Hot coffee case of McDonalds ...

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
<something about firestone tires>

who are you replying to?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DrPizza
<something about firestone tires>

who are you replying to?

Anyone still thinking that only 700 cases out of 10 billion means it's safe.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley
Ok, apparently the jurors felt the coffee was so hot that it had nearly malicious intent. They were also mad becuase mcdonalds did not feel sympathy for the old woman who burned herself. Once they were shown the graphic images, juries always fold. All coffee can cause sever burns and that is common knowledge. Humans understand that coffee=hot. I think mcdonalds should have paid her medical costs and the jury should have agreed to that plus the time she has had to take off of work and minor pain and suffering compensation. Anything above that is out of hand.

Once again, McDonald's had prior knowledge that their coffee was causing severe burns and it was found that their competetor's coffee was 20 degrees lower, at a temperature that still made good coffee but wouldn't have given someone third degree burns.

you're saying that the reason the jurors themselves said was the reason they didn't laugh the old woman out of court was not the reason they pinned mcdonalds for the money?

No. I got the feeling that Huxley was being sarcastic about the coffee having malicious intent. Saying it was malicious is a falsehood and I didn't want anyone to think they there was some guy at McD's HQ snickering to himself about intentionally making coffee hot enough to burn people... with that as the sole purpose .

While I think their reasoning for the hot coffee was legitimate (as in, they had a reason for it other than just wanting to make it hot and by no means were TRYING to burn people) I still think the ignored claims of burns were sufficient enough to show that McDonald's was either careless or ignorant in their choice to serve coffee that hot.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Uhhh, how many SUV rollovers have their been as a result of front tire (Firestone) blowouts?
A hundred even?

Geez, why is it that there are billions upon billions of trips in SUV's each year, but only a couple hundred people are injured (or killed) during a trip because of a front tire blowout leading to a rollover??

Ya' know... if they only blow out and cause the vehicle to roll over, injuring or killing the occupants 1 out of every 40 million trips, then they must be a heck of a lot safer than McD's coffee...

Firestone didn't make the people drive 65 mph... the people should have known that if they were driving faster than 5 or 10 mph and there was a blowout, there was a risk of rolling over. It's their own fault. Firestone can't control how their product is used.

--------------------------------------------------------------
If you think McD's coffee is safe because so many cups are consumed safely, then I want to know what's wrong with the preceding argument.

:roll:

because firestone tires are designed NOT to blow out. because firestone tires are NOT SUPPOSED to go flat.

Coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot, unless you specifically ask for ice coffee of course.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley
Ok, apparently the jurors felt the coffee was so hot that it had nearly malicious intent. They were also mad becuase mcdonalds did not feel sympathy for the old woman who burned herself. Once they were shown the graphic images, juries always fold. All coffee can cause sever burns and that is common knowledge. Humans understand that coffee=hot. I think mcdonalds should have paid her medical costs and the jury should have agreed to that plus the time she has had to take off of work and minor pain and suffering compensation. Anything above that is out of hand.

Once again, McDonald's had prior knowledge that their coffee was causing severe burns and it was found that their competetor's coffee was 20 degrees lower, at a temperature that still made good coffee but wouldn't have given someone third degree burns.

you're saying that the reason the jurors themselves said was the reason they didn't laugh the old woman out of court was not the reason they pinned mcdonalds for the money?

No. I got the feeling that Huxley was being sarcastic about the coffee having malicious intent. Saying it was malicious is a falsehood and I didn't want anyone to think they there was some guy at McD's HQ snickering to himself about intentionally making coffee hot enough to burn people... with that as the sole purpose .

While I think their reasoning for the hot coffee was legitimate (as in, they had a reason for it other than just wanting to make it hot and by no means were TRYING to burn people) I still think the ignored claims of burns were sufficient enough to show that McDonald's was either careless or ignorant in their choice to serve coffee that hot.

they were SETTLED, hence they weren't ignored.

do you think mcd's is the first company to have settled matters out of court because changing the temp of the coffee may have affected their business too much?

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Uhhh, how many SUV rollovers have their been as a result of front tire (Firestone) blowouts?
A hundred even?

Geez, why is it that there are billions upon billions of trips in SUV's each year, but only a couple hundred people are injured (or killed) during a trip because of a front tire blowout leading to a rollover??

Ya' know... if they only blow out and cause the vehicle to roll over, injuring or killing the occupants 1 out of every 40 million trips, then they must be a heck of a lot safer than McD's coffee...

Firestone didn't make the people drive 65 mph... the people should have known that if they were driving faster than 5 or 10 mph and there was a blowout, there was a risk of rolling over. It's their own fault. Firestone can't control how their product is used.

--------------------------------------------------------------
If you think McD's coffee is safe because so many cups are consumed safely, then I want to know what's wrong with the preceding argument.

:roll:

because firestone tires are designed NOT to blow out. because firestone tires are NOT SUPPOSED to go flat.

Coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot, unless you specifically ask for ice coffee of course.

Coffee is supposed to be hot, but coffee is also supposed to be safe to drink.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley
Ok, apparently the jurors felt the coffee was so hot that it had nearly malicious intent. They were also mad becuase mcdonalds did not feel sympathy for the old woman who burned herself. Once they were shown the graphic images, juries always fold. All coffee can cause sever burns and that is common knowledge. Humans understand that coffee=hot. I think mcdonalds should have paid her medical costs and the jury should have agreed to that plus the time she has had to take off of work and minor pain and suffering compensation. Anything above that is out of hand.

Once again, McDonald's had prior knowledge that their coffee was causing severe burns and it was found that their competetor's coffee was 20 degrees lower, at a temperature that still made good coffee but wouldn't have given someone third degree burns.

you're saying that the reason the jurors themselves said was the reason they didn't laugh the old woman out of court was not the reason they pinned mcdonalds for the money?

No. I got the feeling that Huxley was being sarcastic about the coffee having malicious intent. Saying it was malicious is a falsehood and I didn't want anyone to think they there was some guy at McD's HQ snickering to himself about intentionally making coffee hot enough to burn people... with that as the sole purpose .

While I think their reasoning for the hot coffee was legitimate (as in, they had a reason for it other than just wanting to make it hot and by no means were TRYING to burn people) I still think the ignored claims of burns were sufficient enough to show that McDonald's was either careless or ignorant in their choice to serve coffee that hot.

they were SETTLED, hence they weren't ignored.

do you think mcd's is the first company to have settled matters out of court because changing the temp of the coffee may have affected their business too much?

Apparently they were ignored, because McD's still did nothing about the harmful temperature of their coffee.

 

[lMlHuxley]

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley
Ok, apparently the jurors felt the coffee was so hot that it had nearly malicious intent. They were also mad becuase mcdonalds did not feel sympathy for the old woman who burned herself. Once they were shown the graphic images, juries always fold. All coffee can cause sever burns and that is common knowledge. Humans understand that coffee=hot. I think mcdonalds should have paid her medical costs and the jury should have agreed to that plus the time she has had to take off of work and minor pain and suffering compensation. Anything above that is out of hand.

Once again, McDonald's had prior knowledge that their coffee was causing severe burns and it was found that their competetor's coffee was 20 degrees lower, at a temperature that still made good coffee but wouldn't have given someone third degree burns.

They also gave the success of their coffee to the higher temperature and so they made it that way.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley
Ok, apparently the jurors felt the coffee was so hot that it had nearly malicious intent. They were also mad becuase mcdonalds did not feel sympathy for the old woman who burned herself. Once they were shown the graphic images, juries always fold. All coffee can cause sever burns and that is common knowledge. Humans understand that coffee=hot. I think mcdonalds should have paid her medical costs and the jury should have agreed to that plus the time she has had to take off of work and minor pain and suffering compensation. Anything above that is out of hand.

Once again, McDonald's had prior knowledge that their coffee was causing severe burns and it was found that their competetor's coffee was 20 degrees lower, at a temperature that still made good coffee but wouldn't have given someone third degree burns.

They also gave the success of their coffee to the higher temperature and so they made it that way.

I've already stated reasons why the success of their coffee cannot be contributed entirely to it's heat, as well as alternative means involving still allowing the flavor to be released into the coffee by brewing at higher temperatures, but serving it at lower temperatures.

I'm not a genius with coffee, but everything I have read says the flavor is released at those temperatures, not that it won't stay at lower temperatures.

 

[lMlHuxley]

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley
Ok, apparently the jurors felt the coffee was so hot that it had nearly malicious intent. They were also mad becuase mcdonalds did not feel sympathy for the old woman who burned herself. Once they were shown the graphic images, juries always fold. All coffee can cause sever burns and that is common knowledge. Humans understand that coffee=hot. I think mcdonalds should have paid her medical costs and the jury should have agreed to that plus the time she has had to take off of work and minor pain and suffering compensation. Anything above that is out of hand.

Once again, McDonald's had prior knowledge that their coffee was causing severe burns and it was found that their competetor's coffee was 20 degrees lower, at a temperature that still made good coffee but wouldn't have given someone third degree burns.

you're saying that the reason the jurors themselves said was the reason they didn't laugh the old woman out of court was not the reason they pinned mcdonalds for the money?

No. I got the feeling that Huxley was being sarcastic about the coffee having malicious intent. Saying it was malicious is a falsehood and I didn't want anyone to think they there was some guy at McD's HQ snickering to himself about intentionally making coffee hot enough to burn people... with that as the sole purpose .

While I think their reasoning for the hot coffee was legitimate (as in, they had a reason for it other than just wanting to make it hot and by no means were TRYING to burn people) I still think the ignored claims of burns were sufficient enough to show that McDonald's was either careless or ignorant in their choice to serve coffee that hot.

they were SETTLED, hence they weren't ignored.

do you think mcd's is the first company to have settled matters out of court because changing the temp of the coffee may have affected their business too much?

Apparently they were ignored, because McD's still did nothing about the harmful temperature of their coffee.

because they feel their coffee is better at that temperature and the sales show it. Anyway, I am still fully with mcdonalds on this one. I agree she should have at least medical compensation but not what she got.

 

[lMlHuxley]

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley
Ok, apparently the jurors felt the coffee was so hot that it had nearly malicious intent. They were also mad becuase mcdonalds did not feel sympathy for the old woman who burned herself. Once they were shown the graphic images, juries always fold. All coffee can cause sever burns and that is common knowledge. Humans understand that coffee=hot. I think mcdonalds should have paid her medical costs and the jury should have agreed to that plus the time she has had to take off of work and minor pain and suffering compensation. Anything above that is out of hand.

Once again, McDonald's had prior knowledge that their coffee was causing severe burns and it was found that their competetor's coffee was 20 degrees lower, at a temperature that still made good coffee but wouldn't have given someone third degree burns.

They also gave the success of their coffee to the higher temperature and so they made it that way.

I've already stated reasons why the success of their coffee cannot be contributed entirely to it's heat, as well as alternative means involving still allowing the flavor to be released into the coffee by brewing at higher temperatures, but serving it at lower temperatures.

Why use these alternate methods when they have one that people already like and buy? They would spend more redeveloping the process than they have in law suits

 

[sxr7171]

One of the things I do believe in is that there is a cost associated with anything you do. Seeing that they had 700 compliants to deal with over 10 billion cups of coffee and that they paid compensation to some of those people, they realize that there is a cost to maintaining their present standards of coffee brewing. I'm sure they've done a cost benefit analysis to determine that their present standards are worth maintaining.

In this particular case they refused to settle out of court. There are several reasons I can think of to explain why they decided to do this. One is to try to stop requests for compensation, and the second is to raise some public awareness on this issue. They probably felt that public opinion would side with them. In any case I think they have succeeded. I think that the way this was handled puts an end to future lawsuits by making it public that hot coffee can burn you. With the new warning and public awareness, they are now covered if someone were to try getting compensation again.

This didn't cost them anywhere near $1 million dollars. Liebeck was apparently awarded somewhere around $500,000 which was reduced in exchange for McDonald's promising not to appeal. I'll bet that the final settlement was closer to $225,000 which is what they've paid in the past. So this really didn't cost McDonald's very much, and it created public awareness and it will hopefully stop further lawsuits as I hope people are aware that they should be careful around hot coffee as they should be around a hot stove. People might consider letting the coffee cool down before messing with it in a car where chances of spiling are high. Those who like the their coffee hot and are aware of the risks of handling hot coffee can go ahead and drink their coffee hot. Since coffee can only get colder after it is brewed, everyone can be satisfied to some extent.

People who can't handle hot coffee can now choose to go to Wendy's since they know McDonald's coffee is hot.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley
Ok, apparently the jurors felt the coffee was so hot that it had nearly malicious intent. They were also mad becuase mcdonalds did not feel sympathy for the old woman who burned herself. Once they were shown the graphic images, juries always fold. All coffee can cause sever burns and that is common knowledge. Humans understand that coffee=hot. I think mcdonalds should have paid her medical costs and the jury should have agreed to that plus the time she has had to take off of work and minor pain and suffering compensation. Anything above that is out of hand.

Once again, McDonald's had prior knowledge that their coffee was causing severe burns and it was found that their competetor's coffee was 20 degrees lower, at a temperature that still made good coffee but wouldn't have given someone third degree burns.

They also gave the success of their coffee to the higher temperature and so they made it that way.

I've already stated reasons why the success of their coffee cannot be contributed entirely to it's heat, as well as alternative means involving still allowing the flavor to be released into the coffee by brewing at higher temperatures, but serving it at lower temperatures.

Why use these alternate methods when they have one that people already like and buy? They would spend more redeveloping the process than they have in law suits

... uh.. because it is known to be dangerous to their customers...

I seriously doubt they would lose more than 2.7 million dollars redeveloping this.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Uhhh, how many SUV rollovers have their been as a result of front tire (Firestone) blowouts?
A hundred even?

Geez, why is it that there are billions upon billions of trips in SUV's each year, but only a couple hundred people are injured (or killed) during a trip because of a front tire blowout leading to a rollover??

Ya' know... if they only blow out and cause the vehicle to roll over, injuring or killing the occupants 1 out of every 40 million trips, then they must be a heck of a lot safer than McD's coffee...

Firestone didn't make the people drive 65 mph... the people should have known that if they were driving faster than 5 or 10 mph and there was a blowout, there was a risk of rolling over. It's their own fault. Firestone can't control how their product is used.

--------------------------------------------------------------
If you think McD's coffee is safe because so many cups are consumed safely, then I want to know what's wrong with the preceding argument.

:roll:

because firestone tires are designed NOT to blow out. because firestone tires are NOT SUPPOSED to go flat.

Coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot, unless you specifically ask for ice coffee of course.

The primary design of a tire is to make a car go forward smoothly and provide an adequate amount of traction on a variety of road surfaces. Of course it's important to also consider whether they would blow out or not.

Coffee is NOT designed to cause 3rd degree burns in 2 or 3 seconds. Coffee is not designed to require skin grafts. Does it really take that much effort to think twice about your design if those sorts of things are happening? Firestone tires WERE blowing out - not a good thing. Firestone realized it was a problem and addressed the problem. Coffee WAS burning people. McDonald's chose to be callous about it. A simple solution would be to brew it at a higher temperature and serve it at a slightly lower but safer temperature.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley
Ok, apparently the jurors felt the coffee was so hot that it had nearly malicious intent. They were also mad becuase mcdonalds did not feel sympathy for the old woman who burned herself. Once they were shown the graphic images, juries always fold. All coffee can cause sever burns and that is common knowledge. Humans understand that coffee=hot. I think mcdonalds should have paid her medical costs and the jury should have agreed to that plus the time she has had to take off of work and minor pain and suffering compensation. Anything above that is out of hand.

Once again, McDonald's had prior knowledge that their coffee was causing severe burns and it was found that their competetor's coffee was 20 degrees lower, at a temperature that still made good coffee but wouldn't have given someone third degree burns.

They also gave the success of their coffee to the higher temperature and so they made it that way.

As I posted earlier in this thread, their coffee isn't *that* successful. Credit to the billion cups of coffee a year goes to the fact that there are over 30,000 McDonald's restaurants. On average, each restaurant sells around 90 cups of coffee a day. And, they have the convenience of drive-through - you don't even have to get out of your car! Despite their "better" coffee that their customers seem to love... I can point to several convenience stores in my town that have far more coffee sales than the local McD's. And, none of them are serving coffee at nearly the temperature that McD's had their coffee at.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Ness
I've already stated reasons why the success of their coffee cannot be contributed entirely to it's heat, as well as alternative means involving still allowing the flavor to be released into the coffee by brewing at higher temperatures, but serving it at lower temperatures.

I'm not a genius with coffee, but everything I have read says the flavor is released at those temperatures, not that it won't stay at lower temperatures.

The problem is many of the typical fast food customers want it made 'fresh' not sitting at all. Down here it's not uncommon to have someone request unsalted fries so they can get them fresh only to shake salt all over them at the table. I think income is inversely proportional to the hoops someone makes a minimum wage service worker jump through. It's also inversely proportional to the chances of hearing the quote muttered "do you know *who* I am?!?"

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Uhhh, how many SUV rollovers have their been as a result of front tire (Firestone) blowouts?
A hundred even?

Geez, why is it that there are billions upon billions of trips in SUV's each year, but only a couple hundred people are injured (or killed) during a trip because of a front tire blowout leading to a rollover??

Ya' know... if they only blow out and cause the vehicle to roll over, injuring or killing the occupants 1 out of every 40 million trips, then they must be a heck of a lot safer than McD's coffee...

Firestone didn't make the people drive 65 mph... the people should have known that if they were driving faster than 5 or 10 mph and there was a blowout, there was a risk of rolling over. It's their own fault. Firestone can't control how their product is used.

--------------------------------------------------------------
If you think McD's coffee is safe because so many cups are consumed safely, then I want to know what's wrong with the preceding argument.

:roll:

because firestone tires are designed NOT to blow out. because firestone tires are NOT SUPPOSED to go flat.

Coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot, unless you specifically ask for ice coffee of course.

The primary design of a tire is to make a car go forward smoothly and provide an adequate amount of traction on a variety of road surfaces. Of course it's important to also consider whether they would blow out or not.

Coffee is NOT designed to cause 3rd degree burns in 2 or 3 seconds. Coffee is not designed to require skin grafts. Does it really take that much effort to think twice about your design if those sorts of things are happening? Firestone tires WERE blowing out - not a good thing. Firestone realized it was a problem and addressed the problem. Coffee WAS burning people. McDonald's chose to be callous about it. A simple solution would be to brew it at a higher temperature and serve it at a slightly lower but safer temperature.

:roll:

IF used as designed, most tires don't blow out. firestones were even under normal usage. hence they are liable.

IF the coffee was consumed in the normal fashion (1 billion cups a year served and the majority were not burned) then the person would not sustain 3rd degree burns.

now, let's carry your parrellel a bit farther. so the person driving a car with firestones saw an area with lots of nails, boards with nails in them etc and decided to run over these boards. if the tire blew out under those circumstances who's liable?

in the case of firestone, the tires were blowing out even under NORMAL USAGE, hence the manufacturer was liable (btw, weren't they sued? and wasn't it the lawsuit that made them make the changes? you make it sound like they did it out of the goodness of their hearts vs a mcd's which was callous. :roll🙂.


in the case of McDonalds coffee, 1 BILLION cups a year was being consumed with a VERY VERY small fraction getting 3rd degree burns. if 999,999,300 cups of coffee were consumed without 3rd degree burns than we can safely assume that those were cases of NORMAL usage and the 700 cases of ABNORMAL usage.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Uhhh, how many SUV rollovers have their been as a result of front tire (Firestone) blowouts?
A hundred even?

Geez, why is it that there are billions upon billions of trips in SUV's each year, but only a couple hundred people are injured (or killed) during a trip because of a front tire blowout leading to a rollover??

Ya' know... if they only blow out and cause the vehicle to roll over, injuring or killing the occupants 1 out of every 40 million trips, then they must be a heck of a lot safer than McD's coffee...

Firestone didn't make the people drive 65 mph... the people should have known that if they were driving faster than 5 or 10 mph and there was a blowout, there was a risk of rolling over. It's their own fault. Firestone can't control how their product is used.

--------------------------------------------------------------
If you think McD's coffee is safe because so many cups are consumed safely, then I want to know what's wrong with the preceding argument.

:roll:

because firestone tires are designed NOT to blow out. because firestone tires are NOT SUPPOSED to go flat.

Coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot, unless you specifically ask for ice coffee of course.

The primary design of a tire is to make a car go forward smoothly and provide an adequate amount of traction on a variety of road surfaces. Of course it's important to also consider whether they would blow out or not.

Coffee is NOT designed to cause 3rd degree burns in 2 or 3 seconds. Coffee is not designed to require skin grafts. Does it really take that much effort to think twice about your design if those sorts of things are happening? Firestone tires WERE blowing out - not a good thing. Firestone realized it was a problem and addressed the problem. Coffee WAS burning people. McDonald's chose to be callous about it. A simple solution would be to brew it at a higher temperature and serve it at a slightly lower but safer temperature.

:roll:

IF used as designed, most tires don't blow out. firestones were even under normal usage. hence they are liable.

IF the coffee was consumed in the normal fashion (1 billion cups a year served and the majority were not burned) then the person would not sustain 3rd degree burns.

now, let's carry your parrellel a bit farther. so the person driving a car with firestones saw an area with lots of nails, boards with nails in them etc and decided to run over these boards. if the tire blew out under those circumstances who's liable?

in the case of firestone, the tires were blowing out even under NORMAL USAGE, hence the manufacturer was liable (btw, weren't they sued? and wasn't it the lawsuit that made them make the changes? you make it sound like they did it out of the goodness of their hearts vs a mcd's which was callous. :roll🙂.


in the case of McDonalds coffee, 1 BILLION cups a year was being consumed with a VERY VERY small fraction getting 3rd degree burns. if 999,999,300 cups of coffee were consumed without 3rd degree burns than we can safely assume that those were cases of NORMAL usage and the 700 cases of ABNORMAL usage.

blah blah blah... we've covered this already on a few instances. The reason McDonald's was only found at partial fault was because the coffee was spilled. We know that, thanks for running it by us again and proving nothing new.

But even still a person should be able to expect that something as simple as their coffee won't hurt them.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Uhhh, how many SUV rollovers have their been as a result of front tire (Firestone) blowouts?
A hundred even?

Geez, why is it that there are billions upon billions of trips in SUV's each year, but only a couple hundred people are injured (or killed) during a trip because of a front tire blowout leading to a rollover??

Ya' know... if they only blow out and cause the vehicle to roll over, injuring or killing the occupants 1 out of every 40 million trips, then they must be a heck of a lot safer than McD's coffee...

Firestone didn't make the people drive 65 mph... the people should have known that if they were driving faster than 5 or 10 mph and there was a blowout, there was a risk of rolling over. It's their own fault. Firestone can't control how their product is used.

--------------------------------------------------------------
If you think McD's coffee is safe because so many cups are consumed safely, then I want to know what's wrong with the preceding argument.

:roll:

because firestone tires are designed NOT to blow out. because firestone tires are NOT SUPPOSED to go flat.

Coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot, unless you specifically ask for ice coffee of course.

The primary design of a tire is to make a car go forward smoothly and provide an adequate amount of traction on a variety of road surfaces. Of course it's important to also consider whether they would blow out or not.

Coffee is NOT designed to cause 3rd degree burns in 2 or 3 seconds. Coffee is not designed to require skin grafts. Does it really take that much effort to think twice about your design if those sorts of things are happening? Firestone tires WERE blowing out - not a good thing. Firestone realized it was a problem and addressed the problem. Coffee WAS burning people. McDonald's chose to be callous about it. A simple solution would be to brew it at a higher temperature and serve it at a slightly lower but safer temperature.

:roll:

IF used as designed, most tires don't blow out. firestones were even under normal usage. hence they are liable.

IF the coffee was consumed in the normal fashion (1 billion cups a year served and the majority were not burned) then the person would not sustain 3rd degree burns.

now, let's carry your parrellel a bit farther. so the person driving a car with firestones saw an area with lots of nails, boards with nails in them etc and decided to run over these boards. if the tire blew out under those circumstances who's liable?

in the case of firestone, the tires were blowing out even under NORMAL USAGE, hence the manufacturer was liable (btw, weren't they sued? and wasn't it the lawsuit that made them make the changes? you make it sound like they did it out of the goodness of their hearts vs a mcd's which was callous. :roll🙂.


in the case of McDonalds coffee, 1 BILLION cups a year was being consumed with a VERY VERY small fraction getting 3rd degree burns. if 999,999,300 cups of coffee were consumed without 3rd degree burns than we can safely assume that those were cases of NORMAL usage and the 700 cases of ABNORMAL usage.

blah blah blah... we've covered this already on a few instances. The reason McDonald's was only found at partial fault was because the coffee was spilled. We know that, thanks for running it by us again and proving nothing new.

But even still a person should be able to expect that something as simple as their coffee won't hurt them.

if you've covered it once before, just stfu. i was resonding to someone else, who's analogy was completely off base. comparing the mcdonalds thing where the woman was at fault is COMPLETELY different with the firestone incident, where the driver doing NOTHING on their part could suffer a blow out.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Uhhh, how many SUV rollovers have their been as a result of front tire (Firestone) blowouts?
A hundred even?

Geez, why is it that there are billions upon billions of trips in SUV's each year, but only a couple hundred people are injured (or killed) during a trip because of a front tire blowout leading to a rollover??

Ya' know... if they only blow out and cause the vehicle to roll over, injuring or killing the occupants 1 out of every 40 million trips, then they must be a heck of a lot safer than McD's coffee...

Firestone didn't make the people drive 65 mph... the people should have known that if they were driving faster than 5 or 10 mph and there was a blowout, there was a risk of rolling over. It's their own fault. Firestone can't control how their product is used.

--------------------------------------------------------------
If you think McD's coffee is safe because so many cups are consumed safely, then I want to know what's wrong with the preceding argument.

:roll:

because firestone tires are designed NOT to blow out. because firestone tires are NOT SUPPOSED to go flat.

Coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot, unless you specifically ask for ice coffee of course.

The primary design of a tire is to make a car go forward smoothly and provide an adequate amount of traction on a variety of road surfaces. Of course it's important to also consider whether they would blow out or not.

Coffee is NOT designed to cause 3rd degree burns in 2 or 3 seconds. Coffee is not designed to require skin grafts. Does it really take that much effort to think twice about your design if those sorts of things are happening? Firestone tires WERE blowing out - not a good thing. Firestone realized it was a problem and addressed the problem. Coffee WAS burning people. McDonald's chose to be callous about it. A simple solution would be to brew it at a higher temperature and serve it at a slightly lower but safer temperature.

:roll:

IF used as designed, most tires don't blow out. firestones were even under normal usage. hence they are liable.

IF the coffee was consumed in the normal fashion (1 billion cups a year served and the majority were not burned) then the person would not sustain 3rd degree burns.

now, let's carry your parrellel a bit farther. so the person driving a car with firestones saw an area with lots of nails, boards with nails in them etc and decided to run over these boards. if the tire blew out under those circumstances who's liable?

in the case of firestone, the tires were blowing out even under NORMAL USAGE, hence the manufacturer was liable (btw, weren't they sued? and wasn't it the lawsuit that made them make the changes? you make it sound like they did it out of the goodness of their hearts vs a mcd's which was callous. :roll🙂.


in the case of McDonalds coffee, 1 BILLION cups a year was being consumed with a VERY VERY small fraction getting 3rd degree burns. if 999,999,300 cups of coffee were consumed without 3rd degree burns than we can safely assume that those were cases of NORMAL usage and the 700 cases of ABNORMAL usage.

blah blah blah... we've covered this already on a few instances. The reason McDonald's was only found at partial fault was because the coffee was spilled. We know that, thanks for running it by us again and proving nothing new.

But even still a person should be able to expect that something as simple as their coffee won't hurt them.

if you've covered it once before, just stfu. i was resonding to someone else, who's analogy was completely off base. comparing the mcdonalds thing where the woman was at fault is COMPLETELY different with the firestone incident, where the driver doing NOTHING on their part could suffer a blow out.

awww... it looks like I've struck a nerve! 🙁 🙁 🙁


(BTW, he was right. Coffee ISN'T supposed to cause third degree burns and require skin grafts.)

 

[lMlHuxley]

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley
Ok, apparently the jurors felt the coffee was so hot that it had nearly malicious intent. They were also mad becuase mcdonalds did not feel sympathy for the old woman who burned herself. Once they were shown the graphic images, juries always fold. All coffee can cause sever burns and that is common knowledge. Humans understand that coffee=hot. I think mcdonalds should have paid her medical costs and the jury should have agreed to that plus the time she has had to take off of work and minor pain and suffering compensation. Anything above that is out of hand.

Once again, McDonald's had prior knowledge that their coffee was causing severe burns and it was found that their competetor's coffee was 20 degrees lower, at a temperature that still made good coffee but wouldn't have given someone third degree burns.

They also gave the success of their coffee to the higher temperature and so they made it that way.

I've already stated reasons why the success of their coffee cannot be contributed entirely to it's heat, as well as alternative means involving still allowing the flavor to be released into the coffee by brewing at higher temperatures, but serving it at lower temperatures.

Why use these alternate methods when they have one that people already like and buy? They would spend more redeveloping the process than they have in law suits

... uh.. because it is known to be dangerous to their customers...

I seriously doubt they would lose more than 2.7 million dollars redeveloping this.

You would be greatly suprised how much money it costs to redevelop even the most simple task in a large operation. Yes, hot coffee can be dangerous to customers but the customers like it that hot. 160 degree coffee is still going to burn you like hades.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley
Ok, apparently the jurors felt the coffee was so hot that it had nearly malicious intent. They were also mad becuase mcdonalds did not feel sympathy for the old woman who burned herself. Once they were shown the graphic images, juries always fold. All coffee can cause sever burns and that is common knowledge. Humans understand that coffee=hot. I think mcdonalds should have paid her medical costs and the jury should have agreed to that plus the time she has had to take off of work and minor pain and suffering compensation. Anything above that is out of hand.

Once again, McDonald's had prior knowledge that their coffee was causing severe burns and it was found that their competetor's coffee was 20 degrees lower, at a temperature that still made good coffee but wouldn't have given someone third degree burns.

They also gave the success of their coffee to the higher temperature and so they made it that way.

I've already stated reasons why the success of their coffee cannot be contributed entirely to it's heat, as well as alternative means involving still allowing the flavor to be released into the coffee by brewing at higher temperatures, but serving it at lower temperatures.

Why use these alternate methods when they have one that people already like and buy? They would spend more redeveloping the process than they have in law suits

... uh.. because it is known to be dangerous to their customers...

I seriously doubt they would lose more than 2.7 million dollars redeveloping this.

You would be greatly suprised how much money it costs to redevelop even the most simple task in a large operation. Yes, hot coffee can be dangerous to customers but the customers like it that hot. 160 degree coffee is still going to burn you like hades.

But as testified in this court case, it won't cause third degree burns... and likely to not even cause second degree burns.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Ness

But as testified in this court case, it won't cause third degree burns... and likely to not even cause second degree burns.

and I am willing to bet someone would still sue over that.

Are you so defensive of this old woman because she is a relative?

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: lMlHuxley
Ok, apparently the jurors felt the coffee was so hot that it had nearly malicious intent. They were also mad becuase mcdonalds did not feel sympathy for the old woman who burned herself. Once they were shown the graphic images, juries always fold. All coffee can cause sever burns and that is common knowledge. Humans understand that coffee=hot. I think mcdonalds should have paid her medical costs and the jury should have agreed to that plus the time she has had to take off of work and minor pain and suffering compensation. Anything above that is out of hand.

Once again, McDonald's had prior knowledge that their coffee was causing severe burns and it was found that their competetor's coffee was 20 degrees lower, at a temperature that still made good coffee but wouldn't have given someone third degree burns.

They also gave the success of their coffee to the higher temperature and so they made it that way.

I've already stated reasons why the success of their coffee cannot be contributed entirely to it's heat, as well as alternative means involving still allowing the flavor to be released into the coffee by brewing at higher temperatures, but serving it at lower temperatures.

Why use these alternate methods when they have one that people already like and buy? They would spend more redeveloping the process than they have in law suits

... uh.. because it is known to be dangerous to their customers...

I seriously doubt they would lose more than 2.7 million dollars redeveloping this.

You would be greatly suprised how much money it costs to redevelop even the most simple task in a large operation. Yes, hot coffee can be dangerous to customers but the customers like it that hot. 160 degree coffee is still going to burn you like hades.

One thing to point out is, McDonald's coffee was successful mostly because it was served hot, not brewed hot. On a survey in a linked article in this thread, it says majority of McDonald's coffee drinkers chose McDonald's because the "coffee was hotter than competitor's."

 

[tcsenter]

OMG! How can there still be any discussion about this? Search the AT archives for Liebeck discussions, the following facts are beyond dispute:

McDonald's served its coffee at temperatures consistent with if not actually lower than the "industry standard brewing and serving temperatures" as defined by the prestigious American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), and every coffee trade organization.

These standards definitively and unequivocally refute the plaintiff's argument that home coffee brewers have lower brewing and serving temperatures. According to the trade and manufacturing organizations who set the standards and manufacture home coffee brewers, the plaintiff's argument was a complete fabrication.

McDonald's settled previous lawsuits only where an employee was alleged to have contributed to the spill, in part or whole, and cases where the serving container was defective or otherwise failed, resulting in a spill. Ms. Liebeck spilled the coffee on her own damned self wholly through her own negligence or carelessness.

McDonald's did a piss poor job of defending itself in court because it did not believe such an absurd case had any hope of prevailing given that similar and identical suits have been rejected time and again on appeal (e.g. McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp. 150 F.3d 651 7th Circuit 1998). Lesson: Take every lawsuit seriously, no matter how absurd or frivolous it may be.

Hot beverages at the temperatures alleged by the plaintiff to be "safe" can by the plaintiff's own admission cause potentially serious burn injury to young children and the elderly, with a high probability of causing 2nd degree burns requiring split-thickness skin grafts. The difference between McDonald's temperature and the plaintiff's alleged "safe" temperature is not "serious injury vs. no injury at all" but a difference of "serious injury vs. less serious injury".

McDonald's settled because it was receiving negative publicity. Had it appealed, it would have been a slam dunk victory for McDonald's in the courts, but would have brought more unwanted public attention.

To recap:

Greedy trial lawers exploited our system of justice, fabricated evidence in a liability case, and got a jury to buy it, legally extorting money from a model corporate citizen under the pretense of justice....and we still have debate over whether this was right or wrong.

God Bless America.