83-Year Old Suing Apple After Walking into Glass Doors at Retail Store

[jacobj]

1. The coffee caused her third degree burns because she was wearing sweatpants and the liquid stayed on her skin longer enough to produce them. So McDonalds was to blame for that?

I have no opinion on this case, but will point out that ideal coffee brewing temperature is around 92C. Any hotter and the coffee itself burns and goes bitter. 92C will cause burns if left in contact with the skin after just a few seconds.

Placing a liquid with the potential to scald in a precarious position cannot be blamed on the provider of the liquid unless the liquid is hotter than can be reasonably expected.

I suspect that te coffee was kept at a higher temperature (after brewing) and that there was a case for the woman to argue that she would have expected it too have cooled down to a reasonable level.

The question would therefore be, does McD serve coffee that is hotter than normal in Order to ensure that it remains warmer for longer?

 

[WhoAmI2]

I have no opinion on this case, but will point out that ideal coffee brewing temperature is around 92C. Any hotter and the coffee itself burns and goes bitter. 92C will cause burns if left in contact with the skin after just a few seconds.

Placing a liquid with the potential to scald in a precarious position cannot be blamed on the provider of the liquid unless the liquid is hotter than can be reasonably expected.

I suspect that te coffee was kept at a higher temperature (after brewing) and that there was a case for the woman to argue that she would have expected it too have cooled down to a reasonable level.

The question would therefore be, does McD serve coffee that is hotter than normal in Order to ensure that it remains warmer for longer?

I don't know all the facts of this case either but Arn seemed to know the facts and made a very informative post related to it. I guess the individual was found 20% repsonsible and McD's 80%. They were keeping their coffee much hotter than the "norm" despite several warnings. THAT is why McD's had to pay. At least that is what I got out of Arns post.

 

[BvizioN]

I know this isn't a horrible, horrible lawsuit, but you should just assume the coffee is around boiling point..

Not in a world where people need a warning signs to survive. Nowdays people have to be told that hot water can burn your skin, glass can brake your nose or head if you try to go through it. I don't know about US but most countries in Europe serve coffee at a boiling point and people will try and if it's too hot will wait for it to cool a bit and also they will try to prevent themselves from having a shower with it. It's a blody common sense.

 

[bobob]

...most countries in Europe serve coffee at a boiling point...

This is not true.

 

[pdjudd]

They were keeping their coffee much hotter than the "norm" despite several warnings. THAT is why McD's had to pay. At least that is what I got out of Arns post.

This as well as having paid out many times before for similar burn cases before amongst other things. This was after all a negligence case over the temperature of said coffee being served at higher temperatures than average. I don't think at any time, the spill itself was alleged to be the fault of McDonalsds outside of the notion that they were dispensing coffee that was hotter than normal - something not disclosed.

The case was ruled on much broader terms than just a simple spill.

 

[Colpeas]

I guess the USA is the only country in the world, where people can sue other people / companies for damage caused by their own stupidity...

 

[rdowns]

enough with the mcdonalds **** already.

 

[pdjudd]

I guess the USA is the only country in the world, where people can sue other people / companies for damage caused by their own stupidity...

Again (for the umpteenth time), the spill was not the part of the suit. Get that through your head. The suit was about negligence on behalf of McDonald's who was serving their coffee at higher than average temperature and had been made aware of this over 700 times and made no effort to make their coffee at a more reasonable serving temperature to where it would not cause third degree burns in under 3 seconds.

The spill itself was not what McDonald's was being sued for. It was gross negligence in other areas. Please read the case files itself and get accurate information on what happened.

enough with the mcdonalds **** already.

I agree. I am getting real tired trying to explain the case to people who refuse to actually read about it.

 

[TheBronx]

Some of the comments on MacRumours seem like they come from five-year olds, however.

But my point was about whether these immature posters joined MacRumours after buying an Itoy, without realizing that in the past Apple was a computer company. That has nothing to do with the chronological age of the member.

I dunno, I feel like everyone here has to have known Apple was a computer company back in the day. whether not that weighed in on why they bought their itoys is up for debate

on the flip side, i doubt any of the haters knew anything about android before 2 years ago, and now they're all experts on telling apple how not to run their business, although they're clearly wrong! hehe

 

[Lennholm]

Again (for the umpteenth time), the spill was not the part of the suit. Get that through your head. The suit was about negligence on behalf of McDonald's who was serving their coffee at higher than average temperature and had been made aware of this over 700 times and made no effort to make their coffee at a more reasonable serving temperature to where it would not cause third degree burns in under 3 seconds.

The spill itself was not what McDonald's was being sued for. It was gross negligence in other areas. Please read the case files itself and get accurate information on what happened.

Perhaps Colpeas was commenting on the woman who walked into the glass door rather than the McDonalds case. Remember that thing, that this article is about? I don't blame you, you're not the only one who seem to have forgotten all about that now that this thread has gotten so waaay off track.

 

[ipmasta]

The score so far

Round 1:

Apple Store - 1
Old Lady - 0

Its bad that an old lady got hurt walking into a glass door but $75,000? This is why they have stupid labels on mcdonalds coffee cups - Caution contents hot! Because some dumbass sued when he spilled hot coffee on his nuts and claimed he didn't know it was hot coffee. Soon all apple stores will have big yellow cones and a huge sign saying this door is glass - you cannot walk through it - and show a diagram of how to open the door.

 

[blueroom]

I'm sure someone will make an iOS game out of the lady hitting the glass.

Angry Old Birds

 

[tjb1]

Are you for real?

I'm the problem with the world.

A first and third degree burn are the same thing.

No one in the world drinks black coffee.

This is amazing.

Sorry let me add since you couldnt do it yourself.

They are not the same, but they are both burns.

If you are too damn impatient to let your coffee cool you would add one of the items I listed or put it in the damn refrigerator. Ice does not make coffee not "black".

Yes you are the problem, ****ing sue happy. The way you are defending this idiot is like you were her lawyer. Probably just a 12 year old.

 

[BassPlayer]

Wonder how long before a developer creates an AR app that identifies glass walls in your path, though I'm sure Google will be building this into their heads-up display glasses.

 

[L3X]

Legal Comments

I'm not sure if the Plaintiff has a good case or not as I'm not an attorney in New York. She may. It depends on how their tort law is worded and if any other cases like this have been decided in the past. If it's a frivolous case, the court will throw it out. I have a feeling Apple may settle with her before that, though.

Obviously, the attorney felt as though it had some merit or else he would not have accepted it. Personal injury cases like this are taken on a contingent fee basis whereas the attorney will get around 30% of the final verdict or settlement. This is standard in the practice of law across the country. It helps plaintiffs with low incomes get attorneys in cases like this because they don't have to pay up front.

The white strips that were placed on the glass AFTER the accident occurred CAN NOT be used as evidence by the plaintiff trying to show Apple's liability under the Federal Rules of Evidence R. 407 (assuming they are suing in Federal court). Even if it's in state court, most state's adopt the Federal Rules of Evidence.

 

[rdowns]

The white strips that were placed on the glass AFTER the accident occurred CAN NOT be used as evidence by the plaintiff trying to show Apple's liability under the Federal Rules of Evidence R. 407 (assuming they are suing in Federal court). Even if it's in state court, most state's adopt the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Not sure where you got that but here is a pic and video showing white strips on the windows from October 2011.

http://www.eebeat.com/?p=4186

 

[L3X]

Got ya. So they were on there before the accident. The CBS article made it seem like they were just placed on there the other day.

As of Saturday warning strips had been posted on the glass at Apples Manhasset store.

So that just further shows that they won't be able to use that as evidence showing liability. If anything, that helps Apple really.

 

[faroZ06]

This is not true.

Actually, my mom serves coffee at boiling point. I think everyone does. There's a difference between "serving" and "drinking". I always serve myself tea when it's boiling, and so do restaurants.

----------

You know the Mongols killed roughly 50,000,000 people under Attila The Hun, right? I can't let a day slide by that I don't bring up that atrocity.

Well, that was the Huns, not the Mongols.

And this is straying too much. I'm not going to talk anymore about McDonald's, coffee, or world history.

 

[pdjudd]

Actually, my mom serves coffee at boiling point. I think everyone does. There's a difference between "serving" and "drinking". I always serve myself tea when it's boiling, and so do restaurants..

This is the last time i will comment on the case, but that's a big distinction that McDonalds tried to argue - the problem was that they had market research that said that customers tended to want to drink it right away - at the higher than normal temperatures that nobody had them at.

 

[scottness]

And this is straying too much. I'm not going to talk anymore about McDonald's, coffee, or world history.

How did we get from Grandma the Greedy to Attila the Hun?

 

[SrWebDeveloper]

How the McDonalds case really relates to Apple

And to the point of McDonalds .. 180-190 deg Farenheit (equals 82-88 deg in real temperature aka Celcius) is not "scalding hot" and is not an unreasonable temperature for coffee. T.

I know we're sick of talking about this coffee case, but the above is factually wrong.

During the McDonalds case the plaintiff's lawyer discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to servecoffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). The plaintiff suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts. If the coffee had been served cooler, around 145F, it would still be scalding but the consumer would have a few seconds to wipe it off without suffering 3rd degree burns on bare skin. It's those few seconds that mattered, and note the brewing temperature is not the same as serving temperature so don't get too caught up in the numbers.

HOW THE MCDONALD'S CASE REALLY MIGHT RELATE TO THE APPLE CASE:

The McDonalds jury also decided that the warning on the cup was neither large enough nor sufficient. It is on this point that the lawyer for the plaintiff likely will argue, i.e. the white stickers are not properly placed or not enough of them, etc. If they had been, a person would have a split second to stop walking and not break their nose or smash glass. A good lawyer likely will track down insurance claims and accident statistics on similar architecture or buildings to establish precedent. In any legal case, precedent will determine admissibility.

Hey, even I think the litigation is baseless and personal responsibility is the core issue. I feel the same as to replies posted here using analogies such as birds and people smashing into glass doors, the McDonalds case, etc. I posted this to play devil's advocate a bit and also remind people that the McDonalds case isn't really a "laugher" after all once the facts are known.

 

[burgundyyears]

You might want to brush up on what really happened in that case.

The Stella Liebeck case was pretty aberrational, actually. Most people who sue over hot food or drinks don't win anything. Why the case is viewed as so aspirational or worthy of devotion never has made much sense to me.

----------

You do realize that coffee isn't served boiling, right?

If you cook a roast at 350 degrees, do you serve it to guests at that temperature?

Of course not. I hope for your guests' sake that you don't either - considering it's long past a pile of char at that point. (Most meats are well done at 175 deg F!)

And no, I don't patronize guests by assuming even the rudiments of how to eat safely are beyond them. Do you warn your guests to chew thoroughly and swallow completely before taking another bite? No? How negligent of you. Do you have any idea how many people a year choke to death?

 

[Renzatic]

Well, that was the Huns, not the Mongols.

Derp! I meant Genghis Khan. Sorry. It was late.

 

[bobob]

Actually, my mom serves coffee at boiling point. I think everyone does.

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, when coffee is heated to the boiling point, it damages the volatile oils which give coffee it's flavor. Serving it at the boiling point is a waste of good coffee.

 

[PlayfullyEvil]

The first thing that came to mind after reading the article was this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuiJm0KlwDM&hd=1

Just how absolutely ridiculous this lawsuit is.