True. And they’ve changed practices, we should observe. Does anyone else remember those days when McDonald’s coffee was so hot you couldn’t drink it for a good fifteen minutes, leaving it cap-open to cool? Maybe it was different by location, but whew, I remember that. My mother and I used to go for coffee (it was the only cheap-coffee-serving location within walking distance), and we’d have to leave the caps off for half our time there. I’d put ice in it. I also remember remarking to someone, upon news of the lawsuit, “hey, maybe they’ll stop serving their coffee at a temperature hot enough to melt aluminum.” They just nodded: it seemed like a perfectly sensible statement.

I’ve spilled coffee on my lap, fresh from the pot at home, without serious injury to anything but my khakis and ego. I’ve spilled coffee on my hand at Starbucks, and just wiped it off with a napkin, no severe harm done, just mild discomfort. McDonald’s coffee at the McDonald’s closest to my house (in high school) was unusually, ungodly hot, and I doubt that location was unique in this respect.

I suspect the degree of sarcastic vitriol that gets thrown around when the lawsuit comes up is actually due to our very loose working definition of “hot” (and I suspect the vitriol comes mostly from people who don’t drink coffee). Coffee is served hot. But molten lead is also hot. Coffee can be served reasonably or unreasonably hot, and in the latter case, frankly it’s only ethical to offer your customers some fair warning!

i have a pretty impeccable record of distinguishing penises from kidneys, so even when i tried to put myself in the lover’s…shoes, that problem did not suggest itself.

In the end, that case is an excellent example of right-wingers being able to spin things.

Thanks for the links with extra information. With the full facts let me adjust my comment on the american legal system with regards to the McDonalds coffee case.

Why a judge decided that the plaintiff was only 20% at fault astounds me. Any moron knows that coffee is hot, and in a car, is likely to spill

Sorry for going off topic

Additonally, think of the possibilty of gender confusion issues arising. I mean it’s almost as if she has her ex-husband’s penis too.

Everything else (in your post and others more taking her side) are nearly pure supposition, considering the available sources.

Recourse to law would seem the only way
To get those organs duly confiscated.
Perhaps each partner then can be persuaded

To check again on what the contracts say.
If they won’t do so, someone’s sure to send
The bailiffs in—a most unhappy end.

“Batista said his aim instead was to draw attention to her not allowing him agreed-upon visitation with the couple’s three children, ages 14, 11 and 8.”- http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-likidn0108,0,512593.story

Its odd that, in a dispute between a man who gave his wife a kidney despite their problems, and a woman who cheated on him, initiated the divorce, and then used her own children as pawns to hurt him, that He is the one presumed to be a dick.

He might well be one, and we have limited evidence, but give the evidence we do have Occams Razor clearly points to HER as the person most likely to be a total and complete piece of crap.

Where’s the criminal harm?

I think this thread is very revealing about the liberal consensus on marital infidelity.

If you do something for someone and you did it because they lied to you, and they gain economic advantage from it or you suffer an economic loss, then that’s a very serious crime – it’s called fraud. We’re in exactly the same situation with regard to this as we were with domestic violence 50 years ago. On paper assault was criminal – and no-one would dispute this were it done to a stranger – but in practice beating your spouse was de facto legal, and no-one really though it was particularly a big deal except the victim.

There’s at least a prima facie case the guys been done a serious criminal harm. Of course he should be allowed to sue, and I see no reason the police shouldn’t get involved with the situation. I can’t fathom the crazy sentiments we get from the children of the 60s on this issue. The fact she was his wife does not excuse her causing him harm through decieving him, and he deserves the protection of the law.

Yeah, if you’re even partially inside someone’s pelvis, it’s probably more of a social occasion.

“is that your husband there in your pelvis? oh; only part of him?”

the whole thing is unsettling.