Can this mother win this lawsuit?



bat wrote:
>> Coffee that is hot enough to cause second-degree burns when spilled on someone's lap is too hot.
>
> Not so. Coffee is supposed to be drunk, not spilled on the lap. It's the same as saying that
> scissors that wound the eye when stuck into it, are too sharp.

Ah, but if you were to plunge scissors into your eyes, you would indeed expect to have some severe
damage. Do you expect spilled coffee from a restaurant to give you third degree burns?

> Go to your kitchen, take instant coffee, read the instructions. They will say: "Add
> boiling water".

Then DRINK IMMEDIATELY!

Then get back to me.

> Coffee is a hot drink. A hot drink is supposed to be hot.

Then why don't all restaurants serve it at that temperature?

>> The McDonald's which was sued after this particular incident had a history, on the record, of
>> people being injured by its coffee, of many people complaining that its coffee was too hot. It
>> failed to take any steps to address the situation.
>
> Maybe it's because way more people prefer their coffee hot.

Sure... in their mouth. The mouth can tolerate higher temperatures than anywhere else on the body.
Since spills are to be expected, however, the temperature shouldn't be higher than can reasonably be
expected for your skin to tolerate. A first degree burn, while painful, is not a really big deal.
Third degree is, usually requiring skin grafts.

--
Fris "So drop it to 179 degrees!" bee® MCNGP #13

http://www.mcngp.tk The MCNGP Team - We're here to help

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/certaholics Certaholics - We're here if you're beyond help
 
WARNING! The reading of the two posts below can have the dangerous effect of causing facts to get in
the way of one's opinions. If sound bites and radio talk shows are your source of news, and lengthy,
thoughtful, factual sources of information confuse you, be warned. Read at your own risk!!!!

P. Tierney

"Marciosos8 Probertiosos8" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jonathan Kamens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] (Glenn Gilbreath Jr.) writes:
> > >And let's not forget that our legal system is getting a rather infamous reputation for making
> > >illogical decisions...I mean, come on, awarding some lady 3 million dollars for spilling hot
> > >coffee in her crotch!
> >
> > People on the rag about our out-of-control legal system frequently bring up this case as their
> > poster child of ridiculous law suits, but when doing so, they fail to mention the context of
> > the case.
> >
> > Coffee that is hot enough to cause second-degree burns when spilled on someone's lap is too hot.
> >
> > The McDonald's which was sued after this particular incident had a history, on the record, of
> > people being injured by its coffee, of many people complaining that its coffee was too hot. It
> > failed to take any steps to address the situation.
> >
> > The high damages in this particular case were not intended to compensate the victim as much as
> > they were intended to make McDonald's "feel the pain" for its negligent behavior. Given its huge
> > income, it would not have felt any pain from a small award. Punishing the offender, not
> > rewarding the victim, is the point of punitive damages.
> >
> > >Too bad people can't be held responsible for their own actions, but rather seek to blame
> > >someone else for everything that might possibly occur.
> >
> > I don't disagree with you that our culture of blame has gotten out of control. But the
> > McDonald's case you referenced isn't necessarily a good example of that.
>
> You are absolutely correct in you analysis of this case (you must have
been
> reading my old posts on this subject). McDonald's was surely on notice
that
> they had a major problem with regard to the excessively high temperature that the coffee was
> brewed and served it. They brewed it at those temperatures for purely economic reasons, and the
> jury said that they deserved to be hit hard for their attitude.
>
> One of the responses that has been made is that it is just 20 degrees
above
> the usual brewing temperature. However, according to a friend of mine, who is a reconstructive
> plastic surgeon, temperature is related to potential injury logarithmically. He has even
> identified another potential source of problems. If you care to, email me for additional
> information at [email protected]
 
> Yes, it was. Something in the neighborhood of 20-25 degrees hotter. Hot enough to induce third-
> degree burns in seconds. McDonald's did this because the higher temperature tended to waft the
> aroma of coffee about their restaurants more, even though their own consultants warned them of the
> dangers of the higher temperature.

I've never heard that one before. My understanding is that that they used whatever temp they used
because supposedly they felt water at that temp made the best cup of coffee. Because hotter water is
able to extract more oils from the coffee beans. Sorta like the way expresso machines use hotter
than 'normal' hot water. http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/rbrill/TORTS-
FALL2002/evening/sup_mat/coffee.html

I don't know why they'd bother with such a method of aroma generation when restaurants, movie
theatres, and food stores are able to use synthetic aroma machines that generate smells in order to
entice customers into making a purchase. Theatres are well known for producing a fake popcorn smell
around the snack counter. I had a girlfriend who worked at a Cinnabons type place in the mall...
they had a machine that wafted out a fake cinnamon bun smell. Mall shoppers walking by weren't
smelling the wonderful baked buns, they were smelling an artificially produced aroma. McDonalds
could easily install such machines in their stores. Have it produce the smell of coffee in the
morning. And the smell of a hot apple pies in the autumn or hot fudge on hot summer days to entice
sundae sales.
 
"bat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:LbHFb.177253$_M.808772@attbi_s54...
> JK> Coffee that is hot enough to cause second-degree burns when spilled on someone's lap is too
> JK> hot.
>
> Not so. Coffee is supposed to be drunk, not spilled on the lap. It's the same as saying that
> scissors that wound the eye when stuck into it, are
too
> sharp.
>
> Go to your kitchen, take instant coffee, read the instructions. They will
say:
> "Add boiling water".
>
> Coffee is a hot drink. A hot drink is supposed to be hot.

You raise a good point.

The brewing equipment that McDonald's purchased is desiged to brew coffee at a specific temperature.
When a peson buys coffee made fromthe machine, an argument can be made that they are assuming the
risks associated with that temperature. While it may be only a 20 degree difference, the degree of
damage caused by hot liquids is not arithmetically proportional to the temperature, but increases
logarithmically. Thus 20 degrees is a big deal a very big deal.

However, this case is not about those risks. McDonald's intervened in the brewing process and
disconnected the temperature of the brewer so as to be able to brew at a higher temperature. the
purpose of this is to use cheaper beans, and extract more coffee flavor from those beans. thus, they
made an econimic decision to increase the risk, without warning anyone.

Whether the brewer should have been able to even operate with a safety device, i.e. the
temperature regulator, defeated is another question. Personally, I contend that any machine that
can operate with safety devices dismantled is inherently not safe, thus laying liability against
the manufacturer of the machine. Unfortunately, I have never seen this addressed wrt to the
McDonald's case.

> JK> The McDonald's which was sued after this particular incident had a history, on the record, of
> JK> people being injured by its coffee, of many people complaining that its coffee was too hot. It
> JK> failed to take any steps to address the situation.
>
> Maybe it's because way more people prefer their coffee hot.

Hot but not scalding.

McDonald's was well aware that they were creating a hazardous situation and did nothing to address
it, except sell more coffee.
 
Mark ProbertDecember 21, 2002 writes:

> IOW, they agree that they created a dangerous instrumentality.

The Krell were able to dispense with physical instrumentalities entirely. But they destroyed
themselves in a single night.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
"toto" <[email protected]> wrote
> McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their
> coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other
> restaurants.

Yeah, I once got a cold burger and cold coffee at another restaurant, and didn't go back. McDonalds
knows that other restaurants lose customers that way.
 
"bat" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<LbHFb.177253$_M.808772@attbi_s54>...
> JK> Coffee that is hot enough to cause second-degree burns when spilled on someone's lap is too
> JK> hot.
>
> Not so. Coffee is supposed to be drunk, not spilled on the lap. It's the same as saying that
> scissors that wound the eye when stuck into it, are too sharp.
>
> Go to your kitchen, take instant coffee, read the instructions. They will say: "Add
> boiling water".
>
> Coffee is a hot drink. A hot drink is supposed to be hot.

I once saw pictures of the woman's injuries from the infamous "McDonald's too-hot coffee" case. They
were pretty gross.

If you are handing something out a window to people in a car it is pretty forseeable that stuff will
get fumbled and dropped from time-to-time. In this context, I think its pretty inconsiderate to make
your coffee so hot that people would get 3rd degree burns if it spills on them.

Andy
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Don Klipstein" <[email protected]> wrote
>> You should find better examples of frivolous lawsuits. The facts of the McD's suit are:
>> 1. The coffee was not at a usual coffee temperature, but significantly hotter. The lady required
>> skin grafts.
>
>Actually, many people have hotter coffee at home.

And how do they do that? You can't buy a coffee maker that will produce the temp of
McDonalds coffee.
 
bat <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Coffee that is hot enough to cause second-degree burns when spilled on someone's lap is too hot.
>>
>> Not so. Coffee is supposed to be drunk, not spilled on the lap. It's the same as saying that
>> scissors that wound the eye when stuck into it, are too sharp.

Hardly an association. Yes, it's supposed to be drunk not spilled but it's liquid and liquid spills,
expecially when driving. Scissors don't just end up in your eye without a careless act.

>>
>> Go to your kitchen, take instant coffee, read the instructions. They will say: "Add boiling
>> water".

Yes, and you have it in a cup on the counter while adding creme and sugar. McD's gives you the creme
to add on your own in your car which isn't a very stable environment. Krispie Kreme does the same
thing, notice that Dunkin donuts doesn't...
 
In article <[email protected]>, Carey Gregory says...
>

>
>5. Evidence was produced at trial showing that McD's intentionally made its coffee excessively hot
> to discourage free refills despite having been advised that the temperature would cause burns
> and lawsuits. Management calculated that the increased profits would exceed damage awards. In
> other words, they knowingly and willfully chose to inflict burns and be sued.
>

And, this, exactly, explains the size of the punitive damages.

The purpose of punitive damages in cases like these is to prevent lawsuits from becoming a 'cost of
business'. It is necessary that they be very large sometimes to make this so. Otherwise, Mickey D's
and other firms would make these calculations routinely.

Banty
 
[email protected] (Jonathan Kamens) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> I don't pretend to know whether McDonald's should have been held liable in this case, nor do I
> really care to debate it. What I *do* know is that the case isn't obvious in either direction, and
> that anyone who tries to portray it as an obvious example of frivolous litigation or an obvious
> example of corporate greed is being overly simplistic. The "truth" in this case was ambiguous, and
> what is our legal system for, if not to provide a forum for such ambiguity to be resolved?

Well said.

> Also, I tend to assume, in cases like this, that a jury which saw and heard all of the testimony
> was in a better place to judge liability than I am.

I'm not sure that is true.

First of all - outsiders might have access to more or better information. Also - juires are known
for reacting emotionally.

--
CBI
 
On 23 Dec 2003, Geoff Miller wrote:

>
>
> <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> Most cars have coffee-holders.
>
> > Hey TROLL, look at the time this happened and try to tell us most cars had cup holders then!
>
>
> This, from somebody who doesn't even have the guts to post under his own name. Ya gotta love it...
>
> Three points:
>
> 1. Being wrong about something doesn't make someone a "troll."
>
> 2. And if it did, the term would be *troller.* A "troll" is a provocative article posted by a
> troller.
>
> 3. Most cars sold in the U.S. have had cupholders for about a quarter-century now, give or take.
>
>
"On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, her son Jim and her grandson Chris Tiano left Santa Fe at
dawn to drive to the Albuquerque airport to drop off Jim for an early flight. Stella, 79 years old
but "quite spry," had just retired from a long career as a department store sales clerk. After
leaving the airport, Stella and Chris, who was driving, stopped at a McDonald's drive-up window for
breakfast. After they had received their food, Chris pulled over and parked the car so Stella could
add some cream and sugar to her coffee. She looked for a place to set the coffee cup down, but there
was no cup-holder in the Ford Probe and the dashboard was slanted. Since both hands were needed to
remove the lid and add the cream and sugar, she placed the coffee cup between her knees to keep it
secure while she removed the lid. While she was attempting to remove the lid, the coffee spilled
into her lap."

http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/rbrill/TORTS-FALL2002/evening/sup_mat/coffee.html
 
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Circe wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:59:25 -0800, "Circe" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >The dashboard is not practical in many cars (certainly in none of mine).
> All
> > >of them are too sloped or uneven and/or I could not reach a cup rested on the dashboard while
> > >sitting in my seat (IOW, I would have to take off my seatbelt and get partway out of my seat to
> > >reach). I would NEVER have considered the dashboard as a reasonable place to accomplish such a
> > >feat.
> >
> > You have the wrong cars - never had these problems in any of mine - top of dashboards were
> > accessible or else consoles provided more than adequate areas of flat accessible surfaces to do
> > it on!
>
> Well, sorry, I bought my cars based on considerations other than whether or not there was a place
> for me to set a coffee cup for the purpose of removing the lid. Seeing as how that's something I
> only do about a dozen times in any given year, it didn't really cross my mind.
>
> Either way, however, it is quite clear that not everyone has the "right" cars.

All that and it wasn't even her car.
 
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003, Me wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Joni Rathbun
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, dragonlady wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[email protected]>, "Roger Schlafly"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Circe" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > > > > with a normal usage. Opening the lid between the knees is not normal,
> > > > it's
> > > > > > very risky and unreasonable,
> > > > > Honestly, I can't imagine ANOTHER way of holding a cup of coffee while sitting in a car to
> > > > > remove the lid and add cream or sugar. What WOULD be a reasonable way of doing it, in your
> > > > > view?
> > > >
> > > > Most cars have coffee-holders.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Spoken like someone who only drives newer cars in good condition . . .
> > >
> > > Neither of our old cars has cup holders. And the one in our newer car was poorly constructed
> > > and broke fairly quickly.
> > >
> >
> > The cup holders in our car keep a cup upright by providing a loose, general fit so that cups of
> > many sizes can be accommodated. I would at least lean over and hold the cup with one hand if
> > wanting to remove a lid from hot liquid.
>
> True, but what does this have to do with the case at hand?

I already shared facts from the case. I was responding to the idea that most cars have cupholders --
as if that would have avoided any problems. And I would also add that in 1992 a styrofoam cup for
coffee would likely have been smaller in circumference than the usual coffee cups used today, making
the cup holder an even less secure "alternative."
 
On 25 Dec 2003, Banty wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Joni Rathbun says...
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 25 Dec 2003, Me wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Joni Rathbun
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, dragonlady wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article <[email protected]>, "Roger Schlafly"
> >> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > "Circe" <[email protected]> wrote
> >>> > > > > with a normal usage. Opening the lid between the knees is not normal,
> >> > > > it's
> >> > > > > > very risky and unreasonable,
> >>> > > > Honestly, I can't imagine ANOTHER way of holding a cup of coffee while
> >> > > > > sitting in a car to remove the lid and add cream or sugar. What WOULD be a reasonable
> >> > > > > way of doing it, in your view?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Most cars have coffee-holders.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Spoken like someone who only drives newer cars in good condition . . .
> >> > >
> >> > > Neither of our old cars has cup holders. And the one in our newer car was poorly
> >> > > constructed and broke fairly quickly.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > The cup holders in our car keep a cup upright by providing a loose, general fit so that cups
> >> > of many sizes can be accommodated. I would at least lean over and hold the cup with one hand
> >> > if wanting to remove a lid from hot liquid.
> >>
> >> True, but what does this have to do with the case at hand?
> >
> >I already shared facts from the case. I was responding to the idea that most cars have cupholders
> >-- as if that would have avoided any problems. And I would also add that in 1992 a styrofoam cup
> >for coffee would likely have been smaller in circumference than the usual coffee cups used today,
> >making the cup holder an even less secure "alternative."
> >
> >
>
>
> This whole thing about cupholders seems besides the point.

It is beside the point but ... so what?

IIRC, the jury found
> that the elder lady contributed to the problem by holding the coffee in her lap. I don't know the
> details (does anyone here?) as to cupholders, their presence, and availability for her use.

There were no cupholders in the car.

Nonetheless, by my observation a lot of 79 year
> olds wouldn't be exactly nimble about their surroundings, judgements and actions. But that's part
> of the population known as 'McDonald's customers'.
>
> It seems to me (and I agree totally with those who have pointed out that the jury had the facts
> and heard both sides, not us) that to some degree the woman reasonably assumed the risk of a mild
> burn and stained sweatpants by holding the cup in her lap, hence her part in the disaster, but
> could not reasonably know that her risk was that of a third degree burn nearly to the bone, hence
> McDonald's part in the disaster. To those following the case more closely than I - would this be a
> reasonable summation?
>

I've said as much a zillion times over the years (not to you of course).

And I would have probably handled things just as the lady did. I've never had a car with a dashboard
suitable for using as a countertop. They're slanted or sloped and except for the tippy edge, most
don't provide enough height for a cup of any size. I also would have expected I *could* wind up with
a mild burn and wet pants but I wouldn't have dreamed I could wind up with third degree, full
thickness burns and surgery.

Then again, I don't drink coffee :D

I did, however, just have a nice cup of cocoa. The rolls are rising. The ham is baking. The boys are
playing basketball with the new basketball and the daughter is getting gussied up in her new clothes
and junk. The exhusband is out cleaning the pool and fixing the grill.

And I'm relaxing... until round two.

But that's beside the point.
 
On 25 Dec 2003, Banty wrote:

> guess not much else is happening now, so I am now. I guess it's 'cause there's no Christmas-in-the-
> schools war going on this time ;-)

LOL. That's right. I'd almost forgotten but that conversation does usually dominate! We got lucky
this year!
 
In article <[email protected]>, Joni Rathbun says...
>
>
>On Thu, 25 Dec 2003, Me wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Joni Rathbun
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, dragonlady wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <[email protected]>, "Roger Schlafly"
>> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "Circe" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> > > > > with a normal usage. Opening the lid between the knees is not normal,
>> > > > it's
>> > > > > > very risky and unreasonable,
>>> > > > Honestly, I can't imagine ANOTHER way of holding a cup of coffee while
>> > > > > sitting in a car to remove the lid and add cream or sugar. What WOULD be a reasonable way
>> > > > > of doing it, in your view?
>> > > >
>> > > > Most cars have coffee-holders.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Spoken like someone who only drives newer cars in good condition . . .
>> > >
>> > > Neither of our old cars has cup holders. And the one in our newer car was poorly constructed
>> > > and broke fairly quickly.
>> > >
>> >
>> > The cup holders in our car keep a cup upright by providing a loose, general fit so that cups of
>> > many sizes can be accommodated. I would at least lean over and hold the cup with one hand if
>> > wanting to remove a lid from hot liquid.
>>
>> True, but what does this have to do with the case at hand?
>
>I already shared facts from the case. I was responding to the idea that most cars have cupholders
>-- as if that would have avoided any problems. And I would also add that in 1992 a styrofoam cup
>for coffee would likely have been smaller in circumference than the usual coffee cups used today,
>making the cup holder an even less secure "alternative."
>
>

This whole thing about cupholders seems besides the point. IIRC, the jury found that the elder lady
contributed to the problem by holding the coffee in her lap. I don't know the details (does anyone
here?) as to cupholders, their presence, and availability for her use. Nonetheless, by my
observation a lot of 79 year olds wouldn't be exactly nimble about their surroundings, judgements
and actions. But that's part of the population known as 'McDonald's customers'.

It seems to me (and I agree totally with those who have pointed out that the jury had the facts and
heard both sides, not us) that to some degree the woman reasonably assumed the risk of a mild burn
and stained sweatpants by holding the cup in her lap, hence her part in the disaster, but could not
reasonably know that her risk was that of a third degree burn nearly to the bone, hence McDonald's
part in the disaster. To those following the case more closely than I - would this be a reasonable
summation?

Banty
 
In article <[email protected]>, Joni Rathbun says...
>
>
>On 25 Dec 2003, Banty wrote:
>

>>
>> This whole thing about cupholders seems besides the point.
>
>It is beside the point but ... so what?

Well, I didn't say not to discuss it, after all this is USENET :)

>
> IIRC, the jury found
>>that the elder lady contributed to the problem by holding the coffee in her lap. I don't know the
>>details (does anyone here?) as to cupholders, their presence, and availability for her use.
>
>There were no cupholders in the car.
>
> Nonetheless, by my observation a lot of 79 year
>> olds wouldn't be exactly nimble about their surroundings, judgements and actions. But that's part
>> of the population known as 'McDonald's customers'.
>>
>> It seems to me (and I agree totally with those who have pointed out that the jury had the facts
>> and heard both sides, not us) that to some degree the woman reasonably assumed the risk of a mild
>> burn and stained sweatpants by holding the cup in her lap, hence her part in the disaster, but
>> could not reasonably know that her risk was that of a third degree burn nearly to the bone, hence
>> McDonald's part in the disaster. To those following the case more closely than I - would this be
>> a reasonable summation?
>>
>
>I've said as much a zillion times over the years (not to you of course).

A zillion minus one? ;-) I haven't followed all the McCoffee discussions that have taken place here
- I guess not much else is happening now, so I am now. I guess it's 'cause there's no Christmas-in-the-
schools war going on this time ;-)

I didn't mean to direct that summation to you personally.

>
>And I would have probably handled things just as the lady did. I've never had a car with a
>dashboard suitable for using as a countertop.

Neither have I - hardly any dashboards are flat anymore.

>They're slanted or sloped and except for the tippy edge, most don't provide enough height for a cup
>of any size. I also would have expected I *could* wind up with a mild burn and wet pants but I
>wouldn't have dreamed I could wind up with third degree, full thickness burns and surgery.
>
>
>Then again, I don't drink coffee :D

For shame....it's one of the joys of life.

>
>I did, however, just have a nice cup of cocoa. The rolls are rising. The ham is baking. The boys
>are playing basketball with the new basketball and the daughter is getting gussied up in her new
>clothes and junk. The exhusband is out cleaning the pool and fixing the grill.
>

Cleaning the pool?!? Oh yeah, you're in Nevada (I think)

Turkey's in the oven, green beans are about to be fixed (and the table and countertop cleared away).
The new videogames are being played, the new CD's are on. And I get to pretty much hang out until
later this afternoon (and make and take phone calls.)

>And I'm relaxing... until round two.
>
>But that's beside the point.

It is the point.

Cheers, Banty
 
Rosalie B. <[email protected]> writes:

> No a troll is a little man who lives under a bridge. A provocative article posted by someone who
> is a troll is trolling.

No, trolling is the _act_ of posting a provocative article. The word isn't a noun.

The term derives from the name of a type of fishing, as in, fishing for angry responses. The fact
that so many people don't grasp this is that more people are familiar with the mythical little
beings who live under bridges than with the method of fishing called trolling. But that doesn't
make it right, any more than millions of people saying "criteria" when they mean *criterion* makes
_that_ right.

: Most cars sold in the U.S. have had cupholders for about a quarter-century now, give or take.

> Not true. We have about 20 cars, all of which were sold in the US and mostly Fords or Mercurys etc
> although we have had and still have some Plymouths and as I said we also have two Mercedes which
> are 1985 and 1982. Some of these cars are older than 25 years old, but not all of them are. The
> Mercedes have no cup holders whatsoever, and I don't think the Escorts of the same era do either.
> There's a rudimentary one in the 1971 truck, but I think we added it - I don't think it came with.

Note that I said "most cars," not "all cars." As the owner of an '82 300CD and an '85 300D, I know
that those models, in particular, are exceptions to the generality.

(I didn't know there _was_ such a thing as an Escort diesel.)

Geoff

--
"Democrats are so stupid that if one of 'em fell into a barrel full of titties, he'd come out sucki-
ng his thumb."
-- Will Durst
 
x-no-archive:yes [email protected] (Geoff Miller) wrote:

>
>
><[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> Most cars have coffee-holders.
>
>> Hey TROLL, look at the time this happened and try to tell us most cars had cup holders then!
>
>
>This, from somebody who doesn't even have the guts to post under his own name. Ya gotta love it...
>
>Three points:
>
>1. Being wrong about something doesn't make someone a "troll."

True
>
>2. And if it did, the term would be *troller.* A "troll" is a provocative article posted by a
> troller.
>
No a troll is a little man who lives under a bridge. A provocative article posted by someone who is
a troll is trolling. The person who posts it is the troll not the article.

>3. Most cars sold in the U.S. have had cupholders for about a quarter-century now, give or take.

Not true. We have about 20 cars, all of which were sold in the US and mostly Fords or Mercurys etc
although we have had and still have some Plymouths and as I said we also have two Mercedes which are
1985 and 1982. Some of these cars are older than 25 years old, but not all of them are. The Mercedes
have no cup holders whatsoever, and I don't think the Escorts of the same era do either. There's a
rudimentary one in the 1971 truck, but I think we added it - I don't think it came with.

Of course since we don't drink coffee or hot drinks, cup holders are not important to us, although I
guess they are to some people.

Rosalie -my cars:'82 300D Mercedes & '84 diesel Lynx other cars - '85 300D Mercedes, '84 Escort
diesel, '94 Beacon electric (formerly '85 Escort diesel) '65 Galaxie conv., '71 Ford crewcab PU,
1932 PB Conv.Sedan, and others not currently licensed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back