Revisiting the McDonald's Coffee Case

[Punani]

Note: Split from an Off-Topic Discussion About the TigerDirect Case

The McDonald's Coffee Case (Liebeck v. McDonald's Corporation, P.T.S., Inc.) is often citied as the preeminent example of a frivolous lawsuit. Indeed, the summary of a woman spilling coffee on her lap while driving and then suing for millions sounds stupid and a gross insult to common sense. However, this is also an extreme simplification of the facts...

The case was initiated after McDonald's refused to reimburse the defendant Stella Liebeck for her medical bills after receiving third-degree burns—third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years.

Let it be noted that the case attributed 20% of the accident to Liebeck who clearly wasn't too keen on opening a hot cup of coffee in her lap. It should also be noted that the National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for "optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit, and indeed this was McDonald's official policy on their coffee.

The problem does not arise from these two matters however, it was the result of myriad facts including:

* 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.

* There were numerous cases where others had also incurred serious burns from the coffee, and despite these cases, McDonald's never bothered to consult a burn expert or try and do something with regards to the safety risk.

* A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the company was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

The fact of the matter is that the case rested on the question: Does the average person on the street expect coffee bought at a fast food restaurant to cause bodily harm requiring a hospital stay? No.

[Applespider]

It's also worth noting that the final damages were under $1m after appeal.

I wouldn't have called this a frivolous lawsuit but I do believe that people have to take some responsibility for their behaviour. If the coffee had been split on the woman by an employee, then I'd have a lot more sympathy for her. Driving along in a car with a flimsy polystyrene cup between the thighs is asking for trouble - for spills if not burns. I can appreciate that part of the reasoning in this case was that the customer didn't have an expectation that the coffee would be so hot that it would burn so quickly.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Note: Split from an Off-Topic Discussion About the TigerDirect Case

The McDonald's Coffee Case (Liebeck v. McDonald's Corporation, P.T.S., Inc.) is often citied as the preeminent example of a frivolous lawsuit. Indeed, the summary of a woman spilling coffee on her lap while driving and then suing for millions sounds stupid and a gross insult to common sense. However, this is also an extreme simplification of the facts...

The case was initiated after McDonald's refused to reimburse the defendant Stella Liebeck for her medical bills after receiving third-degree burns—third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years.

Let it be noted that the case attributed 20% of the accident to Liebeck who clearly wasn't too keen on opening a hot cup of coffee in her lap. It should also be noted that the National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for "optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit, and indeed this was McDonald's official policy on their coffee.

The problem does not arise from these two matters however, it was the result of myriad facts including:

* 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.

* There were numerous cases where others had also incurred serious burns from the coffee, and despite these cases, McDonald's never bothered to consult a burn expert or try and do something with regards to the safety risk.

* A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the company was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

The fact of the matter is that the case rested on the question: Does the average person on the street expect coffee bought at a fast food restaurant to cause bodily harm requiring a hospital stay? No.
OMG, just when you thought it was over.... :rolleyes:

[Dr.Gargoyle]

[SIZE=1]
* 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.
Again, as someone previously noted. The optimal coffee brewing temp is 199 F (93C). McDonald's coffee was at 180 F +- 5 F. Just because all other restaurants serve terrible coffee does that mean McDonald's must too?
Besides, common sense tells you that coffee could be hot.
[SIZE=1]
* There were numerous cases where others had also incurred serious burns from the coffee, and despite these cases, McDonald's never bothered to consult a burn expert or try and do something with regards to the safety risk.
Again, coffee must be prepared at very high temp. in order to taste good. Again, coffee is hot, and you have to use common sense when you drink hot beverages.... even small children understand that.
[SIZE=1]
* A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the company was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
That would be the equivalent of not including butter/sugar in food since that could harm peoples health too. If the above would be a valid argument, then all restaurants would have to leave out e.g. kaffein which is clearly a health hazard. They would not be able to serve any eggs, due to the risk involved with cholesterole. Again, common sense. This lawsuit is as ridiculous as the suit that came right after when some people sued McDonald's for making them fat. Where is the common sense??????
Once and for all:
You might get burned on hot coffee
You could grow overweight if you eat too much.

If people have a can't understand that eventhough it has been repeated to them again and again from early childhood, they might as well do mankind a favour and get out of the genepool.
As always, of course only my opinion.

[rainman::|:|]

If I remember correctly, part of the problem was that McDonalds immediately offered to pay her treatment, then they decided it would be opening them to punitive liability and reneged, which is actually what lead her to sue. Personally I would have liked to see some of the liability fall on the cup manufacturer, who rated these for extremely hot drinks (and knew they'd be going into drivethru situations) but didn't make the covers tight enough to stay on. Places like truckstops use thicker plastic and covers that snap on, yet I think McDonalds was using single-wall styrofoam cups with covers so thin they became pliable from the steam.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

It's also worth noting that the final damages were under $1m after appeal.

I wouldn't have called this a frivolous lawsuit but I do believe that people have to take some responsibility for their behaviour. If the coffee had been split on the woman by an employee, then I'd have a lot more sympathy for her. Driving along in a car with a flimsy polystyrene cup between the thighs is asking for trouble - for spills if not burns. I can appreciate that part of the reasoning in this case was that the customer didn't have an expectation that the coffee would be so hot that it would burn so quickly.

Fact: Coffee is best prepared at 199F
Fact: Coffee is best consumed directly after preparation
Fact: Fast food restaurants implies an immediate deliverly of your order.

This boilsdown to that the coffee served most likely, assuming the restaurant cares about the quality of their product, will be hotter than consumption temperature.
Common sense tells you that you have to make sure you dont burn yourself. Moreover, coffee at consumption temperature (which of course varies from person to person) will most likely cause burn wounds too.
Judging from the respons I get here, leads me to believe that I expect too much of people.... :(

[asif786]

If I remember correctly, part of the problem was that McDonalds immediately offered to pay her treatment, then they decided it would be opening them to punitive liability and reneged, which is actually what lead her to sue. Personally I would have liked to see some of the liability fall on the cup manufacturer, who rated these for extremely hot drinks (and knew they'd be going into drivethru situations) but didn't make the covers tight enough to stay on. Places like truckstops use thicker plastic and covers that snap on, yet I think McDonalds was using single-wall styrofoam cups with covers so thin they became pliable from the steam.

that's a very good point. just imagine you to go starbucks, get your drink, and the top snaps off or melts or something similar, giving you facial burns. i wouldn't stand for that, and i'm sure many others wouldnt either.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

If I remember correctly, part of the problem was that McDonalds immediately offered to pay her treatment, then they decided it would be opening them to punitive liability and reneged, which is actually what lead her to sue. Personally I would have liked to see some of the liability fall on the cup manufacturer, who rated these for extremely hot drinks (and knew they'd be going into drivethru situations) but didn't make the covers tight enough to stay on. Places like truckstops use thicker plastic and covers that snap on, yet I think McDonalds was using single-wall styrofoam cups with covers so thin they became pliable from the steam.
The key problem here are the law suits. Companies are scared stiff admitting any fault, since that opens up for HUGE law suits. Law suits which in the end we all have to pay for in terms of higher prices.
If I came to a restaurant and they served me a coffee in a cup that I found nonfunctional, I would of course ask for another. If they couldnt provide me with functional cup, I would ask to get my money back and find myself a new place.
This should rather be solved by common sense and personal responsability, than through frivolous law suits that doesn't benefit anyone else but the lawyer involved.

[Punani]

Dr.Gargoyle:

I feel that you are arguing that the optimal temperature and taste of coffee outweigh safety concerns.

There is, to me, nothing wrong with the temperature by which the coffee was kept. Indeed, the jury understood that Lebeick wasn't being very smart when she opened a cup of coffee in her lap, and I mentioned that 20% of the fault was attributed to her.

The problem is that McDonald's knew that there were already numerous issues with their coffee procedures and failed to do anything about them. The fact that other restaurants were willing to keep the temperature down a few notches is clear that they wanted to avoid such safety and implicit legal problems arising from such matters.

In fact, "McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving." And coffee served like that cannot be drunk immediately.

Was there some lack of common sense involved here? Definitely. However, that was not what the court decided on. There was evidence that the safety risk was known and McDonald's willfully refused to acknowledge it. The fact that coffee's best done in X, Y, and Z conditions, really has very little to do with the merits of this case.

[Punani]

The key problem here are the law suits. Companies are scared stiff admitting any fault, since that opens up for HUGE law suits. Law suits which in the end we all have to pay for in terms of higher prices.
If I came to a restaurant and they served me a coffee in a cup that I found nonfunctional, I would of course ask for another. If they couldnt provide me with functional cup, I would ask to get my money back and find myself a new place.
This should rather be solved by common sense and personal responsability, than through frivolous law suits that doesn't benefit anyone else but the lawyer involved.

Most of the well cited cases that are used to argue the need for tort reform are oversimplifications of the cases. And more importantly, businesses are the ones who tend to file the nonsense litigation.

Study (http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=12369)

[Dr.Gargoyle]

that's a very good point. just imagine you to go starbucks, get your drink, and the top snaps off or melts or something similar, giving you facial burns. i wouldn't stand for that, and i'm sure many others wouldnt either.
I agree totally, but you as an individual must have some responsability. A normal coffee cup with lid isn't designed to withhold the pressure of two thighs squeezing it. It is designed to be carried in your hand or placed in a cupholder/table. That is it. So if you squeeze it very hard in your hand, you will most definitely have hot coffee all over your hand.
My point is that there does not exist any fool proof coffee cups. Even if we wanted to cough up with the extra money to keep these people safe from themselves, we just couldn't do it. The simple truth is that you must exercise some common sense if you are going to survive in this world. period.

[Don't panic]

talking about beating a dead horse...
no matter how you turn it, that was and remain the posterchild of frivolous suits and it did more harm then good for consumers in general. At most they should have been forced to cover hospital expenses.

Anyway, if you want to brew a good coffee, here is the real deal (from scientific american (www.illyusa.com/pr/coffee.pd))

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Dr.Gargoyle:

I feel that you are arguing that the optimal temperature and taste of coffee outweigh safety concerns.

There is, to me, nothing wrong with the temperature by which the coffee was kept. Indeed, the jury understood that Lebeick wasn't being very smart when she opened a cup of coffee in her lap, and I mentioned that 20% of the fault was attributed to her.

The problem is that McDonald's knew that there were already numerous issues with their coffee procedures and failed to do anything about them. The fact that other restaurants were willing to keep the temperature down a few notches is clear that they wanted to avoid such safety and implicit legal problems arising from such matters.

In fact, "McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving." And coffee served like that cannot be drunk immediately.

Was there some lack of common sense involved here? Definitely. However, that was not what the court decided on. There was evidence that the safety risk was known and McDonald's willfully refused to acknowledge it. The fact that coffee's best done in X, Y, and Z conditions, really has very little to do with the merits of this case.
So, according to your argumentation. Restuarants must provide low quality coffee just to protect these people from themselves? That is, I will not be able to get a good cup of coffee just because we are going to protect a small number of people that will get hurt no matter what we do to protect them.
IMHO, A person that opens places hot coffee in between her thighs and removes the lid shouldn't be allowed to drive a car. Just imagine someone of your family meeting this woman when she pours coffee all over her thighs. It doesnt matter what the temp would be, I doubt that she would concentrate on the traffic.
The basic truth is, not matter what, you will always find some genious that mess up due to lack of common sense. The key question here is to what length should we go in our strive to protect these people from themselves. Is it possible at all?

[asif786]

I agree totally, but you as an individual must have some responsability. A normal coffee cup with lid isn't designed to withhold the pressure of two thighs squeezing it. It is designed to be carried in your hand or placed in a cupholder/table. That is it. So if you squeeze it very hard in your hand, you will most definitely have hot coffee all over your hand.
My point is that there does not exist any fool proof coffee cups. Even if we wanted to cough up with the extra money to keep these people safe from themselves, we just couldn't do it. The simple truth is that you must exercise some common sense if you are going to survive in this world. period.

this is true, every case has its own merits and <damnit what's the word i'm looking for here??> and this mcdonalds coffee case always has me thinking about it for ages.

with my example, if i was just walking down the street and my cup broke and burned me, i would be angry. i dont know if i'd start a lawsuit, but i'd certainly be pissed. if i was squeezing the cup as hard as i could or doing something equally stupid, then naturally it's my own responsibility. i agree that no matter how safe/foolproof you make a product, someone will always get hurt.

i guess the real question in this case is: was the coffee too hot? and secondly, do people *actually* drink coffee from mcdonalds?

[Dr.Gargoyle]

talking about beating a dead horse...
no matter how you turn it, that was and remain the posterchild of frivolous suits and it did more harm then good for consumers in general. At most they should have been forced to cover hospital expenses.

Anyway, if you want to brew a good coffee, here is the real deal (from scientific american (www.illyusa.com/pr/coffee.pd))
I agree totally. It is sad to see people who do have legitimate claims being thrown out of court, just because people are sick and tired of frivolous suits

[dornoforpyros]

:rolleyes: uggg

Fact:Coffee is hot.
Fact:I'm sure every other cup of coffee this woman had drank in her life had been served hot.
Fact:Coffee is hot!
Fact:The woman spilled it ON HERSELF. It's not as if a McD's employee through the cup of coffee in her lap
Fact: COFFEE IS HOT!

As far as I'm concerned this case was 100% BS and the dumb old lady shouldn't have gotten ANYTHING. I mean if I purchase a knife and I manage to lop off one of my fingers while dicing tomatoes can I hold the knife maker responsible?
NO because I know knives are sharp and apparently I'm too stupid to use a knife.

Just my 2 cents. :rolleyes:

[Dr.Gargoyle]

i guess the real question in this case is: was the coffee too hot?
Again, Coffee is best prepared at 199F and best consumed directly after preparation. AS SOON AS it is not too hot...:D (you never know, I might get sued... :p )
do people *actually* drink coffee from mcdonalds?
That is an entirely different question... :rolleyes: I think McDonald's have lost a lot of business to Starbucks, and such... Still, to be quite honest, I am not that keen of american coffee. But give them a couple of years or so, I am sure they will get the hang of it eventually. The talk about preparing and drinking coffee at 145F, makes me doubt though...

[Dr.Gargoyle]

:rolleyes: uggg

Fact:Coffee is hot.
Fact:I'm sure every other cup of coffee this woman had drank in her life had been served hot.
Fact:Coffee is hot!
Fact:The woman spilled it ON HERSELF. It's not as if a McD's employee through the cup of coffee in her lap
Fact: COFFEE IS HOT!

As far as I'm concerned this case was 100% BS and the dumb old lady shouldn't have gotten ANYTHING. I mean if I purchase a knife and I manage to lop off one of my fingers while dicing tomatoes can I hold the knife maker responsible?
NO because I know knives are sharp and apparently I'm too stupid to use a knife.

Just my 2 cents. :rolleyes:
LMAO... I have, unsuccessfully, been trying to argue this point all day now. Where have you been when I needed you? :mad: ;) :p

[rainman::|:|]

I'm not going to debate the merits of all "frivolous" lawsuits here, I don't think anyone's too happy paying higher prices to cover emotional pain/suffering from deformed M&Ms or something. But honestly, you don't think corporate greed is what lead McDonalds to use cheap cups? Like I said, truckstops, gas stations, and even other fast-food vendors have been using much stronger cups for years, why would that be? Seems like everyone but McDonalds realized how bad of an idea it was to give drivers coffee in practically paper cups. Today McDonalds uses reenforced cups just like everyone else, and their even have that "warning: hot coffee" label now. If they would have used cups like this to begin with, there would have been no lawsuit. I say that McDonalds took a gamble to save some money, and they lost that gamble. Consumers depend on the safety of products they buy today, and lawsuits are meant as a way of encouraging "bad" companies to get up to snuff. (Knives, btw, are made for cutting, coffee is not made to cause 3rd-degree burns). When people get all anti-frivolous-lawsuits, they throw the baby out with the bathwater, and denounce all lawsuits as bad. Frankly that's not true. You can debate the validity of this lawsuit, but to call all lawsuits bad? I think that's shortsighted.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

But honestly, you don't think corporate greed is what lead McDonalds to use cheap cups?
I dont doubt for a second that McDonald's is in the business to make as much money as possible. I dare you to find one company that isn't.
Today McDonalds uses reenforced cups just like everyone else, and their even have that "warning: hot coffee" label now. If they would have used cups like this to begin with, there would have been no lawsuit.
Of course there will. It is just a matter of time until the next rocket scientist finds an alternative use of their coffee cup.
There does not exist any fool proof gadgets of any sort. There is always an idiot out there finding a way to harm himself with anything, absolutely anything. if you doubt what I say have a look at the site www.darwinawards.com
As Einstein said: There are only two infinites in this world. The universe and human stupidity. However, I have my doubts about the former... ;)

[Don't panic]

I'm not going to debate the merits of all "frivolous" lawsuits here, I don't think anyone's too happy paying higher prices to cover emotional pain/suffering from deformed M&Ms or something. But honestly, you don't think corporate greed is what lead McDonalds to use cheap cups? Like I said, truckstops, gas stations, and even other fast-food vendors have been using much stronger cups for years, why would that be? Seems like everyone but McDonalds realized how bad of an idea it was to give drivers coffee in practically paper cups. Today McDonalds uses reenforced cups just like everyone else, and their even have that "warning: hot coffee" label now. If they would have used cups like this to begin with, there would have been no lawsuit. I say that McDonalds took a gamble to save some money, and they lost that gamble. Consumers depend on the safety of products they buy today, and lawsuits are meant as a way of encouraging "bad" companies to get up to snuff. (Knives, btw, are made for cutting, coffee is not made to cause 3rd-degree burns). When people get all anti-frivolous-lawsuits, they throw the baby out with the bathwater, and denounce all lawsuits as bad. Frankly that's not true. You can debate the validity of this lawsuit, but to call all lawsuits bad? I think that's shortsighted.

but it's exactly because i want only the legitimate lawsuits (especially against big corporations) to stand that the obviously frivolous ones should be thrown (and I think this one was one of them).
I don't remember anymore but I don't recall that the cup broke or melted. she dropped/poured it on herself. and do you think it would have been any different if it said "caution: hot on the cover"? do you think she didn't know that it was hot?

[Dr.Gargoyle]

but it's exactly because i want only the legitimate lawsuits (especially against big corporations) to stand that the obviously frivolous ones should be thrown (and I think this one was one of them).
I don't remember anymore but I don't recall that the cup broke or melted. she dropped it on herself. and do you think it would have been any different if it said "caution: hot on the cover"? do you think she didn't know that it was hot?
It was a long time ago so I dont remember exacly how she got about it. I think she placed the cup of coffee in between her thighs. Somehow she managed to get the lid open, and since the muscles in your thighs are much stronger and less precise it only takes a slight push to get coffee all over your thighs.
But I really think it doesnt matter how she did it. Just consider the millions of normal consumers that actually managed to complete the complicated task of drinking a cup of coffee successfully without getting third degree burns... It wasn't like there was a steady stream of ambulances running from McDonald's to the burn units. That says it all...

[rainman::|:|]

don'tpanic: You never said all lawsuits were bad, Dr. Gargoyle did. And for the record, I don't think that "hot coffee" label does anything, but the reenforced cups sure do.
It was a long time ago so I dont remember exacly how she got about it. I think she placed the cup of coffee in between her thighs. Somehow she managed to get the lid open, and since the muscles in your thighs are much stronger and less precise it only takes a slight push to get coffee all over your thighs.
But I really think it doesnt matter how she did it. Just consider the millions of normal consumers that actually managed to complete the complicated task of drinking a cup of coffee successfully without getting third degree burns... It wasn't like there was a steady stream of ambulances running from McDonald's to the burn units. That says it all...
Okay, so let's handle that last comment, where you lie and say that everyone else was immune to McDonalds coffee.
Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.
700 is a lot more than none.

She wasn't carrying the cup between her thighs. This was an 81-year-old woman who took the top off to add cream/sugar. The cup buckled when the lid was removed. 3rd-degree burns on her lap, thighs, vagina, and buttocks. I've spilled coffee on my lap at home, and you know what? My coffeemaker sure the hell doesn't cause hospital stays.

This is a problem unique to McDonalds, none of their competitors have had a problem like this. Nor any other company that serves hot coffee. Just McDonalds. How is it these other companies can be out to make a profit, yet McD's is the only one that jeopardizes consumer safety for it?

[Dr.Gargoyle]

don'tpanic: You never said all lawsuits were bad, Dr. Gargoyle did.
Where did I say that all law suits were bad?
Okay, so let's handle that last comment, where you lie and say that everyone else was immune to McDonalds coffee.
700 is a lot more than none.

Where did I say that no other people got burned from coffee?
I wrote: ... Just consider the millions of normal consumers that actually managed to complete the complicated task of drinking a cup of coffee successfully without getting third degree burns... It wasn't like there was a steady stream of ambulances running from McDonald's to the burn units... . In fact, previously in http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=126590&page=2&pp=25 I wrote ... I dont doubt there are many burn cases of coffee. As I said you have to handle it with care, and any sensible person should know that the coffee is supposed to be hot. Hence, you can not treat it as it was a can of coke...

She wasn't carrying the cup between her thighs. This was an 81-year-old woman who took the top off to add cream/sugar. The cup buckled when the lid was removed. 3rd-degree burns on her lap, thighs, vagina, and buttocks.
If you remove the lid, the entire structure of the cup disappears, and buckles in. We all know it, or should know it. Of course you can provide the customers with much sturdier cups, but that also implies they have to pay more for their coffee. It is ultimately the customers that decides whether they want to pay for it or not. IMHO, I think don't think this suit benefits consumer interests, on the contrary. It is very bad publicity for McDonald's that an old lady gets burned at a restaurant. It would have been in McDonald's interest to pay the medical bills of the old lady if it wasn't for that fact this would be interpreted as admitting to guilt in the judicial world. This is the bottomline with all these frivolous law suits. Companies are forced to keep their guards up all the time, just to avoid costly law suits.
I still think she messed up and it was her own fault, but that is my opinion and I do think I am entitled to have one, just as you are entitled to have yours, right?
Does that mean I think she had it comming? No, it doesn't. Does it mean I don't pitty for her? No, it doesn't. It only means I don't think our need to find someone to blame when we mess up should be awarded by the courts.
And why do I beleive that? As I said before, people with legitimate claims don't get a fair chance in court just because the courts are flooded with frivolous law suits. it doesn't matter how much your heart bleeds for his old woman, rewarding her law suit doesn't help society in the long run. It does more harm than good. My stand point in this too long discussion is and has been based on what I think is is optimal for society, not about protecting McDonald's or any other big business

This is a problem unique to McDonalds, none of their competitors have had a problem like this.

You can't honestly claim that no other competitors have had any problems what so ever? You know that isnt true. When you make these comparisions you have to take in consideration the size of McDonald's. They are huge in comparision with their competitors.
According to your findings, there have been 700 burns over the past decade. That is about 70 per year. How many cups of coffee do you think McDonald's serve each year? As I said there hasn't exactly been ambulances going back and forth McDonald's and the burn unit. Moreover, the article said that these burn wounds where everything from mild to third degree, i.e. we have no idea how these burn are dispersed over the scale, we can only speculate. But my money is that most of them have been mild burn wounds. Another factor that you have to take in consideration when you look at figures like these is that big companies are much more likely to be sued than a small company. The reason for this is not only are they bigger and have more customers, but they also have more money to pay if they lose.

Nor any other company that serves hot coffee. Just McDonalds. How is it these other companies can be out to make a profit, yet McD's is the only one that jeopardizes consumer safety for it?
I am sure you can find places that brews coffee too cold, just as I am certain you can find places that serves cold coffee. I have no idea what drives these companies to that strategy.
I only know this: Coffee has to be brewed at at 199F, and coffee is best served fresh out of the pot.
Until someone can beat the physics, and brew good coffee at low temp., you are stuck with these restrictions.

[Punani]

So, according to your argumentation. Restuarants must provide low quality coffee just to protect these people from themselves? That is, I will not be able to get a good cup of coffee just because we are going to protect a small number of people that will get hurt no matter what we do to protect them.
IMHO, A person that opens places hot coffee in between her thighs and removes the lid shouldn't be allowed to drive a car. Just imagine someone of your family meeting this woman when she pours coffee all over her thighs. It doesnt matter what the temp would be, I doubt that she would concentrate on the traffic.
The basic truth is, not matter what, you will always find some genious that mess up due to lack of common sense. The key question here is to what length should we go in our strive to protect these people from themselves. Is it possible at all?

The case is not commenting on the stupidity of the defendant's actions. This case was based on the fact that McDonald's refused to address the issue with even a simply warning on the cup, despite the fact that accidents (including having coffee dropped onto a person from the service window) had occurred numerous times.

If this was an isolated case, I would wholly agree with your position. I mean, if a someone's car had a fuse that shorted out, one might just assume that the person may have used one at a wrong amperage, if it happened to 500 people, one might start to wonder if this was a defect in the car's construction.

[StarbucksSam]

I'm sorry but I'm a little lost... didn't this happen like six years ago or more? Why are we revisiting it...?

[Dr.Gargoyle]

The case is not commenting on the stupidity of the defendant's actions. This case was based on the fact that McDonald's refused to address the issue with even a simply warning on the cup, despite the fact that accidents (including having coffee dropped onto a person from the service window) had occurred numerous times.

If this was an isolated case, I would wholly agree with your position. I mean, if a someone's car had a fuse that shorted out, one might just assume that the person may have used one at a wrong amperage, if it happened to 500 people, one might start to wonder if this was a defect in the car's construction.
Let us get the figures correct here. We are talking about 700 people over a decade. If this is worldwide or just in US doesnt matter considering how many cups of coffee McDonald's serve. My guess is that the number of people that have been killer while trying to go to the bathroom over the past decade are more than 700 people. Does that suggest you argue for a warning sign at every bathroom?
There are many similar examples. My point is just that you have to look at the probability of an accident, not how many accidents that have occured.
IMHO, McDonald's isnt a very pleasant company, and I wouldn't cry when they get slapped with huge law suits if it wasnt for the fact that frivolous law suits are contraproductive.
Living is dangerous (in fact everybody has died so far) people get hurt. Some are more prone to get wounded than other. Is it really viable to argue that these people could have been saved and that sueing someone would fix this?
You know my answer... what is yours?

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I'm sorry but I'm a little lost... didn't this happen like six years ago or more? Why are we revisiting it...?
wWell, it all begain with TigerDirects frivolous law suit and kind of ballooned from there... :rolleyes:
I need a hobby... :p

[Punani]

Let us get the figures correct here. We are talking about 700 people over a decade. If this is worldwide or just in US doesnt matter considering how many cups of coffee McDonald's serve. My guess is that the number of people that have been killer while trying to go to the bathroom over the past decade are more than 700 people. Does that suggest you argue for a warning sign at every bathroom?
There are many similar examples. My point is just that you have to look at the probability of an accident, not how many accidents that have occured.
IMHO, McDonald's isnt a very pleasant company, and I wouldn't cry when they get slapped with huge law suits if it wasnt for the fact that frivolous law suits are contraproductive.
Living is dangerous (in fact everybody has died so far) people get hurt. Some are more prone to get wounded than other. Is it really viable to argue that these people could have been saved and that sueing someone would fix this?
You know my answer... what is yours?Right, but is that the fault of the bathroom? Could it have been mitigated to some extent?

The lawsuit may not have been necessary, but McDonald's actions were clearly in the wrong. If a car company knew of X defect, but calculated it to rarely occur, they would still be legally accountable in the event someone did press charges.

[arcuddihy]

Actually, from memory, the woman involved in the case-if this is indeed the same case-later said that she didn't even intend to sue McD's in the first place. She claimed to have been bullied/railroaded/harassed/confused by lawyers who smelled a big payoff in the making.
Whether it's true or not, I have no idea. But when you look at the proliferation of adverts on TV for law firms who brag about their successful multi-million dollar lawsuits against big corporations and small companies...you have to wonder.
This is not, by the way, a rag on lawyers. Everyone who gets involved in these "frivolous" lawsuits is complicit for the sorry state of things anyway. No one is willing to take personal responsibility for the concept that, hey, stuff happens sometimes.

[snkTab]

I think people are forgetting that if one were to use common sense and test the coffee's temperature, common sense would assume that one doesn't carry a thermometer around in one’s car, and that one cannot reasonably judge the difference in temperature from hot and more hot from a cup of hot coffee by sight, and that those nice cups are a great insulators that does a great job in making the cup able to be handled, that…..

In order to test it you would have to sip it.

which would burn, not hurt burn, but tissue destroying burn, to your lips, mouth, and esophagus

Oh.... and just another common sense notion, coffee doesn't taste well when its giving third degree burns to your tongue.

[dornoforpyros]

you know i tend to wonder if the 2 sides of this argument are a little closer than we realise.

I mean clearly some of us think this woman is/was an idiot(myself included) but I can't help but wonder if the ppl who are sideing with the burn victim arean't so much agreeing with her being a "victim" as much as your siding against McD's. I mean it's quite fun to sit back and say "if they'd used better cups or served cooler coffee this never would have happend"

But quite simply at the end of the day McD's DID NOT dump the coffee in her lap. She bought it, and burnt herself. But I agree, it is good fun to blame the evil multinational corporation no matter what their actions are. heck I know I'm guilty of some un-nessary M$ bashing.

[Les Kern]

It's also worth noting that the final damages were under $1m after appeal.

Last I heard it was 230K, but she has received nothing so far.
But on the subject of frivolous lawsuits. Of course most of you know there is a concerted effort on the part of the administration to limit awards to 250K in EVERY case. They say that it is the "crazy" lawsuits that drive up insurance prices for everyone. To the average American this seems to make sense. They hear about a nut asking for 10 million for something minor, but what they never hear is the final judgement. But I invite anyone to look at the facts, the issue there of course is that Americans don't seem to want to be bothered by them. Huge headlines make for good talking points, but when asked to use their brain they shy away. So what are the facts? (And again, feel free to look them up yourself)
A few years ago an independent study was done on this very subject; just what IS the impact of lawsuits on insurance premiums. After analyzing the data from the previous 30 YEARS, it was discovered that frivolous lawsuits accounted for less then ONE percent of premium price increases. What was by far the biggest reason? Bond prices. When the bond markets were good, prices leveled out (but NEVER declined). When the bond market was poor and the insurance companies weren't getting their earnings off of the BILLIONS in the bank, prices on premiums rose, and always rose at a rate greater than inflation.
Fun project: The next time you hear about the government giving tax breaks out, try to figure out why. Bonus: Why did Bush just give a 72 BILLION dollar tax break to the drug industry, or a 12 billion dollar tax break to big oil. See any new refineries being built? And 72 billion could go a long way to making drugs affordable instead of 2-5 times as high as what folks in the rest of the world pay.

[Les Kern]

If a car company knew of X defect, but calculated it to rarely occur, they would still be legally accountable in the event someone did press charges.

Oh how right you are. Millions are being spent on those calculations. It was either Ford or GM (I forgot, but look it up if you want) who calculated that it was cheaper to have X number of accidents and X number of death payoffs then it would have been to replace a faulty part. In one respect it's just a "normal" business decision. On the other hand it makes the company look like they love a dollar more than they love us. Unfortunately there is no budget line item called "The greater good".

[pseudobrit]

Are people actually bitching because McDonald's coffee might be served at a temperature less than ideal for connoisseur purposes?

It's McDonald's coffee. It's liquid crap, not unlike the breakfast of solid crap you'd oder up with your cuppa joe-unk.

They serve it too hot so you burn your tongue with the first sip and can't taste how bad it is after that.

[angelneo]

How many of you guys actually drink hot beverages while you are driving? Seriously, I think it is pretty dangerous to do that. Futhermore, its hot coffee.... do we really need all kinds of signs to tell us its hot coffee? It's hot coffee... hhooottt coooofffeeee. (more slowly). It's hhhhhooooottttttttt cccccoooofffffeeeee.

[skunk]

It's hhhhhooooottttttttt cccccoooofffffeeeee.So it should be sold in ssssaaaaffffeee containers.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Right, but is that the fault of the bathroom? Could it have been mitigated to some extent?

The lawsuit may not have been necessary, but McDonald's actions were clearly in the wrong. If a car company knew of X defect, but calculated it to rarely occur, they would still be legally accountable in the event someone did press charges.
ok, another example. Consider a Ferrari, a nice high performance car. However this car could have been made safe, but the manufactor chose not to, since it would compromice the performance of the car. According to your argumentation, it would be ok to sue Ferrari because they have neglected to warn you that their car is a bit faster, and speed kills. Moreover, since ferrari knowingly produce a car that is faster which will inflicts much graver wounds in an accident and Ferrari have failed to make the car slower they should be sued...
ok ok, using Ferrrari as an example when we discuss McDonald's might be a bit off. So, sue me... :p ;)

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Actually, from memory, the woman involved in the case-if this is indeed the same case-later said that she didn't even intend to sue McD's in the first place. She claimed to have been bullied/railroaded/harassed/confused by lawyers who smelled a big payoff in the making.
Whether it's true or not, I have no idea. But when you look at the proliferation of adverts on TV for law firms who brag about their successful multi-million dollar lawsuits against big corporations and small companies...you have to wonder.
This is not, by the way, a rag on lawyers. Everyone who gets involved in these "frivolous" lawsuits is complicit for the sorry state of things anyway. No one is willing to take personal responsibility for the concept that, hey, stuff happens sometimes.
Hear, hear....

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I think people are forgetting that if one were to use common sense and test the coffee's temperature, common sense would assume that one doesn't carry a thermometer around in one’s car, and that one cannot reasonably judge the difference in temperature from hot and more hot from a cup of hot coffee by sight, and that those nice cups are a great insulators that does a great job in making the cup able to be handled, that…..

In order to test it you would have to sip it.

which would burn, not hurt burn, but tissue destroying burn, to your lips, mouth, and esophagus

Oh.... and just another common sense notion, coffee doesn't taste well when its giving third degree burns to your tongue.
Come on! Do you really claim a thermometer to see if a bevarage is to hot or nor? I wonder how people survived before. If you get close to an open fire, do you really have to touch the loggs with your hand to check whether the fire is hot?

[Dr.Gargoyle]

you know i tend to wonder if the 2 sides of this argument are a little closer than we realise.

I mean clearly some of us think this woman is/was an idiot(myself included) but I can't help but wonder if the ppl who are sideing with the burn victim arean't so much agreeing with her being a "victim" as much as your siding against McD's. I mean it's quite fun to sit back and say "if they'd used better cups or served cooler coffee this never would have happend"

But quite simply at the end of the day McD's DID NOT dump the coffee in her lap. She bought it, and burnt herself. But I agree, it is good fun to blame the evil multinational corporation no matter what their actions are. heck I know I'm guilty of some un-nessary M$ bashing.
I agree totally. I don't think people would have argued so hard for plaintiff side, if
it was another comapany than McDonald's (Apple for example)
if the plaintiff had been an ex-convict.
Isn't justice supposed to be blind?

[takao]

How many of you guys actually drink hot beverages while you are driving? Seriously, I think it is pretty dangerous to do that. Futhermore, its hot coffee.... do we really need all kinds of signs to tell us its hot coffee? It's hot coffee... hhooottt coooofffeeee. (more slowly). It's hhhhhooooottttttttt cccccoooofffffeeeee.


boy i'm so happy people over don't do that over here (thank god for manual transmissions)

if i was the one who should decide she wouldn't get a cent/penny etc. i repeat: not a single one
if you are willing to put something which is called "hot bevarage" between your thighs then you're a lost case

i don't knoe but somehow only at mcdonalds and burger king the food and drink cups are plastered over with warning signs additional to the guys/grils behind the coutner already saying you that it 'might be hot'

remebers me of the austrian police-comedy series "Kottan ermittelt" ("Kottan investigating") where in every episode he gets a coffee from his secretary and always takes a large sip and nearly burns his tongue to which his secretary response with her broad Vienna dialect: "Kochn muas ihs scho" ("i still have to cook it")
it was somehow a running gag and even made it into common language even in my family who lives as far from vienna as possible

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Of course most of you know there is a concerted effort on the part of the administration to limit awards to 250K in EVERY case.
That is just as crazy as the settlements in these frivolous law suits. I know an example where a young man was severly injured in a car accident since Ford made an unsafe fuel pump that kept on pumping gas after an accident. Ford knew about it, be neglected to change the fuel pump since it would cost too much money. The guy I am talking about suffered 75% 3rd degree burn wounds. (=almost certain death) He survived, but lost both his legs. The medicalbills for the first 72 hours exceeded $500.000 by far.
Without going too much on this specific case, I claim that here we have a legitimate law suit. Ford argued that this was yet another frivolous law suit, when it in fact was legitimate. After many years of legal battle Ford, made an out of court settlement. As a private person it is virtually impossible to win a case againts giants like this. In this case Fords "safety" policy should be punished hard... very hard. So hard that they wouldn't even consider compromising on the safety.
The idea to restrict the awards to $250k, is just as stupid to award some bozoo millions because he got fat eating from McDonald's.
Common sense, gentlemen. Common sense.
We all know a frivolous law suit when we see one, why can't the court exercise the same common sense?

[Dr.Gargoyle]

So it should be sold in ssssaaaaffffeee containers.
There does not exist any fool proof saaaaaaaaaffffeeeee containers.

[arcuddihy]

WE know a frivolous lawsuit when we see one-but do the courts see it that way, from a legal standpoint? I'm not a lawyer/judge/legal expert so don't know anything about it, but I imagine that the courts are *required* to hear these cases regardless of their nature.

The sort of subjective bias that allows us to personally label a case as "frivolous" probably has no place in a court of law. Even if it were the case, people would appeal. No one likes to come out of court with an egg on their face.

I feel that things like this are a little out of control, though. What's the answer? I don't know. I think just a change in attitude towards the concept that lawsuits are a way to get rich quick. Beyond that...it's a slippery slope.

[skunk]

She wasn't carrying the cup between her thighs. This was an 81-year-old woman who took the top off to add cream/sugar. The cup buckled when the lid was removed. 3rd-degree burns on her lap, thighs, vagina, and buttocks. I've spilled coffee on my lap at home, and you know what? My coffeemaker sure the hell doesn't cause hospital stays.

This is a problem unique to McDonalds, none of their competitors have had a problem like this. Nor any other company that serves hot coffee. Just McDonalds. How is it these other companies can be out to make a profit, yet McD's is the only one that jeopardizes consumer safety for it?If this is the case, the "foolproof" comment is irrelevant.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

WE know a frivolous lawsuit when we see one-but do the courts see it that way, from a legal standpoint? I'm not a lawyer/judge/legal expert so don't know anything about it, but I imagine that the courts are *required* to hear these cases regardless of their nature.

The sort of subjective bias that allows us to personally label a case as "frivolous" probably has no place in a court of law. Even if it were the case, people would appeal. No one likes to come out of court with an egg on their face.

I feel that things like this are a little out of control, though. What's the answer? I don't know. I think just a change in attitude towards the concept that lawsuits are a way to get rich quick. Beyond that...it's a slippery slope.
Law isn't about justice, it is about interpreting the law as it has been written. Everything about is is very subjective. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need lawyers or judges, just a machine that gave the verdict.
My point in this very long discussion have been to throw out obvious frivolous law suits such that the courts can spend more time one the legitimate claims. The frivolous law suits will never end, as long as you could get awarded millions for rubbish.

[jsw]

I hate frivolous lawsuits. They jack up costs for everyone. That said, I don't consider the McDonald's one to be frivolous at all.

I agree with numerous posts that the cups should have been designed better. Better cups existed at the time, others used them, McDonald's was negligent for not doing so when serving dangerously hot beverages to consumers in drive-thru areas. The fact that everyone knows coffee is hot is not in any way whatsoever an excuse for using inferior serving containers. We all know bleach and ammonia are dangerous - is it OK to serve them in containers that corrode? No. McDonald's used cups which were of insufficient quality for serving hot coffee to consumers, esp. in their cars.

Also, as has been posted, McDonald's is only slightly above "water dipped out of a sewer and boiled" in terms of the quality of their coffee. Discussions of optimal brewing and consumption temperatures are irrelevant to McDonald's coffee, esp. w.r.t. drive-thru service, since no one - no one - goes to McDonald's with the hope of getting anything even remotely worthy of being called coffee. So they might as well serve it in a safer manner. It sucks anyway. The cups are dangerously weak. They might as well reduce the temperature.

The fact that there were "only" 700 cases means that only 700 people bothered to enter a case into the system. That doesn't mean that the product was acceptable.

A lot of the problem lies in McD's serving coffee this way to consumers in their cars. Lower temps or a better freaking cup would have solved the problem nicely. Me? Id'v'e sued them for labeling that product "coffee" in the first place.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I hate frivolous lawsuits. They jack up costs for everyone. That said, I don't consider the McDonald's one to be frivolous at all.

I agree with numerous posts that the cups should have been designed better. Better cups existed at the time, others used them, McDonald's was negligent for not doing so when serving dangerously hot beverages to consumers in drive-thru areas. The fact that everyone knows coffee is hot is not in any way whatsoever an excuse for using inferior serving containers. We all know bleach and ammonia are dangerous - is it OK to serve them in containers that corrode? No. McDonald's used cups which were of insufficient quality for serving hot coffee to consumers, esp. in their cars.

Also, as has been posted, McDonald's is only slightly above "water dipped out of a sewer and boiled" in terms of the quality of their coffee. Discussions of optimal brewing and consumption temperatures are irrelevant to McDonald's coffee, esp. w.r.t. drive-thru service, since no one - no one - goes to McDonald's with the hope of getting anything even remotely worthy of being called coffee. So they might as well serve it in a safer manner. It sucks anyway. The cups are dangerously weak. They might as well reduce the temperature.

The fact that there were "only" 700 cases means that only 700 people bothered to enter a case into the system. That doesn't mean that the product was acceptable.

A lot of the problem lies in McD's serving coffee this way to consumers in their cars. Lower temps or a better freaking cup would have solved the problem nicely. Me? Id'v'e sued them for labeling that product "coffee" in the first place.
Good points. However, the coffee cups from McDonald's were up to standard, unless you don't open the lid and squeeze the cup at the same time. My point throughout this very long discussion has been that there does not exist any fool proof cups.
McDonald's could provide better more sturdy cups, but that would also increase the price. In the end, it is the customers willingness to pay for sturdier cups that will decide whether this will happen or not.
Moreover, I question whether it can be considered safe to drive while you consume hot beverages. I doubt that our limited multitasking capacity allows you to do both in a safe way.
We obviously disagree whether this was a frivolous law suit or not.
I don't find 700 reported cases in a 10 years period alarming when it comes to a HUGE company as McDonald's. Especially not since McDonald's is an "easy" target, more or less a focal point for all ambulance chasers.
I totally agree that coffee McDonald's serve isnt up to par with what you normally define as coffee. But that is irrelevant.
The fact that they claim they are serving coffee, should make you come to the conclusion that this is a hot beverage which should be handled with care. You should also be able to deduct that the cups McDonald's provide isnt as sturdy as the ones you get at an acceptable restaurant.
This together with the fact that you know you will be driving a car whilst drinking this cup of coffee should lead you to realize that extra care is needed.
The woman in question failed to come to the correct conclusion. A correct conclusion made by innumerous people before and after her.
The basic question is: how much own responsability should we impose on the individual?
I wouldn't like to live in a society, where the government and the laws protects me from my own actions. You should, not only be allowed, but also demanded, to make your own assessment whether you find something so uncomplicated as drinking a cup of coffee safe.
The courts should be free to help people where a correct decision isnt as straightforward as in this case. For example, as I mention above, a faulty fuel pump. Or inferior tires as in the case with Ford Explorer.

[snkTab]

.....

Okay simple facts
1) McDonalds gave her coffee that would knowingly cause burns
2) The coffee cost $49 cents
3) The cup upon opening the cap (normal use) sprurted burn hot liquid death on her.... gives third degree burns instantly I might add
4) She did not spill the cup
5) She was disabled for two years
6) The coffee would've burn the lips, mouth, and throat if sipped anyway.
7) The high damages were awarded as punitive damages. As in damage
intended to pushish the one responsibilty even over the amount to compensate her.
8) McDonalds makes the final settlement cost in just 8 hours of just coffee sales.

The "you should know it's hot coffee" thoery doesn't work because the coffee is actually way to hot and causes burns immediatly.

The "you shouldn't sue when its your own action" doesn't work because the cup was too full and splashed when opening.

Can we please end the talk now that hot coffee demands care... I think that's obvious and still doesn't help the anti-lawsuit case as even with care the burns would still exist.

[pseudobrit]

I've spilled hot tea on myself before.

I had taken water off the boil about two minutes before, and I tripped on a step in my house. About half the cup promptly emptied itself on my face, neck and torso. I frantically put the cup down and began trying to take my shirt off or at least pull it away from my body and was waiting for the intense pain that never came.

Between sitting in a mug for two minutes (I hope that qualifies as an immediate serving under the über barrista "must be served immediately" rule) and flyign through the air, it cooled itself down enough that I simply got splashed with very warm water.

No burns.


BK gave a man his coffee in a paper bag; the bag broke as he was walking down the street and the cup splashed on his feet and gave him third degree burns on his feet and ankles. He got a few ten thousand dollars for his trouble.

McDonald's is known to have served coffee at near boiling temperatures. McDonald's, Burger King and others were sued before for similar incidents and settled out of court for tens of thousands of dollars. They knew there was a problem. McDonalds chose to ignore it.

They continued to serve nearly-boiling hot coffee because they were convinced their customers valued the hot temperature of their coffee once they reached their destination enough that it became a callous business decision to allow for a certain amount of burn cases each year.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

.....
1) McDonalds gave her coffee that would knowingly cause burns

Do you really think McDonald's intentionally and knowingly served too hot coffee to harm this poor woman? The facts are:
Coffee must be brewed at 199F in order to taste as good as the raw material allows.
Coffee taste better the sooner after brewing you drink it. At drinkable temperature of course.
The temperature of the coffee converges according laws of thermodynamics logarithmically towards the room temp.
Note: this is physics and there is absolutley nothing we can do about it. No law suits will change these facts.
Moreover, there is a natural variante lag inbewteen preparing coffee and serving it in any restaurant. Hence, we can not know exactly at what temperature the coffee is served. This should be obvious, since too hot coffee can harm you, you have to be careful.

2) The coffee cost $49 cents

Ok... :confused:
.....
3) The cup upon opening the cap (normal use) sprurted burn hot liquid death on her.... gives third degree burns instantly I might add

wrong, you have to squeeze the cup simultaniously. Moreover, if she didn't insist on driving at the same time as she tried this manouver the outcome might have been different.
.....
4) She did not spill the cup

How did the heck did she get coffee all over her then? :confused:
.....
5) She was disabled for two years

Totally irrelevant. As I responded to rainman, I feel pitty for the woman, but it is irrelevant. When you act carelessly you could suffer severe consequenses...so...?
.....
6) The coffee would've burn the lips, mouth, and throat if sipped anyway.

If you drink coffee at 199F you will get burnt. See above.
Note: Do you take a large sipp of a freshly made cup of tea? Tea is also supposed to be made at boiling temp.
.....
7) The high damages were awarded as punitive damages. As in damage
intended to pushish the one responsibilty even over the amount to compensate her.

I.e. the court more or less stoped McDonald's making as good coffee as possible with the given raw material. IMHO, a totally idiotic ruling.
.....
8) McDonalds makes the final settlement cost in just 8 hours of just coffee sales.

Doesn't that if anything tell you how much coffee McDonald's serve? Knowing this, now consider the in total 700 failures over ten years. Again, most people are able to handle the complex task of drinking a cup of coffee. Not all, but most people...
.....
The "you should know it's hot coffee" thoery doesn't work because the coffee is actually way to hot and causes burns immediatly.

Again, laws of physics.See respons to fact 1.
.....
The "you shouldn't sue when its your own action" doesn't work because the cup was too full and splashed when opening.

Again, millions of people are able to handle the complex task of drinking a cup of coffee. She wasn't. We have a 81 year old woman that tries to drive and open the lid of the cup at the same time. What do you expect? Do you think that is handling with care? She knew, or should have known, that coffee at drinable temperature cause burns. I wonder if you would have reasoned equally persistent if she had a collision and killed someone during this exercise.
The resulting outcome proves she was negligent. period

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I've spilled hot tea on myself before.

I had taken water off the boil about two minutes before, and I tripped on a step in my house. About half the cup promptly emptied itself on my face, neck and torso. I frantically put the cup down and began trying to take my shirt off or at least pull it away from my body and was waiting for the intense pain that never came.

Between sitting in a mug for two minutes (I hope that qualifies as an immediate serving under the über barrista "must be served immediately" rule) and flyign through the air, it cooled itself down enough that I simply got splashed with very warm water.

No burns.


BK gave a man his coffee in a paper bag; the bag broke as he was walking down the street and the cup splashed on his feet and gave him third degree burns on his feet and ankles. He got a few ten thousand dollars for his trouble.

It is all about heat exchange between bodies. The hot water and your face in this case. You were able to keep the exchange very short, that is why you didn't get any burn wounds. The old lady was strapped in her carseat and couldn't do this. To clarify this, consider when you boil an egg. Even if the water is boiling it doesn't help if you just dipp the egg for a very short while. On the other hand, you can prepare (boil) an egg with nonboiling water. You just have to make sure that the water is above the temp where protein coagulates. Moreover, if you boil an egg for e.g. four minutes and then pick up the egg without cooling down the egg under cold water, the protein will continue to coagulate due to heat diffusion inside the egg, i.e. the entire egg converges to that same temperature. The man with the burnt ankles would have gotten as sever burns if he would have chilled the exposed areas with cold water.

McDonald's is known to have served coffee at near boiling temperatures. McDonald's, Burger King and others were sued before for similar incidents and settled out of court for tens of thousands of dollars. They knew there was a problem. McDonalds chose to ignore it.

They continued to serve nearly-boiling hot coffee because they were convinced their customers valued the hot temperature of their coffee once they reached their destination enough that it became a callous business decision to allow for a certain amount of burn cases each year.
I would never accept lukewarm coffee. You might think differently.

note: LMAO @ über barrista "must be served immediately" rule... good one :D (Can I steal that line from you?)

[pseudobrit]

Do you really think McDonald's intentionally and knowingly served too hot coffee to harm this poor woman? The facts are:
Coffee must be brewed at 199F in order to taste as good as the raw material allows.
Coffee taste better the sooner after brewing you drink it. At drinkable temperature of course.

McDonald's doesn't make coffee; they make money.

The decision to serve coffee at undrinkably hot temperatures was a business one, not a culinary one.

McDonald's knew many or most of its customers liked their coffee to remain hot as it sat in their car on the way to work. They felt their customers valued this high heat more than they valued the immediate drinkability of their beverage. So they served it at undrinkable temperatures.

I would never accept lukewarm coffee. You might think differently.

I wouldn't drink their bathwater coffee at any temperature.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

McDonald's doesn't make coffee; they make money.

The decision to serve coffee at undrinkably hot temperatures was a business one, not a culinary one.

McDonald's knew many or most of its customers liked their coffee to remain hot as it sat in their car on the way to work. They felt their customers valued this high heat more than they valued the immediate drinkability of their beverage. So they served it at undrinkable temperatures.



I wouldn't drink their bathwater coffee at any temperature.
Well then... We seems to agree on that at least. Always something. :D
I am conviced that McDonald's is in the business to make money. I doubt that you will be able to fine any company that differes from that rule.

[Les Kern]

I hate frivolous lawsuits. They jack up costs for everyone.

Didn't read my post? Why is this lie perpetuated? I'll tell you... it's easier to spout rhetoric than it is to seek the truth.

[dornoforpyros]

It was either Ford or GM (I forgot, but look it up if you want) who calculated that it was cheaper to have X number of accidents and X number of death payoffs then it would have been to replace a faulty part.


can you confirm this or are you just quoting second hand knoweldge that some oen gained in fight club? I'm not sayingg this statement isn't true but the whole Number of Accidencts X Cost of Recall X Cost of out of court settlement = X is tottaly a line from fight club which I suspect some one has twisted around into an urban legend that GM did this! :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

Oh how right you are. Millions are being spent on those calculations. It was either Ford or GM (I forgot, but look it up if you want) who calculated that it was cheaper to have X number of accidents and X number of death payoffs then it would have been to replace a faulty part. In one respect it's just a "normal" business decision.

Ford Pinto. Bolt would pierce the gas tank and incinerate the car and occupants. Ford decided the bottom line of a recall was higher than settling lawsuits.

The paperwork with the calculations eventually ended up being exhibit A (foiled again! curses to leaked memos!) and Ford lost their ass on the gamble.

[pseudobrit]

can you confirm this or are you just quoting second hand knoweldge that some oen gained in fight club? I'm not sayingg this statement isn't true but the whole Number of Accidencts X Cost of Recall X Cost of out of court settlement = X is tottaly a line from fight club which I suspect some one has twisted around into an urban legend that GM did this! :rolleyes:

It's just an urban legend that this case is an urban legend.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1977/09/dowie.html

[angelneo]

Do we really want the government to BABYSIT us? It is common sense that coffee cups don't go in between your thighs and it is not meant to be drank while you are driving and hot coffee can scalded you. Why do people keeps on insisting to do stunts and then blame others when something happens?

Ooo.. the cups are too filmsy to be put on my thighs, I insisted that they should go to my thighs. oo.. and I want to drive with one hand and try to balance while opening the cup on my thigh with the other.....

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Do we really want the government to BABYSIT us? It is common sense that coffee cups don't go in between your thighs and it is not meant to be drank while you are driving and hot coffee can scalded you. Why do people keeps on insisting to do stunts and then blame others when something happens?

Ooo.. the cups are too filmsy to be put on my thighs, I insisted that they should go to my thighs. oo.. and I want to drive with one hand and try to balance while opening the cup on my thigh with the other.....
Nice summarize. I couldn't agree more.

[pseudobrit]

Do we really want the government to BABYSIT us?

No, we want the government to babysit the corporations who so often slip into callous, inhuman, negligent and destructive behaviour.

We're dumb, but they're malicious.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

No, we want the government to babysit the corporations who so often slip into callous, inhuman, negligent and destructive behaviour.

We're dumb, but they're malicious.
IMHO, you have to differenciate between cases like e.g. Ford's various slipups and when we people just mess up.
In the former case, I say go after them with all we got. Let us state laws that make economical calculations comprising human loss or suffering always come out unprofitable for the company. The latter case, is unfortunately, our on doing and the sooner we realize that we have an own responsability the better.

[snkTab]

Do you really think McDonald's intentionally and knowingly served too hot coffee to harm this poor woman?

Don't assume, check the facts. Please note a previous McDonalds case that McDonalds settled that states "a McDonald's quality assurance manager, who said "he was aware of this risk…and had no plans to turn down the heat," McDonald's settled that case for $27,500." McDonalds has settled many cases just like this. The old lady is the only one McDonalds stupidly took to trial. Which ended up with this. "After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct" When you burn people, responsible for it, and you do nothing to stop it you are in fact intentionally and knowingly serving too hot coffee.

The facts are: Coffee must be brewed at 199F in order to taste as good as the raw material allows. Coffee taste better the sooner after brewing you drink it.

The facts are you are making a valid point to dismiss the truth. Brewing temperature does not equal serving or even holding temperature. The McDonald's training manual, which says its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees. The holding temperature is too hot, in fact 20 degrees hotter than everyone else. No other restaurant served coffee above 165 degrees.

At drinkable temperature of course.

You just proved my point.... It's not drinkable. It will burn the tissue in your mouth. The temperature was at the point were the skin would be burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds.

The temperature of the coffee converges according laws of thermodynamics logarithmically towards the room temp. Note: this is physics and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

Unless of course the coffee in question was in an insulated cup... which it was, to do exactly that, stop the temperature from declining. This stops the temperature from leaving the holding temperature too rapidly. Your physics is correct, if the coffee was served in the open air.

We can not know exactly at what temperature the coffee is served. This should be obvious, since too hot coffee can harm you, you have to be careful.

We do not know what temperature the coffee is served at, but we do assume that we can drink it when served, even in sips. Which you cannot with McDonalds coffee and the time. We also assume that if we spill coffee on us that we will get burned. We do not assume that we will get 3rd degree burns and need skin grafting.

wrong, you have to squeeze the cup simultaneously. Moreover, if she didn't insist on driving at the same time as she tried this maneuver the outcome might have been different.

If we are arguing with physics, then I got one for you. By pressing the cap down on the coffee cup you are creating more pressure inside the cup. And thus, upon opening, would cause the liquid to at least slosh out.

How did the heck did she get coffee all over her then?
It came out when she opened the cup. Also, you also talk about how people must handle their coffee carefully. There have been several instances of people being burned by McDonalds employees spilling coffee on them, and at least one full cup of coffee spilled at the drive through. You think after the coffee gets absorbed and close to your skin that you can get all your clothes off in two to seven seconds in a car. I don’t think so. This person was also physically disfigured and disabled. The coffee is to be hot, even burning hot, but once again, not 3rd degree causing hot.

Totally irrelevant.

This is referring to the fact about her being disabled for two years, at which you also responded “When you act carelessly you could suffer severe consequences...so...?” I’ve actually boiled Ramen and dumped it on my hand thinking there was a bowl there. I did not incur 3rd degree burns. The fact that she was disabled for two years shows how dangerous the coffee is. Even if it you to spill it on yourself, selling something that will disable you for two years in unacceptable. And, it doesn’t take a moron to spill stuff on yourself.

If you drink coffee at 199F you will get burnt. See above.

Yes if you drink coffee at brewing temperature you will get burnt, very quickly. However, the point is at serving temperature of McDonalds coffee you also get burnt, very quickly as well. Considering how it’s served at 185 degrees on average.

The court more or less stopped McDonald's making as good coffee as possible with the given raw material. IMHO, a totally idiotic ruling.

All McDonalds did was lower the holding temperature to consumable levels. They didn’t change anything else about their 49 cent coffee. I would say that consumable coffee makes better coffee than non-consumable damaging coffee.

Doesn't that if anything tell you how much coffee McDonald's serve? Knowing this, now consider the in total 700 failures over ten years. Again, most people are able to handle the complex task of drinking a cup of coffee. Not all, but most people...

Actually this shows what you tried to prove in your last article, that McDonalds stopped making coffee as good as possible given raw materials. The lawsuit didn’t even dent McDonald’s cash flow.

Again, laws of physics. See response to fact 1.

Your response doesn’t answer this question and coffee held at 185 degrees is a hazard.


Again, millions of people are able to handle the complex task of drinking a cup of coffee. She wasn't. We have a 81 year old woman that tries to drive and open the lid of the cup at the same time. What do you expect? Do you think that is handling with care? She knew, or should have known, that coffee at drinable temperature cause burns. I wonder if you would have reasoned equally persistent if she had a collision and killed someone during this exercise. The resulting outcome proves she was negligent. Period

You think that McDonalds giving coffee at 185 degrees, and they do (did) give it at 185 degrees is not negligent. They know it will burn you and that you can’t drink it without causing serious burns even after minutes of serving. Oh and many many people spill things on themselves.

I am conviced that McDonald's is in the business to make money. I doubt that you will be able to fine any company that differes from that rule.

Refering to the fact that McDonald holds the temperature for a business descision rather than a culinary one. I find this odd that you agree with this when you've been agrueing that McDonalds coffee needs to be served at 3rd degree causing temperature because of the taste.

As far as making money, everyone it out to make money. That doesn't mean you can intentionally and knowingly served too hot coffee.

Oh, and coffee served at 160 degrees is not considered luke warm.

[dornoforpyros]

uggg I honestly can't believe anyone sides with the old lady on this. She ordered a hot beverage and spilled it on her self. It's not as if the coffee was so hot it melted the cup and thus that's how she burnt herself.
She spilled the cup BECAUSE SHE IS TOO STUPID TO DRINK A CUP OF COFFEE end of story.

[skunk]

uggg I honestly can't believe anyone sides with the old lady on this. She ordered a hot beverage and spilled it on her self. It's not as if the coffee was so hot it melted the cup and thus that's how she burnt herself.
She spilled the cup BECAUSE SHE IS TOO STUPID TO DRINK A CUP OF COFFEE end of story.Sympathetic response. Do you have a grandmother?

[dornoforpyros]

Sympathetic response. Do you have a grandmother?


yes but this womans age has nothing to do with it. She could have been 22 for all I care, if you spill coffee on yourself it's your fault. No one elses!

[skunk]

yes but this womans age has nothing to do with it. She could have been 22 for all I care, if you spill coffee on yourself it's your fault. No one elses!If you serve a very hot drink to a takeaway customer, it should come in a reasonably strong container to minimize the risk of accidents. Is that an unreasonable requirement?

[angelneo]

If you serve a very hot drink to a takeaway customer, it should come in a reasonably strong container to minimize the risk of accidents. Is that an unreasonable requirement?
I would think dornoforpyros comments are too strongly worded but the point is that she put it in between her thighs and continue driving with it. We have seen it even in movies like "One fine day", Guy Ritchie & Madonna short BMW clip so on, that coffees get spilled when you do stunts like that, it's obvious that it is dangerous doing that.

[BornAgainMac]

Could this lawsuit explain why the burgers are now served cold? Yuck!
Anyways, I see valid points on both sides. I am glad I don't drink their coffee because I am sure I would be spilling on myself too. I feel bad for that lady for burning herself regardless of who's fault it was.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Don't assume, check the facts. Please note a previous McDonalds case that McDonalds settled that states "a McDonald's quality assurance manager, who said "he was aware of this risk…and had no plans to turn down the heat," McDonald's settled that case for $27,500." McDonalds has settled many cases just like this. The old lady is the only one McDonalds stupidly took to trial. Which ended up with this. "After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct" When you burn people, responsible for it, and you do nothing to stop it you are in fact intentionally and knowingly serving too hot coffee.
Do you really think McDonald's intentionally and knowingly served too hot coffee to harm this poor woman? Harm is the keyword. It would be bad business to intentionally harm people. I doubt you would get many customers.
The facts are you are making a valid point to dismiss the truth. Brewing temperature does not equal serving or even holding temperature. The McDonald's training manual, which says its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees. The holding temperature is too hot, in fact 20 degrees hotter than everyone else. No other restaurant served coffee above 165 degrees.
What "truth" am I dismissing? My point has been and still is that you can not for certain know what temp the coffee will be served at, hence you have to act carefully. The only thing you can be certain about is that it holds a temp in the range of brewing temp and room temp.
You just proved my point.... It's not drinkable. It will burn the tissue in your mouth. The temperature was at the point were the skin would be burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds.
Freshly brewed coffee will cause burn wounds...and? Again physics. You are talking about serving temperature again. and again, you have to make sure the coffee keeps desirable temp.
Unless of course the coffee in question was in an insulated cup... which it was, to do exactly that, stop the temperature from declining. This stops the temperature from leaving the holding temperature too rapidly. Your physics is correct, if the coffee was served in the open air.
Wrong, unless you have a perfect insulator, and trust me styrophoam is not a perfect insulator, the temperature will always coverge logarithmically towards the room temp.
We do not know what temperature the coffee is served at, but we do assume that we can drink it when served, even in sips. Which you cannot with McDonalds coffee and the time. We also assume that if we spill coffee on us that we will get burned. We do not assume that we will get 3rd degree burns and need skin grafting.
Didn't you just say: "Don't assume, check the facts."? Just my point.
If we are arguing with physics, then I got one for you. By pressing the cap down on the coffee cup you are creating more pressure inside the cup. And thus, upon opening, would cause the liquid to at least slosh out.
That is technically squeezing the cup. Just in another direction. But ok, let me rephrase. You have to somehow decrease the volume of the cup. Better?
It came out when she opened the cup. Also, you also talk about how people must handle their coffee carefully. There have been several instances of people being burned by McDonalds employees spilling coffee on them, and at least one full cup of coffee spilled at the drive through. You think after the coffee gets absorbed and close to your skin that you can get all your clothes off in two to seven seconds in a car. I don’t think so. This person was also physically disfigured and disabled. The coffee is to be hot, even burning hot, but once again, not 3rd degree causing hot.If someone pours hot coffee on you (or somehow drop a piano on your head), we have a entirely different senario. In that case it would be the fault of McDonald's. As I have argued (too many times now), this case wasn't like that.
This is referring to the fact about her being disabled for two years, at which you also responded “When you act carelessly you could suffer severe consequences...so...?” I’ve actually boiled Ramen and dumped it on my hand thinking there was a bowl there. I did not incur 3rd degree burns. The fact that she was disabled for two years shows how dangerous the coffee is. Even if it you to spill it on yourself, selling something that will disable you for two years in unacceptable. And, it doesn’t take a moron to spill stuff on yourself.
Accidents do happen, and you dont have to be a moron to have an accident. But again totally irrelevant. She cause the accident, not McDonald's. She should have acted with more care since she knew she could get burnt, but she didn't.
Yes if you drink coffee at brewing temperature you will get burnt, very quickly. However, the point is at serving temperature of McDonalds coffee you also get burnt, very quickly as well. Considering how it’s served at 185 degrees on average.
Ok, I don't know about you. But the temp at where I consum my coffee would cause burn wounds if I poured it over my skin and negelected to chill the exposed area. So? Coffee is hot. :confused:
All McDonalds did was lower the holding temperature to consumable levels. They didn’t change anything else about their 49 cent coffee. I would say that consumable coffee makes better coffee than non-consumable damaging coffee.It will still cause burn wounds if you our it down you lap and negelected to chill the exposed area. Nothing has changed really, but that the consumers are more likely to get lukewarm coffee.
Your response doesn’t answer this question and coffee held at 185 degrees is a hazard.Yes, it did.
Brew temp. -> consume fresh -> hot coffee.
You think that McDonalds giving coffee at 185 degrees, and they do (did) give it at 185 degrees is not negligent. yes
They know it will burn you and that you can’t drink it without causing serious burns even after minutes of serving. All hot beverages will cause burn wounds at consumption temperature unless you chill of the exposed area quickly.
Refering to the fact that McDonald holds the temperature for a business descision rather than a culinary one. I find this odd that you agree with this when you've been agrueing that McDonalds coffee needs to be served at 3rd degree causing temperature because of the taste. It is good business i.e. make as much money as possible to serve the best coffee as possible given the raw material.
Oh, and coffee served at 160 degrees is not considered luke warm. No it isnt. nevertheless, it will still cause burn wounds (try if you dont believe me).
Moreover, as temperature will always coverge logarithmically towards the room temp. more people are likely to get lukewarm coffee

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Sympathetic response. Do you have a grandmother?
I just think he worded it bit too strongly. I think everybody feel sympaphy for the old lady, but that is besides the point. The point is whether this a legitimate law suit. I argue that it isn't.
But that is just how I see it.

[Goliath]

Talking of frivilous lawsuits! This years winners of the Stella Awards

The Stellas are named after 81 year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's (in NM). That case inspired the Stella awards for the most frivolous, ridiculous, successful lawsuits in the USA

Here are this year's winners:


5th Place(tie):

Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by a
jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was
running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were
understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little
toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.


5th Place(tie):

19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeleswon $74,000 and medical
expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr.
Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car
when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

5th Place(tie):

Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house
he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get
the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning.
He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and
garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, and Mr.
Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the
homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental
anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.

4th Place:

Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and
medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door
neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard.
The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr Williams who had climbed over the fence into the yard and was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

3rd Place:

A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and
broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms.
Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

2nd Place:

Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner
of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom
window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.



1st Place:

This year's run away winner was Mrs. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma. Mrs. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, (from an OU football game), having driven onto the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make herself a sandwich. Not
surprisingly, the RV left the freeway, crashed and over turned. Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising her in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded her $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other complete morons around.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Talking of frivilous lawsuits!
Hillarious... :D if it wasn't for the fact that we all have to pay more next time we buy something or get an issurance just because of these morons. :(

[Punani]

I would think dornoforpyros comments are too strongly worded but the point is that she put it in between her thighs and continue driving with it. We have seen it even in movies like "One fine day", Guy Ritchie & Madonna short BMW clip so on, that coffees get spilled when you do stunts like that, it's obvious that it is dangerous doing that.Actually, her grandson was driving and pulled over to allow her to put sugar and cream into the coffee...

[Punani]

According to Wikipedia, "[The McDonald's coffee case] has spawned a commonly forwarded email entitled "The Stella Awards", which consists of fabricated lawsuits that are claimed to be true." :cool:

[Dr.Gargoyle]

According to Wikipedia, "[The McDonald's coffee case] has spawned a commonly forwarded email entitled "The Stella Awards", which consists of fabricated lawsuits that are claimed to be true." :cool:
Call me silly, but I still find them funny... :p

[MontyZ]

The Stellas are named after 81 year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's (in NM). That case inspired the Stella awards for the most frivolous, ridiculous, successful lawsuits in the USA
This is hilarious. The above statement doesn't mean that the McDonald's coffee lawsuit was fabricated, it says that the Stella Awards is inspired by that real case. It also says they include firvilous lawsuits, which doesn't mean they are fabricated.

[pseudobrit]

Wow. This thread has really derailed. People are popping in and making arguments that were refuted on pages 1 or 2.

People are dumb. They'll spill coffee on themselves. And, apparently, they'll believe anything they hear.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Wow. This thread has really derailed. People are popping in and making arguments that were refuted on pages 1 or 2.

People are dumb. They'll spill coffee on themselves. And, apparently, they'll believe anything they hear.
I thought the discussion had ended? What are you specifically reffering to? :confused:

[pseudobrit]

I thought the discussion had ended? What are you specifically reffering to? :confused:

People saying frivolous lawsuits increase prices, that she was trying to drive when the coffee spilled and now that the Stella Awards are real (there are real ones, but the ones posted here are not real (http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html))

[skunk]

Actually, her grandson was driving and pulled over to allow her to put sugar and cream into the coffee...Hey, don't start introducing facts into the discussion. If we're not talking about a "STUPID OLD WOMAN DRIVER" where's the fun? You might force people to imagine how dismissively they'd treat a case of their own wife, daughter or girlfriend getting seriously burnt trying to get the lid off a really hot, awful coffee. "It was your own stupid fault, darling."

[Dr.Gargoyle]

People saying frivolous lawsuits increase prices, that she was trying to drive when the coffee spilled and now that the Stella Awards are real (there are real ones, but the ones posted here are not real (http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html))
Well, I am done with this discussion. I dont think it helps beating this corpse anymore.

[skunk]

Nice turn of phrase, Doctor.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

If it wasn't for the fact that you can't agree on disagreeing, I would go for that. But, but it was fun as long it lasted... :)

[snkTab]

If it wasn't for the fact that you can't agree on disagreeing, I would go for that. But, but it was fun as long it lasted... :)

I agree, arguing is fun, if not idiotic. Err... I mean I disagree

[Les Kern]

People saying frivolous lawsuits increase prices, that she was trying to drive when the coffee spilled and now that the Stella Awards are real (there are real ones, but the ones posted here are not real (http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html))

EXACTLY. And these types of things perpetuate the fallacy that frivolous lawsuits increase insurance rates. It's all crap, but in the mind of the lazy-ass it makes perfect sense.
By the way, my first two cars were Pintos. The first one was totalled in a rear-end collision... with ME in it. Tore the seat off the floor and the entire back of the car was in the back seat. They estimated the car that hit me was going 45mph. Didn't explode, but my freaking neck STILL hurts. Built Ford Tough, dude.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

EXACTLY. And these types of things perpetuate the fallacy that frivolous lawsuits increase insurance rates. It's all crap, but in the mind of the lazy-ass it makes perfect sense.
By the way, my first two cars were Pintos. The first one was totalled in a rear-end collision... with ME in it. Tore the seat off the floor and the entire back of the car was in the back seat. They estimated the car that hit me was going 45mph. Didn't explode, but my freaking neck STILL hurts. Built Ford Tough, dude.
Ehm, please don't let us start up this again, but isn't it pretty obvious if for example a hospital have an insurance against malpractice, and the insurance company has to honor this insurance a lot of times, that the premium will rise? This in turn increases the costs for the hospitals which eventually will boil down to higher prices.

[MongoTheGeek]

Oh how right you are. Millions are being spent on those calculations. It was either Ford or GM (I forgot, but look it up if you want) who calculated that it was cheaper to have X number of accidents and X number of death payoffs then it would have been to replace a faulty part. In one respect it's just a "normal" business decision. On the other hand it makes the company look like they love a dollar more than they love us. Unfortunately there is no budget line item called "The greater good".

It did happen.

It was with the Pinto. The gas tank was insufficiently shielded from collisions. There was a chance during collisions that passengers might be sprayed with gasoline and ignited.

Lawyers got a hold of the engineering document. The whole thing turned into a giant C F for the car maker. Bad publicity, settlements. When the dust settled the engineers had nailed the number to within 5%.

There are costs and benefits to everything and yes, frighteningly enough people are worth money and one of the things about being an engineer that you have to face is that something you design will kill people. Its part of the job. If you don't want risk dozens of human lives, be something with less responsibility like a doctor or a lawyer.

If you want to say how can you compare lives to money. Think about how much life insurance you carry. That is your estimate of what you are worth to your friends and family.

[Don't panic]

if you go to the real stellawards site, they have a breakdown of the story (which I guess is correct)
...Much of the coverage about Stella Liebeck has been grossly unfair. When you have a more complete summary of the facts, you might change your mind about her. Or maybe not -- that's up to you. Did you know the following aspects of the Stella vs. McDonald's case?
Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off her scalding McDonald's coffee. Her grandson was driving the car, and he had pulled over to stop so she could add cream and sugar to the cup.
Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation, including skin grafts. McDonald's refused an offer to settle with her for $20,000 in medical costs.
McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Such burns require skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments to heal, and the resulting scarring is typically permanent.
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, usually slightly but sometimes seriously, resulting in some number of other claims and lawsuits.
Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature, admitted that it did not warn customers of this risk, could offer no explanation as to why it did not, and testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat even though it admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it is too hot.
While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20 percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages that were awarded.

But...
The resulting $640,000 isn't the end either. Liebeck and McDonald's entered into secret settlement negotiations rather than go to appeal. The amount of the settlement is not known -- it's secret!
The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?
Even in the eyes of an obviously sympathetic jury, Stella was judged to be 20 percent at fault -- she did, after all, spill the coffee into her lap all by herself. The car was stopped, so she presumably was not bumped to cause the spill. Indeed she chose to hold the coffee cup between her knees instead of any number of safer locations as she opened it. Should she have taken more responsibility for her own actions?

And...
Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit". (Source: NCAUSA.) Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?

i don't think she was a moron or did anything exceedingly stupid, but i mantain as well that MD wasn't responsible (and I despise MD). Ultimately she was responsible and MD should have been held responsible at most for medical bills (which they should have offered to pay in the first place anyway).

[skunk]

ii don't think she was a moron or did anything exceedingly stupid, but i mantain as well that MD wasn't responsible (and I despise MD). Ultimately she was responsible and MD should have been held responsible at most for medical bills (which they should have offered to pay in the first place anyway).Either McD were responsible, or they weren't. Make up your mind. :rolleyes:

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Isn't this thread dead yet?
This horse won't stop kicking will it? :p

[pseudobrit]

Ehm, please don't let us start up this again, but isn't it pretty obvious if for example a hospital have an insurance against malpractice, and the insurance company has to honor this insurance a lot of times, that the premium will rise? This in turn increases the costs for the hospitals which eventually will boil down to higher prices.

Insurance costs are a fraction of the reason for rising medical costs. My PPO admitted such in a little seminar at the beginning of this year.

Number one is new construction. Number two is increasing prescription costs. After that, you must factor in that all the advances we're making in medicine cost lots of money. Insurance is a small percentage, and malpractice insurance is only a fraction included within that percentage.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Insurance costs are a fraction of the reason for rising medical costs. My PPO admitted such in a little seminar at the beginning of this year.

Number one is new construction. Number two is increasing prescription costs. After that, you must factor in that all the advances we're making in medicine cost lots of money. Insurance is a small percentage, and malpractice insurance is only a fraction included within that percentage.
I don't doubt your sources. My point was just that these law suits jack up the prices on both the premium and goods. Perhaps not as much on the goods as on the premium, that eventually forces small business owners with very small margins go out of business.
There are other much more serious repercussions from these law suits, when medical doctors as a result of law suits don't use good medical practise.
Births by cesarean section are much more common in US, mainly due to less exposure for law suits. These c sections are not made in care of the mother or the unborn child, but rather from economical reasons. Some insurance companies have even refuse to sell malpractise insurances to doctors that practise "natural" birth when there is no reason for a c section.
I don't want to start a new marathon debate by this, just stress the point I have been trying to argue in this seemingly endless discussion.
Trigger happy customers/lawyers slapping business with law suits as soon as they can, is not good for society.
ok, I will shut up now ;)

[jelloshotsrule]

Do you really think McDonald's intentionally and knowingly served too hot coffee to harm this poor woman? Harm is the keyword. It would be bad business to intentionally harm people. I doubt you would get many customers.


do you really think that the manufacturer of the car you talked about in the gas pump example built it that way to HARM someone? harm IS the keyword, but you're missing the point that even if they didn't build some consumer product for which the main use is causing harm, there is a threshold for harm that can be caused by accident. should cars have no safety standards at all? just because the cars don't build them to HARM the driver???



in addition to whoever said that McD keeps the temp very high so that it stays warm on the trip home, it was also found that they used the higher temperature to create a more aromatic coffee in order to lure in customers to buy it. yes, this is acceptable to a point, but again, not when the profit margins create unsafe conditions

[Don't panic]

Either McD were responsible, or they weren't. Make up your mind. :rolleyes:

i thought i made clear that I think they were not responsible (she was), but that they should have offered to pay for the medical expenses. If found responsible or co-responsible, they should only be accountable for the medicale expenses, not punitive damages. hope it's clearer now.

[Don't panic]

in addition to whoever said that McD keeps the temp very high so that it stays warm on the trip home, it was also found that they used the higher temperature to create a more aromatic coffee in order to lure in customers to buy it. yes, this is acceptable to a point, but again, not when the profit margins create unsafe conditions

but there were using the same temperatures suggested by the National Coffee Association of USA (http://www.ncausa.org/public/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71), hardly an out-of-line, callous conduct

[Dr.Gargoyle]

do you really think that the manufacturer of the car you talked about in the gas pump example built it that way to HARM someone? harm IS the keyword, but you're missing the point that even if they didn't build some consumer product for which the main use is causing harm, there is a threshold for harm that can be caused by accident. should cars have no safety standards at all? just because the cars don't build them to HARM the driver???



in addition to whoever said that McD keeps the temp very high so that it stays warm on the trip home, it was also found that they used the higher temperature to create a more aromatic coffee in order to lure in customers to buy it. yes, this is acceptable to a point, but again, not when the profit margins create unsafe conditions
Good points.
However, I do see a difference in selling a non complex product as a cup of coffee and a very complex product as a car.
I argued that the intentions why McD served their coffee hot was for the benefit of the customer. In fact it would consum less energy (and thus get cheaper) if they served the coffee colder.
The fact that coffee should be hot, should have been selfevident for the lady and thus be treated with care and not be kept ebtween her thighs.
As someone above mentioned 1 in 24 million seem to have managed to drink the coffee without harming themselves.
Cars are of course much more complex. Here we have to trust that the manufactors build a safe car. You have no practical possibilties to check whether the car is safe. The fuel pump I was talking about before could have been made to shut off in a car crash. It would have just costed a few more dollars. If you would have asked the customers whether they wanted to pay those extra dollars to have the fuel pump shut off, so they wouldn't be burnt alive, they most certainly would have done so.
In comparision, I am not so sure if people would have wanted their coffee cold. I wouldn't.
In the Ford case, the faulty fuel pump was intentionally installed knowing that this would kill people in car crashes. If Ford had told people that this would have been the case, then it would have been up to each person to weigh the pros and cons. But they did not do that. Instead the deceitfully installed an inferior fuelpump in a car, and when the first crashes came they outlawyered the poor souls that ha dthe great misfortune to by that crappy car. Trust me when I tell you 75% 3rd degree burn wounds is in a totally different ballpark than 6% or 16% for that matter.
To sum up
In Fords case a car was sold with a inferior fuelpump. This was made deceitfully, just to be able to sell the car at a competitive price and yet keep the margins for Ford. A car is not intended to pump out fuel after it has crashed. Hence, this add up to harm.
In McD's case the coffee was served hot because that is how it is supposed to be served. There was no harm intended.

[jelloshotsrule]

but there were using the same temperatures suggested by the National Coffee Association of USA (http://www.ncausa.org/public/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71), hardly an out-of-line, callous conduct

from your link:

Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction.

that's for *brewing*. not for holding (as so very many have pointed out in this thread). one can heat up the coffee like crazy, but to serve it as such a temperature is unsafe. also, just curious why i should take some group that is trying to sell coffee as the law on what is and isn't safe?

i don't care about "optimal brewing temperature". i care about a safe serving temperature.

[jelloshotsrule]

dr-

you're ignoring the fact that there is a middle ground between 3rd degree burn causing heat and cold.

why you choose to ignore the middle ground i do not know.


personally, i wasn't so involved with the case that i could say who should get what, but i know enough to realize that it wasn't "frivolous" or worth naming some dumb "awards" after the lady.

now, the wendy's finger lady, that's different...

[Dr.Gargoyle]

dr-

you're ignoring the fact that there is a middle ground between 3rd degree burn causing heat and cold.

why you choose to ignore the middle ground i do not know.


personally, i wasn't so involved with the case that i could say who should get what, but i know enough to realize that it wasn't "frivolous" or worth naming some dumb "awards" after the lady.

now, the wendy's finger lady, that's different...
As I have pointed out before, even if you get very hot water on you it does not necessarily implies burn wounds. It as about a combination with exposure time, heat, and how well the energy is transfered to your skin.
You can expose you skin to more or less boiling water without suffering 3rd degree burn wounds if you for example minimize the exposure time. Look at my post ....and now boys and girls, some basic thermodynamics.
Just as boiling water casue severe burn wounds, less hot water (at serving temperature) will cause burn wounds if the temp is above the temp where protein coagulate and the exposure time is long enough (compare boiling eggs)

To sum up: my guess is that since this lady
a) was strapped in a car,
b) was elderly, and
c) the area where she was exposed
made the wounds much worse than they had to be.

Coffee is hot. It will burn you if you handle it carelessly. How bad is determined on temp and exposure time.

I wouldn't say this lady was dumb. She was an older woman and as you get older you are prone to mess up more, but that doesn't give her the right to sue people when she do. I do feel pitty for her, and as I see it (from a moral stand point) McD should have paid for her medical bills. But that is it, they were not legally commited to do so.
As I have understood it, the lady was pushed by some ambulance chasers to persue this law suit. IMHO, this law suit had no merits, and should never had been allowed to take up the courts time.

[Don't panic]

from your link:



that's for *brewing*. not for holding (as so very many have pointed out in this thread). one can heat up the coffee like crazy, but to serve it as such a temperature is unsafe. also, just curious why i should take some group that is trying to sell coffee as the law on what is and isn't safe?

i don't care about "optimal brewing temperature". i care about a safe serving temperature.

if cared to read on, a few lines below it says that "temperature should be mantained at 180-185 degrees fahrenheit", which is what McD was doing. And the point was not to imply that it's safe to spill hot coffee onto yourself. It isn't. But what McD was doing was not some outreageous procedure. it was an accepted way to brew and serve coffee.
And the cup didn't explode or melt, she opened it and somehow the coffee ended in her lap.
she didn't/couldn't get up or chill in time and she got severe burns.
If someone spilled the coffee on her it would be different, if the cup exploded in her face it would be different, if she ordered a coke and got hot coffee it would be different.
But she got what she wanted to get, and an accident ensued because of something she (or the car's driver) did, not McD.

[Punani]

if cared to read on, a few lines below it says that "temperature should be mantained at 180-185 degrees fahrenheit", which is what McD was doing. And the point was not to imply that it's safe to spill hot coffee onto yourself. It isn't. But what McD was doing was not some outreageous procedure. it was an accepted way to brew and serve coffee.
And the cup didn't explode or melt, she opened it and somehow the coffee ended in her lap.
she didn't/couldn't get up or chill in time and she got severe burns.
If someone spilled the coffee on her it would be different, if the cup exploded in her face it would be different, if she ordered a coke and got hot coffee it would be different.
But she got what she wanted to get, and an accident ensued because of something she (or the car's driver) did, not McD.
The suggested procedures that the National Coffee Assocation published were accounted for during the trial. However, the fact that no other restaurant kept its coffee at that temperature indicated that the risks of burning were known and that McDonald's chose not to take the initiative in safety.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

The suggested procedures that the National Coffee Assocation published were accounted for during the trial. However, the fact that no other restaurant kept its coffee at that temperature indicated that the risks of burning were known and that McDonald's chose not to take the initiative in safety.
So just because everybody else does it wrong, McD should too?

[jelloshotsrule]

So just because everybody else does it wrong, McD should too?

why is "wrong" dictated by some people who want to sell more coffee with no concern for safety

dr- i read the thermodynamics post already, and i see what you're saying. however, i do think that mcd has to account for the manner in which many of their patrons will consume the beverage (in the car). are they wholly responsible? no, but the court decided that too.

don't panic - i admit i didn't read down, but as you said "if you cared to read..." hah and i didn't. :) but punani's point stands. and i point out my own position of why should a coffee association determine something that could also be a safety hazard in certain situations? and not even extreme/rare occasions..


i'll say again, i don't care whether the woman gets the money or not really, however i do not think it's an open and shut case of a frivolous lawsuit in the least

[Sun Baked]

To sum up: my guess is that since this lady
a) was strapped in a car,
b) was elderly, and
c) the area where she was exposed
made the wounds much worse than they had to be.Here... don't use this "knee method" to remove the top to add cream/sugar.
Stella Liebeck (http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm) , 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. According to Stella Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:and as Don't panic said , McD's followed the Coffee Brewing book.

But the ladies name is everywhere.

Basically she was trapped, she didn't have the 2-7 seconds to stop the burn -- nor the knowledge to avoid making the burn worse.

I've stuck my hand into a McD's 365°F grease vat (yes, it was on and at full temp), and got nothing more than a 1st degree burn.

But I also had a vat of ice cream to immediately cool my hand, so I had an itchy red hand for a week.

[Punani]

So just because everybody else does it wrong, McD should too?This case is not about the best way to brew a cup of coffee. Continuing to mull over this nuance is not establishing anything.

What this case boils down is a question of: do most people expect coffee purchased at a fast food restaurant to cause third-degree burns? No, I don't think so. The argument of common sense or the optimal method to brew and hold coffee is not particularly valid here because again, most people don't think so. I honestly do not think most people actually know the "optimal temperature of coffee," and in fact, I seriously doubt they actually care.

Similarly, in the case of the Ford Pinto. Did most people expect the car to have a defect like that? No, and if one knows that fact, that does not invalidate such a statement.

[Don't panic]

...however i do not think it's an open and shut case of a frivolous lawsuit in the least
the fact that some among the most highly educated, intelligent and good-looking people across multiple countries are discussing the case on these boards without reaching a consensus, apparently indicates that you're right on this point. On this, I'll rest my case and let the jury decide. :)



... no, wait!

[Sun Baked]

What this case boils down is a question of: do most people expect coffee purchased at a fast food restaurant to cause third-degree burns? No, I don't think so.Most people when they dump a cup of coffee in their crotch don't reach over and dump a cold beverage in their lap either.

They usually practice the jump and scream method...

[Dr.Gargoyle]

why is "wrong" dictated by some people who want to sell more coffee with no concern for safety

dr- i read the thermodynamics post already, and i see what you're saying. however, i do think that mcd has to account for the manner in which many of their patrons will consume the beverage (in the car). are they wholly responsible? no, but the court decided that too.

don't panic - i admit i didn't read down, but as you said "if you cared to read..." hah and i didn't. :) but punani's point stands. and i point out my own position of why should a coffee association determine something that could also be a safety hazard in certain situations? and not even extreme/rare occasions..


i'll say again, i don't care whether the woman gets the money or not really, however i do not think it's an open and shut case of a frivolous lawsuit in the least

The main reason why I think people react very strongly, emotionally even, are due to the people involved. Here we have big bad McD and a nice old granny. But we have to look past that. Too be honest, if it was my own grandmother, I could see myself with a baseball bat together with the manager of the place in dark alley. BUT, one of the ground pillars of a good society is that justice is blind. It has to be consistent, no matter who stands on what side.

I can't recall that I ever have had a coffee at McD, but when I do drink coffee I am particular about how it taste (that is perhaps why I never had any coffee at McD). The fact that McD tries to make good coffee is in my opinion commendable. Ok, they might have a long way to go, but it is a start.
It wasn't long ago when all europeans dreaded the american coffee. I won't
go into details, but we had some serious objections on how it tasted.
The fact remains, coffee should be brewed at temp around 200F and it should be served hot.
McD sell coffee at a drive-through. When they sell the coffee it is too hot for most people to consume. If you still insist in drinking the coffee while you are riding a car, it is an accident just waitning to happen. McD might have known that most people prefered to drink the coffee directly and in the car. But they didnt regard that as a problem since just one in 24 million failed to do so. The question now is whether we should say ok one in 24 million failed, this is not acceptable we have to lower the temp. Let us assume that we lower the temp, as someone here before suggested, to 145.
Now you suddenly have a lot of disgruntal customers, but let us ignore that.

My guess is that one in perhaps 500 million would manage to drink the coffee safely. But there will always be this person that for some reason fails to do it safely. Who knows it could be that this person have a car crash while drinking his/her coffee. The consequens of your arguments would be that McD would be guilty in this case too, since the willingly sold coffee that they knew the customer would intend to drink as soon as possible, probably in the car, perhaps even driving.
We could go on lowering temp, providing safe sturdy see-through cups... on and on forever. It doesnt matter how we would go about it, there would always be this person that failed. It could be you, it could be me. We are humans, and it is in our nature to mess up.
The ultimate question is what kind of society we want. Do we really want to to engage in the futile task to make everything fool proof? Would we really like to live in that society?
I wouldn't.
I know that I mess up sometimes, because I am human. And because I am human, I want someone to blame. The sorry fact is that sometimes you dont have anyone else to blame than yourself.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

This case is not about the best way to brew a cup of coffee. Continuing to mull over this nuance is not establishing anything.

What this case boils down is a question of: do most people expect coffee purchased at a fast food restaurant to cause third-degree burns? No, I don't think so. The argument of common sense or the optimal method to brew and hold coffee is not particularly valid here because again, most people don't think so. I honestly do not think most people actually know the "optimal temperature of coffee," and in fact, I seriously doubt they actually care.

Similarly, in the case of the Ford Pinto. Did most people expect the car to have a defect like that? No, and if one knows that fact, that does not invalidate such a statement.
As always what you expect isn't necessarly what is going to be. If the consequenses are dire, it should be common sense to check before you assume too much.
Should I interpret that as you argue most people dont have common sense and that we should reward them for that??

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Most people when they dump a cup of coffee in their crotch don't reach over and dump a cold beverage in their lap either.

They usually practice the jump and scream method...
LMAO.... :D

[pseudobrit]

In the Ford case, the faulty fuel pump was intentionally installed knowing that this would kill people in car crashes. If Ford had told people that this would have been the case, then it would have been up to each person to weigh the pros and cons. But they did not do that. Instead the deceitfully installed an inferior fuelpump in a car, and when the first crashes came they outlawyered the poor souls that ha dthe great misfortune to by that crappy car.

This is not what happened with the Pinto. It has nothing to do with the fuel pump. Did you read the link? Are you following this thread?

[pseudobrit]

Good points.
However, I do see a difference in selling a non complex product as a cup of coffee and a very complex product as a car...

Cars are of course much more complex. Here we have to trust that the manufactors build a safe car.

Why can't we trust McDonald's to serve a safe cup of coffee?

You have no practical possibilties to check whether the car is safe.

That's simply not the case.

In McD's case the coffee was served hot because that is how it is supposed to be served. There was no harm intended.

McDonald's knew its coffee had severely burned people before and they made no changes whatsoever. How is that different from Ford not recalling the Pinto when they knew it might cause people to be severely burned?

[Dr.Gargoyle]

This is not what happened with the Pinto. It has nothing to do with the fuel pump. Did you read the link? Are you following this thread?
Comment on what I wrote, not what you think I wrote, please

do you really think that the manufacturer of the car you talked about in the gas pump example built it that way to HARM someone? harm IS the keyword, but you're missing the point that even if they didn't build some consumer product for which the main use is causing harm, there is a threshold for harm that can be caused by accident. should cars have no safety standards at all? just because the cars don't build them to HARM the driver???
This is what I responded to, not the Pinto case

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Why can't we trust McDonald's to serve a safe cup of coffee?
I believe I have answered that a couple of times now. There are no fool proof devices and coffee is hot.
That's simply not the case.
Am I to understand that you dissemble any car you buy into small pieces and check every little pieces functionality?
McDonald's knew its coffee had severely burned people before and they made no changes whatsoever. How is that different from Ford not recalling the Pinto when they knew it might cause people to be severely burned?
Again, I think I wrote that in my post. However I wasn't referring to Ford Pinto. Ford has, as you probabliy know, messed up many times in past history. The Pinto case is merely one of many. For example, consider Ford Explorers inferior tires.

[skunk]

The main reason why I think people react very strongly, emotionally even, are due to the people involved. Here we have big bad McD and a nice old granny. But we have to look past that. Too be honest, if it was my own grandmother, I could see myself with a baseball bat together with the manager of the place in dark alley. BUT, one of the ground pillars of a good society is that justice is blind. It has to be consistent, no matter who stands on what side.Fascinating insight here: you argue at length that McDonalds are not responsible, and yet here you are threatening to beat the manager's brains out with a baseball bat. Blind justice indeed.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Fascinating insight here: you argue at length that McDonalds are not responsible, and yet here you are threatening to beat the manager's brains out with a baseball bat. Blind justice indeed.
My point was just that what we feel emotionally and what is justice are two separate things. I don't condone violence by any means, but I do think we react differently when someone we have emotional ties to gets hurt than we do for a big international coorperation. My guess is that we are more likely to feel sympathy with the old lady than with McD. Not because of what happened, but for who they are.
We wouldn't need courts if we were objective, just enforcers of law.

Do you really think you would be able to judge a case like the above in an objective manner if the person that was hurt was someone close to you?

I was just being honest when I said I am quite sure that I wouldn't. Not implying that I would "beat the manager's brains out", but my guess is that I would look for someone guilty of causing her pain, since I doubt that I would come to the conclusion that it was my grandmothers own fault.

[skunk]

Do you really think you would be able to judge a case like the above in an objective manner if the person that was hurt was someone close to you?I guess I'm just surprised how easily quickly some people reach for their baseball bats...

I mean, it's just cricket for girls, isn't it? :p

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I guess I'm just surprised how easily quickly some people reach for their baseball bats...

I mean, it's just cricket for girls, isn't it? :p

It was a manner of speaking, I hope you understand that.
To be honest, I have never understood the charm of baseball or cricket for that matter. Please don't flame me for that. I am painfully aware of my lack of refinement. :p
I wouldn't call baseball as cricket for girls. However, I would descibe that thing these people on the other side of the puddle have the audacity to call football, as a sissy variant of rugby. :D
How dare they rename a sport played by billions all over the world to soccer??? :eek: It is called football. The name is taken.... hmmm ,we should consider suing? :P
(I am soooo in trouble now)

[skunk]

It was a manner of speaking, I hope you understand that.I do. ;)
However, I would descibe that thing these people on the other side of the puddle have the audacity to call football, as a sissy variant of rugby. :D
How dare they rename a sport played by billions all over the world to soccer??? :eek: It is called football. The name is taken.... hmmm ,we should consider suing? :P
(I am soooo in trouble now)You'll certainly be in trouble with the players of rugby football.
:D

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I do. ;)
You'll certainly be in trouble with the players of rugby football.
:D
Excellent, I forgot you came from the civilized side of the puddle.
Hmmm, shouldn't it be the armoured players of american soft rugby football? ;)

[pseudobrit]

Comment on what I wrote, not what you think I wrote, please

This is what I responded to, not the Pinto case

I saw no other Ford cases being discussed in this thread, and certainly not in your post or the one you quoted.

[pseudobrit]

I believe I have answered that a couple of times now. There are no fool proof devices and coffee is hot.

There are no foolproof cars and they are fast and heavy. When they're found to be inherently in a state of endangering people's health, the manufacturer is responsible to recall and remedy this problem.

McDonald's knew its coffee was endangering people. And they did nothing. On purpose.

Am I to understand that you dissemble any car you buy into small pieces and check every little pieces functionality?

You stated there were "no practical possibilties to check whether the car is safe."

The NHTSA crash tests cars and releases results. They also require specific safety standards on all new cars. The IIHS also crash tests cars and publishes results.

Those are very practical possibilities to check how safe a particular car model is.

Again, I think I wrote that in my post. However I wasn't referring to Ford Pinto. Ford has, as you probabliy know, messed up many times in past history.

Could you tell us to which case you refer? Fuel pumps have not been discussed in this thread.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I saw no other Ford cases being discussed in this thread, and certainly not in your post or the one you quoted.
Read again, page 2:
That is just as crazy as the settlements in these frivolous law suits. I know an example where a young man was severly injured in a car accident since Ford made an unsafe fuel pump that kept on pumping gas after an accident. Ford knew about it, be neglected to change the fuel pump since it would cost too much money. The guy I am talking about suffered 75% 3rd degree burn wounds. (=almost certain death) He survived, but lost both his legs. The medicalbills for the first 72 hours exceeded $500.000 by far.
The case I am referring to is a bit too close for me to be objective. Just consider it as an example on a situation where you have no practical means to make an objective judgement about safety. As long as you dont dissemble the car, that is...
note: it was an Ford Escort.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

There are no foolproof cars and they are fast and heavy. When they're found to be inherently in a state of endangering people's health, the manufacturer is responsible to recall and remedy this problem.
Again as a wrote above. Cars are more complex. We have to trust the car manufactures not to include any "unpleasant surprises", since we have not practical means to check this ourselves. We do have the option to check weather the coffee cup and the coffee can be considered safe.
I hope this is the last time I have to make this distinction.
McDonald's knew its coffee was endangering people. And they did nothing. On purpose.
I believe I have commented that already.
You stated there were "no practical possibilties to check whether the car is safe."

The NHTSA crash tests cars and releases results. They also require specific safety standards on all new cars. The IIHS also crash tests cars and publishes results.

Those are very practical possibilities to check how safe a particular car model is.
Did these tests find the faulty gas tank in the Ford Pinto? Did these tests find out that Ford Explorers would roll-over and kill people?
Crash tests are a very crude way to determine whether a car is safe. Moreover, since these crash tests only includes certain types of crashes, many car manufactures optimize their cars such that they get as good score as possible for these types of crashes.
National organizations have been conduction crash tests for years, and they get more and more refined for each year. Nevertheless, due to the extreme complexity of a car crash (infinite number of variables) any computer simulations or real life crash test remains at best a very crude instrument to determine whether a car is safe or not.
Since there are no national organisations that yearly conducts spill tests of coffee, I really hope you can see that a evalutaing a car crash is at least slightly more complex than a evalutaing a spilled cup of coffee. I also hope that you now can see the difference between the complexity of analyzing how safe a car is and how safe a cup of coffee is, since I have no intention to repeat myself in this matter one more time.
Could you tell us to which case you refer? Fuel pumps have not been discussed in this thread.
See previous post.

[hmmfe]

What this case boils down is a question of: do most people expect coffee purchased at a fast food restaurant to cause third-degree burns? No, I don't think so. The argument of common sense or the optimal method to brew and hold coffee is not particularly valid here because again, most people don't think so. I honestly do not think most people actually know the "optimal temperature of coffee," and in fact, I seriously doubt they actually care.


The problem with your argument is that coffee served at 160 degrees will also cause 3rd degree burns (it just takes a few seconds longer). Since this is the temp. that most other restaurants serve their coffee, it would appear that your logic would open up all restaurants to this type of liability. If you are going to use this as the benchmark for determining liability, then coffee would have to be served at below 130 degrees to be relatively safe from 3rd degree burns.

The legal test of liability that you are proposing simply won't work and creates too high a burden for any company.

[MontyZ]

I can't believe the debate over this coffee incident is STILL going on! You guys crack me up! :D

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I can't believe the debate over this coffee incident is STILL going on! You guys crack me up! :D
It is not ongoing anymore. We just repeat it over and over again. :rolleyes: