Hot coffee case of McDonalds ...

Turkish

Lifer
May 26, 2003
15,547
1
81
So my teacher says the punitive charges of $2.7 million (the revenue McD got from selling coffee in 2 days at the time) is very little. What do you think?

My side is the old woman shouldn't have been awarded anything... but oh well.

I remember there were couple threads about this subject, and a lot of people had good points, but I can't find them... looked through archieves too, not there...

Anyways, I wanna hear everyone's thoughts on this...

Facts (added):



  • * 3rd degree burns on 6 percent of her body, including her groin, inner thighs, and buttocks.

    * Spent 8 days in the hospital.

    * Permanent scarring over 16 percent of her body.

    * Final punitive damages paid by McDonalds is known to be less than $640,000 (agreed on by McDonalds for dropping an appeal) but the exact amount is unknown due to a confidentiality agreement.

    * McDonalds' coffee was between 180-190F degrees.

    * Majority of other restaurants keep their coffee between 155-165F degrees.

    * Contrary to general public's knowledge, McDonalds actually had "Caution: Contents hot" warning on coffee cups, however they were printed in gold letters & alot smaller than they are printed on current coffee cups.
 

rocadelpunk

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
5,589
1
81
i think there are some cases where judges should just say you're an idiot, you should have some common sense and throw the case out.
 

Jhill

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2001
5,187
3
0
Unless it gave her 3rd degree burns over 75% of her body, no way in HELL does she deserve 2.7 million dollars.
 

TommyVercetti

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2003
7,623
1
0
During discovery, McDonalds 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 Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. 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.

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: TommyVercetti
During discovery, McDonalds 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 Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. 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.

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

That doesn't matter at all. It's her own stupid fault for spilling it. Can I go to the gas station, get a can of gas, then smoke while filling up my lawnmower, causing the gas to light and burn my own stupid ass self, then sue the gas company and the cigarette company because they knew their products were flammable?

OF COURSE IT'S HOT, IT'S COFFEE! Take some personal responsibility, geez.
 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
Originally posted by: fredtam
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
McD's coffee is way too fvcking hot.

you pussy ;)




I don't think the bitch should have received a penny for her stupidity. I just said that McD's coffee is way too fvcking hot. It must be 2 degrees below boiling point.
 

fredtam

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
5,694
2
76
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Originally posted by: fredtam
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
McD's coffee is way too fvcking hot.

you pussy ;)




I don't think the bitch should have received a penny for her stupidity. I just said that McD's coffee is way too fvcking hot. It must be 2 degrees below boiling point.

I agree it was just the first thing that popped in my head. It doesn't seem to be as hot as those cappuccino machines in convenience stores. That sh!t will definately blister your ass. Got sprayed by one in a Pantry but wasn't smart enough to sue so I'm still broke. :(
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
"...in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports..."

18 hours per day, times 365 days per year, times ten years, times the number of McDonalds spread across this country, times the number of customers served over that decade equals BFD!

I bet their are still assholes pouring coffee on themselves after they leave, and filing claims as usual. :roll:
 

Ness

Diamond Member
Jul 10, 2002
5,407
2
0
This case wasn't about a woman spilling coffee on herself, this case was about the negligence of McDonalds, which, as someone had already posted, was quite clear after getting multiple complaints about serious injuries people have received.

I believe there were some doctors that testified that the temperature of their coffee wasn't even fit for the human mouth to withstand, let alone have spilled on them.

The fact is, while she may be stupid for spilling her own coffee, McDonald's (again after multiple complaints of the temperatures) failed to understand that this was dangerous. Spilling drinks is oftentimes and inevitable accident. I bet everyone here has spilled a drink in the past year, at the least. When you are serving coffee at these known dangerous temperatures with the inevitable risk of spills, it is negligence. Yes, the woman is a moron, we can all pretty much agree on that. She probably didn't deserve multiple millions awarded to only her, and she probably BS'ed a lot of the pain and sufferring junk that people always tag on... but she was right in this case. McDonald's was negligent, as was about every other restaurant at the time who are lucky they didn't get sued either.
 

EMPshockwave82

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2003
3,012
2
0
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
McD's coffee is way too fvcking hot.

oh.. you mean like coffee is supposed to be... ok


Originally posted by: rocadelpunk
i think there are some cases where judges should just say you're an idiot, you should have some common sense and throw the case out.

YES... this is EXACTLY right
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Originally posted by: Ness
This case wasn't about a woman spilling coffee on herself, this case was about the negligence of McDonalds, which, as someone had already posted, was quite clear after getting multiple complaints about serious injuries people have received.

I believe there were some doctors that testified that the temperature of their coffee wasn't even fit for the human mouth to withstand, let alone have spilled on them.

The fact is, while she may be stupid for spilling her own coffee, McDonald's (again after multiple complaints of the temperatures) failed to understand that this was dangerous. Spilling drinks is oftentimes and inevitable accident. I bet everyone here has spilled a drink in the past year, at the least. When you are serving coffee at these known dangerous temperatures with the inevitable risk of spills, it is negligence. Yes, the woman is a moron, we can all pretty much agree on that. She probably didn't deserve multiple millions awarded to only her, and she probably BS'ed a lot of the pain and sufferring junk that people always tag on... but she was right in this case. McDonald's was negligent, as was about every other restaurant at the time who are lucky they didn't get sued either.

again, 700 burn complaints out of how many cups served?? that's the telling key here. sure if it was 700 out of 7000 for example, then yes, clearly mcd's was negligent. if it was 700 of 700,000,000. how inevitable or negligent could they have been?
 

GeneValgene

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2002
3,884
0
76
i thought that she didn't deserve anything at first as well...

but then i ended up taking a graduate bio-heat transfer class with dr. kenneth diller back when i was still in school...liebeck suffered extensive injuries, with second and third degree burns.

he actually testified in the liebeck trial. after seeing some of the photos of the injuries, i think she should have been awarded more than 2.9 million....

she only pursued this suit because mcdonalds had refused to compensate her for her medical bills
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
from this link http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm it says dunkin donuts sells "about 500 million cups of coffee a year, says the company is looking at the verdict to see if it needs to make any changes to the way it makes coffee."

i'm not sure whether mcd's sells more or less, but i'm willing to say they would be in the same ballpark as dunkin donuts.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: Ness
This case wasn't about a woman spilling coffee on herself, this case was about the negligence of McDonalds, which, as someone had already posted, was quite clear after getting multiple complaints about serious injuries people have received.

I believe there were some doctors that testified that the temperature of their coffee wasn't even fit for the human mouth to withstand, let alone have spilled on them.

The fact is, while she may be stupid for spilling her own coffee, McDonald's (again after multiple complaints of the temperatures) failed to understand that this was dangerous. Spilling drinks is oftentimes and inevitable accident. I bet everyone here has spilled a drink in the past year, at the least. When you are serving coffee at these known dangerous temperatures with the inevitable risk of spills, it is negligence. Yes, the woman is a moron, we can all pretty much agree on that. She probably didn't deserve multiple millions awarded to only her, and she probably BS'ed a lot of the pain and sufferring junk that people always tag on... but she was right in this case. McDonald's was negligent, as was about every other restaurant at the time who are lucky they didn't get sued either.

How many times have people been burned by a gasoline fire? Should the gasoline companies do something so they don't get charged with "negligence"? Fvck no. Gasoline is supposed to be flammable. Coffee is supposed to be hot.

Maybe McD's assumes that some people *gasp* might want to take their coffee to go? Heat it up a little extra so that it's still hot when they get to their car or something.

It is NOT negligent to provide a product that common knowledge says is hot as it should be. People get in car accidents. Can someone sue Ford if they get in a car crash for providing a product which may be involved in crashes?
 

JustAnAverageGuy

Diamond Member
Aug 1, 2003
9,057
0
76
Originally posted by: silverpig
Can I go to the gas station, get a can of gas, then smoke while filling up my lawnmower, causing the gas to light and burn my own stupid ass self, then sue the gas company and the cigarette company because they knew their products were flammable?

It's different. Most gas stations are properly labeled with "NO SMOKING" signs everywhere.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
I thought I heard the money awarded was later reduced?

The only good thing to come out of this was the Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law episode where Apache Chief spilled a latte on his lap and loses his ability to 'grow large at will'. Hilarious.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Originally posted by: silverpig
Can I go to the gas station, get a can of gas, then smoke while filling up my lawnmower, causing the gas to light and burn my own stupid ass self, then sue the gas company and the cigarette company because they knew their products were flammable?

It's different. Most gas stations are properly labeled with "NO SMOKING" signs everywhere.

mcdonalds warned that their coffee was hot too. so, again, what's the difference.

it's not like mcd's said, please spill this coffee in your laps. the warning should have been sufficient.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: GeneValgene
i thought that she didn't deserve anything at first as well...

but then i ended up taking a graduate bio-heat transfer class with dr. kenneth diller back when i was still in school...liebeck suffered extensive injuries, with second and third degree burns.

he actually testified in the liebeck trial. after seeing some of the photos of the injuries, i think she should have been awarded more than 2.9 million....

she only pursued this suit because mcdonalds had refused to compensate her for her medical bills

Quick! Someone sue Chevrolet!!!
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
"After all, its coffee's temperature helps explain why McDonald's sells a billion cups a year."

my bad, again from the article, quote above, mcd's sells a billion cups a year.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Originally posted by: silverpig
Can I go to the gas station, get a can of gas, then smoke while filling up my lawnmower, causing the gas to light and burn my own stupid ass self, then sue the gas company and the cigarette company because they knew their products were flammable?

It's different. Most gas stations are properly labeled with "NO SMOKING" signs everywhere.

Fill up can, take home, fill up lawnmower.

Who brings their lawnmower straight to the gas station every time? :p