this is the one where he insists he tried to sign “of counsel” and the clerk forced him to sign as just counsel, right? and then he wanted the court to delay proceedings so him and his other old guy grifter law buddies could write a law review article about how they should be allowed to sell their name as of counsel and be above sanctions… and then he wanted that not yet written law review article to somehow become persuasive…
what a fucking brain wormed clown he became…
Use your words
Use your cynicism.
Lmao, you’re a bigot and a coward
Are you doing a bit?
No one can be this dumb.
Looks like we’ve got a sequel to the [allegedly frivolous, but actually not] McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit:
This one seems substantially more frivolous than the original.
That was my original reaction, but IIRC the coffee in the coffee case was hotter than a reasonable person would have expected it to be.
In this case, the McNugget cause second degree burns to the child’s leg. That is hotter than I would have expected it to be.
Yup
Based on 30s of google as little 131 degrees can cause that kind of burn in under 20 seconds of contact.
If it really was 160 as defense claims, it could do it pretty quick. 160 doesn’t seem unexpectedly hot.
I feel like 160 may even be the health department minimum for chicken
With the coffee 30 years ago, McDonald’s had internally set a standard of “coffee needs to be HOT when they arrive at their office after picking up in the drive thru” but gave no warning that it was hotter than ~normal ready to drink temperature
Also I am not a physicist, but I’m thinking for a water-based liquid to cause skin graft-necessary burns, it needs to be insanely hot, because the time at that temp when it’s spread out in your lap is so short. Unlike burning your feet on the concrete, where it’s just staying that temp forever for all intents and purposes
FDA says 165 minimum internal temp for food safety. The article I read says the family argued the nugget was over 200 degrees (seems unlikely to me, but most fryers run at about 350, so I guess it’s possible if you got a really fresh batch), McDonald’s said it was no more than 160.
But you should only cook your chicken to 155 or so (white meat) but it needs to stay at that temp for 50-60 seconds or something
You might consider pulling a chicken out of the oven at 155F to allow inertia to bring the temp up to 165F. That would be for a whole chicken. Smaller cuts need to go to 160F or so to allow them to get to a safe temp.
Also, I’d almost guarantee the McDonald’s guidelines/training are set to err on the side of overcooking vs undercooked. It’s not like they’re custom cooking/temping each nugget. They’re saying “keep the fryer set at X, timer runs for Y minutes after you drop the nuggets” And the guidelines are going to be set with more concern about food poisoning than burns.
This is all well and good, but the safe cooking temperature isn’t really related to the safe serving temperature.
And really I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate. Handing your small child hot food isn’t a great idea. I’m just not going to be quick to side with McDonald’s on just about anything.
“She’s still going to McDonalds, she still asks to go to McDonald’s, she’s still driving through the drive-thru with her mom, getting chicken nuggets
it healed in 3 weeks, but maybe there’s still a mark there I guess, god lawyer assholes asking for 15 million but that’s how law goes. 800k probably still excessive for the annoying burn but whatever law gonna law. They still have to cook the thing and it’s still a lot of teenagers doing it. The girl obviously isn’t that bothered but if there’s a way to remove the mark and they wanna do that and mcdonalds could pay for that seems fine to me but we end up in court instead of logical sense too often.
