McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit - What ACTUALLY happened...

[Optimus Prime]

Again, you can sue anyone for anything. Whether you win or not is a different story.

And how many lawsuits do you think never even make it to court because...

*pause for dramatic effect*

The claimant had no cause of action.

everyone who's ever sued anyone successfully had a reason.

Corrected for legal accuracy.

Do you honestly think if you walked into a law firm, and asked a lawyer if they've ever had someone come in with a groundless lawsuit, they'd look you square you in the face and say no?

 

[|Overlord|]

Am I one of the smart people that realizes that the same risk practically applys to all hot beverages when they have just been served?.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Am I one of the smart people that realizes that the same risk practically applys to all hot beverages when they have just been served?.

There's a difference between a hot beverage, and a beverage that is so hot that when served, it isn't safe for human consumption.

 

[[S]]

Am I one of the smart people that realizes that the same risk practically applys to all hot beverages when they have just been served?.

Every time i have a starbucks coffee i make sure to pour a bit of it on the palm of my hand and see if it just burns a bit or causes 3rd degree burns so far it's never burnt my hand enough for a lawsuit.

 

[Skiwan]

There's a difference between a hot beverage, and a beverage that is so hot that when served, it isn't safe for human consumption.

If you make your own coffee at home, I'll bet that its not safe for human consumption for at least 3-5 mins.

 

[Optimus Prime]

If you make your own coffee at home, I'll bet that its not safe for human consumption for at least 3-5 mins.

Actually, most home brew coffee makers serve coffee at about 135-140 degrees Fahrenheit.

The funny thing about this whole McDonald's lawsuit, is that it was McDonald's own testimony and actions that led the jury to rule against them.

McDonald's Attitude

* During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

* McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste.
o Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures than at McDonald's.
o Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Damaging Testimony

*

McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
*

The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
*

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.
*

Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

*

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.
*

McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

Source.

 

[Skiwan]

My kettle doesnt, cost like ?50 too, and i have to wait at least 5 minutes before I deem anything i brew close to drinkable. Should i sue the company who made it if one day i make a cup of tea and spill it down myself? "your kettle boils water too hot!" no... they'd laugh at me.

Its the same as with whats happening with the wii, sure its dangerous if you're using it and ignoring the practical laws of physics or years of experience (like you dont swing something around with enough force to break your tv, you dont spill hot beverages on yourself which may burn you), but some common sense should prevail. You can't just blame everything on something else, its not even like it was out of her control. You buy a coffee, you judge wether its drinkable or not, tatting around with it while its still at a high temperature isnt the cleverest thing to do.

 

[Optimus Prime]

If your coffee maker company received 700 burn complaints from customers saying it makes coffee too hot to the point where it is causing "severe burns" where we're talking permanent damage here. And then the company wilfully disregarded the safety of their consumers and basically said "oh well, too bad so sad" and did nothing about it. You'd probably have a case.

"The testimony of Mr. [Christopher] Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, 'There are more serious dangers in restaurants.' "

Yah, talk about a company that cares about its consumers.

 

[Skiwan]

I bet you double that number of people hit their thumbs while hammering a nail into something with a hammer, maybe even break their thumb, is it the hammers fault?

What about the people who spill boiling coffee on themselves at home? They dont get ****, because there wasnt a company making it for them to blame.

Sense > Statistics.

I couldnt give a **** about if they care about their customer's, as far as im concerned mac donalds shouldn't even exist in the first place, but I hate this kind of compensation for idiocy, what would be more valuable is if people learned to take more care and think for themselves, rather than paying the odd person a big fat lump sum for doing something stupid.

 

[Optimus Prime]

McDonald's knowingly serves coffee that can cause third degree burns. Maybe you should incur some so you can realize how much it actually ****ing hurts, because I can guarantee any time you've ever burned yourself, it hasn't been remotely as painful as third degree burns. The woman spent 8 days in the hospital.

It doesn't matter whether you think the woman was being an idiot or not, McDonald's is negligent by serving 190 degree coffee. They're not compensating for idiocy, they're punishing McDonald's for negligence.

 

[tolore]

i think people are missing the point. The lawsuit wasn't about spilling coffee on yourself, the law suit was about being served coffee that causes third degree burns. Do you know what a third degree burn does? it chars the skin, your skin in that area is dead and may not grow back ever. 3rd degree burns even in a small area can kill you and often require hospitalization.

This wasn't a case of 'ow my skin is red and it hurts lets sue mcdonalds' this is a case of 'oh god my legs are permanently damaged, if had drinken that i'd probably be dead'

 

[Pain]

I doubt there is anyone here who has experienced anything other than a very minor first degree burn. Sunburn, or touching something hot by accident. Those are examples of first degree burns we can probably all relate to, and they hurt like a *****, and gradually fades after a couple days (no need to do anything but wait it out). Now step up that pain a couple notches and give it about 5x the heal time ONLY WITH PROPER MEDICAL ATTENTION.

The fact that she was a tard and more or less poured it on herself is irrelevant. What would be your argument if I told you they hit a bump in the road and it splashed into her face?

 

[Skiwan]

People knowingly purchase hot beverages that are hot enough to burn you. Why is it macdonald's being negligent? Apparently they have a warning on the cup, isnt that enough dispite the years of experience the woman's had knowing that hot beverages can be dangerous? Apparently not, those difference in degree's of burns are clearly worth a few million. What's more negligent is countries laws exploited to allow people who carelessly handle things which may harm them to prosper financially. I'm for people getting more intelligent not rewarding them for being an idiot.

I hate compensation culture. I can understand if you're gonna stand by the laws you must, but I'm happy to think people should take responsibility for their own actions. Idealism it may be, but I'm happier thinking like that.

-bump in the road thing, I for one would never drink coffee while in a car for that reason, because drinking anything in a car is taking a risk, only things I'd drink are bottled. My dad used to never let me drink anything in the car unless we werent moving when I was a kid. Accidents happen, but you're the one that puts urself in such positions. You thus accept the responsibility for your actions.

Brewing Coffee isnt exactly an exact science either, due to the ammount of water and time sometimes they might brew it less than 130 degree's, sometimes in excess of 200, this is how the world is, it seems stupid to expect it regimentaly controlled. Why didnt mac donalds in turn sue their coffee machine manufactures?

 

[Optimus Prime]

I'll requote the McDonald's executive.

"The testimony of Mr. [Christopher] Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, 'There are more serious dangers in restaurants.' "

 

[tolore]

those difference in degree's of burns are clearly worth a few million.

those few degrees are the difference between weeks in the hospital with permanent damage(or death) and and a couple days of pain and maybe some ointment/medecine. its the smae thign with hamburgers, they are hot sometimes, even hot enouhg to burn you. But if you took a bite out of the burger and it permanently scarred your mouth and possibly destroyed your throat i bet you'd be pissed at whoever served it to you. you are focusing on the wrong thing here, no one cares the girl spilled coffee on ehr self, they care that mcdonalds coffe was hot enough to KILL YOU.

 

[Skiwan]

Oh darn it, that quote flaws my whole argument! I would never have known that coffee may be actually served at dangerous temperatures if it wasnt for growing up this modern society, she must've lived in the jungle her whole life. Yeah, she deserves all that money.

Just accept my opinion wont change now, no amount of bolded quotes is going to sway my opinion.

Are you really all telling me, you dont consider a hot cup of coffee you actually have held in your hands dangerous? I mean, i must be living on mars or something. It doesnt matter if its gonna give u 3rd 4th or first degree burns, you should take it into account that its dangerous, whatever the temperature.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I don't know if you've ever spilt fresh coffee shop coffee on yourself before, but I have, and I've never wound up in the hospital nor needed a skin graft. Guess I'm one one of the lucky ones.

 

[Skiwan]

I believed I answered your cynical comment in the last sentance of my edit.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I believed I answered your cynical comment in the last sentance of my edit.

The woman originally wanted $20,000 for medical bills and pain and suffering. The fact that McDonald's coffee revenues alone are over one-million a day, this would have more than easily payable by McDonald's. You can argue that she never would have spilled it had it not been between your legs, while I can argue she never would have wound up in the hospital had the coffee not been at a dangerously high temperature.

McDonald's refused to settle out of court, taking no liability for the incident, it went to court, and the jury awarded $200,000 in damages. The jury also found that the woman was 20% responsible (contributory negligence) and she was awarded $160,000. Anything above that was in punitive damages. Punitive damages have nothing to do with the fact she spilled the coffee on herself, or the injuries she sustained, rather, a punishment to McDonald's for acting in a callous, and malicious manner.

The notion of duty of care has existed long before McDonald's started serving coffee, and to further that, they breached their duty of care long before the woman ever put it between her legs. The breached their duty of care the second they poured a scalding cup of hot coffee with the intent to sell it.

 

[frsrblch]

But if you took a bite out of the burger and it permanently scarred your mouth and possibly destroyed your throat i bet you'd be pissed at whoever served it to you.

I would laugh at anybody stupid enough to take a bite of burger, realize it's hot, and then swallow it. Besides, I'm not much of a fan of Scottish food anyway, so I don't care how hot their coffee is (damn you, Rockstar, I can't say that without chuckling).