send the bad one to them for inspection.
> They paid for all the shipping, of course...and they sent me an
> upgraded sander for my trouble.
>
> But early in the conversation...when they thought my call might
> actually be to get some money out of them...I was told that tools
> should always be unplugged when done using them.
>
> I wasn't done using the tool, of course. But, even so...I have never
> unplugged a power tool when done. I always keep them plugged
> in...sitting on the workbench. But my work area has never been
> accessible to anyone but me and other adults.
>
> I honestly never gave any thought to the fact that a tool turned off
> could spontaneously restart. I wonder what might have happened if
> that sander had been jumpin' around by itself for a few hours...while
> I was out doing errands.
>
> Just a heads-up...and some food for thought...after reading all the
> stuff about the woman with the hot coffee.
>
>
>
> Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
>
> Trent

Grandpa wrote:

> I wonder if it was the 'little people' who turned on the sander<G>?


Collective telekinesis when too many of us read a Trent troll at the
same time sending psychic powers to do mischief.




--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)

Youl didn't read it the first time, dip, so why post it again?
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <czqyb.370010$Tr4.1086886@attbi_s03>,
> CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Look again twit, it was posted several times. Don't blame me for your
lack
> >of comprehension. Now, quit being an idiot and crawl of to my twit file
like
> >a good little looser.
> >"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >
>
> Oh my. ad hominems. In lieu of facts. Must be he doesn't *have* any
> facts.
>
> I'm *so* flattered. *snicker*
>
>
>

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:18:38 +0000, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) brought forth from the murky depths:

>A reasonable person _would_ regard 1st and 2nd degree burns as a
>'reasonable consequence' of having hot coffee spilled on them.
>Third degree burns are _excessive_.

A reasonable person would have gotten up and danced around
until the breeze cooled the spill, eliminating any 3rd degree
burn.

If I'd been the judge:

"Stella, did you know the coffee was hot?
She answers "Yes, sir."

"Have you ever been able to drink freshly poured hot coffee from a cup
at a fast food restaurant before?"
She answers "No, sir."

BANG! (sound of gavel) "CASE DISMISSED" sez I.


>I do believe that there were polyester garments involved. And
>the coffeee was so hot it *melted* the clothing onto her body.

Sorry, clothes don't melt at 185 degrees, sir.
http://www.metacrylics.com/specs/MSDS_Tietex.html
shows a 500F melting point.


==========================================================
CAUTION: Do not use remaining fingers as pushsticks!
==========================================================
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

The sander wasn't a DeWalt by any chance was it? I have had DeWalts with
bad switches that did that before. None in my shop now. I unplug all hand
power tools when finished with them, stationary tools are never unplugged
except for maintance. Maybe I am setting myself up for a lawsuit. Perhaps
I should unplug lights when I am finished with them too.
"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How many of you unplug your power tools when yer done usin' them? I'm
> talkin' about the tools we use on a regular basis...table saw, orbital
> sander, etc.
>
> I don't. I don't have any young kids around anymore...and no young
> kids can get into my work area. So I always keep things plugged
> in...'cause I might use them again soon...especially if I'm on a large
> project.
>
> A few months ago, I was doin' some sanding with my orbital sander. I
> had just turned it off...at the switch...and had gone to my other
> workbench to check on some of the work I had taken over there.
>
> A few minutes later, I heard a weird noise coming from over my right
> shoulder. I turned...and saw my sander dancing all over the
> workbench! I went over quickly and grabbed it...and turned it off
> again.
>
> What had happened...
>
> The switch has a dust protector boot over it. I think the switch had
> actually not seated to the off position...it must've teetered in the
> middle position...then finally flopped over to the on position again.
>
> I wrote to the manufacturer...they immediately called me...sent me a
> replacement...and asked me to send the bad one to them for inspection.
> They paid for all the shipping, of course...and they sent me an
> upgraded sander for my trouble.
>
> But early in the conversation...when they thought my call might
> actually be to get some money out of them...I was told that tools
> should always be unplugged when done using them.
>
> I wasn't done using the tool, of course. But, even so...I have never
> unplugged a power tool when done. I always keep them plugged
> in...sitting on the workbench. But my work area has never been
> accessible to anyone but me and other adults.
>
> I honestly never gave any thought to the fact that a tool turned off
> could spontaneously restart. I wonder what might have happened if
> that sander had been jumpin' around by itself for a few hours...while
> I was out doing errands.
>
> Just a heads-up...and some food for thought...after reading all the
> stuff about the woman with the hot coffee.
>
>
>
> Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
>
> Trent

You're right, nobody dumped the coffee. This old swamp hag stuck the cup
between her legs and drove off, the coffee spilled and burned her thighs
and she won because the coffee was 'too hot'. About as smart as
dropping a running dremel in ones lap.

I wonder if it was the 'little people' who turned on the sander<G>?

T. wrote:


>
> after reading all the stuff about the woman with the hot coffee. <snip>
>
> If someone dumped hot coffee in my lap (which, to my understanding
> did not happen in the McDonald's case), then I might consider suing.
> But, if I got hot coffee, then proceeded to dump it into my own lap, I
> would take the blame.