The Truth about the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
18
81
sirjonk...this is the whole problem with armchair justice :) when you say i don't know you already lost the case.

Anyway, in civil court any one can sue for just about anything and win. Unfortunately those cases mostly are won by the "shouldn't I get a do over", "why penalize me for me being stupid", etc crowds as jury trials are decided by emotions and/or the theatrics of the better attorney.

law is law, but law is not fair always.

These lawsuits take things away from responsible people that no longer have access to things they enjoy.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Question about the BK case above. BK provided a box to hold the drinks. If the box did not properly secure the drinks from spilling (not saying that happened here - there isn't any info about what caused the spillage in the box - did it tip over during assumed and standard use of the box or did someone kick it over / too quick of a turn?) - if it was used properly, why wouldn't BK be held accountable for that? Even if you know coffee is hot and not to spill it on yourself, surely you don't expect a box designed to secure drinks to fail to secure drinks, thereby causing them to tip over and spill on you? Although again that would depend on whether it was literally a flat box or one of those egg crate things.

If a fast food place gave me one of those crate things and a small (i.e. not top heavy) drink was easily turned over in one, I'd be kind of pissed. There would be no point to that thing other than for making it easy to hand 4 drinks to the driver very carefully, which i do not think is the assumed use of it.
 

g0dMAn

Lifer
Nov 10, 2005
12,499
5
81
anyone who sues b/c coffee is too hot definitely has no life, too lazy to work and earn his/her own money, and probably scores an all-time low I.Q... unless it was spilled onto you by an employee...
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: g0dMAn
anyone who sues b/c coffee is too hot definitely has no life, too lazy to work and earn his/her own money, and probably scores an all-time low I.Q... unless it was spilled onto you by an employee...

Thanks for your penetrating insight. "Lack of personal responsibility" seems to be easier for the average ATOT to comprehend than principles of negligence law.
 

tfcmasta97

Platinum Member
Feb 7, 2004
2,003
0
0
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Originally posted by: tagej
Pale Rider, they knew about the 'hazard'... duuuuuuh. Ya think spilling hot coffee on yourself could cause burns??

Uhh, did you fall off the short bus? Spilled drink is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is McDonald's KNOWINGLY gave the drink out and had 700 documented cases of where it burned people badly, INCLUDING BURNS SUFFERED BY CONSUMING THE COFFE FROM THE CUP AS IT WAS INTENDED WHEN SOLD. Hello? McFly?!

700 spills out of 100,000,000 customers aint half bad IMO. Considering it's Americans, im suprised it's not 50 times that many people, asking for 50 times more money.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,719
13,497
146
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: g0dMAn
anyone who sues b/c coffee is too hot definitely has no life, too lazy to work and earn his/her own money, and probably scores an all-time low I.Q... unless it was spilled onto you by an employee...

Thanks for your penetrating insight. "Lack of personal responsibility" seems to be easier for the average ATOT to comprehend than principles of negligence law.

We understand it just fine. It's you who wants to apply it to anything that works exactly as it should, but is mishandled by the customer.
 

g0dMAn

Lifer
Nov 10, 2005
12,499
5
81
Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Originally posted by: tagej
Pale Rider, they knew about the 'hazard'... duuuuuuh. Ya think spilling hot coffee on yourself could cause burns??

Uhh, did you fall off the short bus? Spilled drink is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is McDonald's KNOWINGLY gave the drink out and had 700 documented cases of where it burned people badly, INCLUDING BURNS SUFFERED BY CONSUMING THE COFFE FROM THE CUP AS IT WAS INTENDED WHEN SOLD. Hello? McFly?!

700 spills out of 100,000,000 customers aint half bad IMO. Considering it's Americans, im suprised it's not 50 times that many people, asking for 50 times more money.

Americans are greedy... the 700 spills are greedy, fat, lazy Americans who eat McDonalds everyday b/c again they are fat, and lazy.

Like I said before, if an employee spilled the coffee, then I understand a lawsuit... but if your fat hands couldn't hold the coffee in the first place, whether it's 140F or 180F, it's still going to be hot and hurt you.

Let's use a somewhat exaggerated analogy:
You're cutting an apple with a pocket knife... you accidentally slip and take a chunk of your skin off.
You sue the company that made the knife because only 2mm of your skin should have peeled off rather than 6mm...

Spilling coffee on yourself and having a lawsuit over it is RIDICULOUS. How greedy can you be? How FAT and LAZY can someone be? These people want easy money... that's how I look at it.

True story:
My car got hit last week by an old man who walks on a cane. He reversed into my car TWICE b/c he didn't realize what happened the first time. I moved my car outa the way, and he starts to drive off. I honked 100x, got outa my car, and did a very loud whistle. He stops car and I chat with him.
He put a nice dent into the front fender of my car. My car is 12 years old, and in all honesty I wouldn't fix the fender even if I got paid by him. He offered me all of his info and offered to pay the estimate.
Now... should I get an estimate and make money off of a poor old man, should I lie and sue him b/c I hurt my neck, or should I be the kind citizen every freakin' american SHOULD BE and call it a day?

Your typical fat, greedy american, like many of these 700 spills, will go for the $$.

That's my point. These people are greedy, and that's also why they have excess fat on their bodies... b/c they don't WORK For their money.

Now I'm sure there are several of these 700 cases that do deserve something, but come on... you can't admit how freakin' greedy people truly are? I'm not saying I'm not, but my car works perfectly fine and was a piece of junk to begin with. I don't need to be greedy, and neither do these jerks...

None of what I say here is directly offensively in any manner to anyone part of this forum. This is simply directed towards the generalization of the greed behind lawsuits, which many I see as immoral.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: g0dMAn
anyone who sues b/c coffee is too hot definitely has no life, too lazy to work and earn his/her own money, and probably scores an all-time low I.Q... unless it was spilled onto you by an employee...

Thanks for your penetrating insight. "Lack of personal responsibility" seems to be easier for the average ATOT to comprehend than principles of negligence law.

We understand it just fine. It's you who wants to apply it to anything that works exactly as it should, but is mishandled by the customer.

No, you don't, as you've demonstrated several times now, including your statement that the jury would find for you based on what you perceive to be the majority opinion of the population (not based on the law, in other words). Your point of view is based on outrage and worry because you own or manage restaurants. Your second sentence is absolutely RETARDed and unjustifiable. LOL
 

Bayard

Member
Mar 28, 2007
32
0
0
I think that probably the old lady is 50% at fault and McD was 50%. The only thing that makes our Court system frivlous is the humongous payouts they ask for and get. Punitive payments should be given out but maybe to charity or the economy. But ******, when people know they can win 50-100 million bucks for doing stupid ******, hell that's what makes the court system a circus. That's asking some dumb juror that can come from any part of the education system. Even those with a 5th grade educational system to give out multi-million dollar rewards.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,719
13,497
146
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: g0dMAn
anyone who sues b/c coffee is too hot definitely has no life, too lazy to work and earn his/her own money, and probably scores an all-time low I.Q... unless it was spilled onto you by an employee...

Thanks for your penetrating insight. "Lack of personal responsibility" seems to be easier for the average ATOT to comprehend than principles of negligence law.

We understand it just fine. It's you who wants to apply it to anything that works exactly as it should, but is mishandled by the customer.

No, you don't, as you've demonstrated several times now, including your statement that the jury would find for you based on what you perceive to be the majority opinion of the population (not based on the law, in other words). Your point of view is based on outrage and worry because you own or manage restaurants. Your second sentence is absolutely RETARDed and unjustifiable. LOL

Um yeah. OK :roll:

Serving coffee at the recommended temp for ideal flavor is NOT negligent. Serving that coffee in a cup and lid that does not fail unless mishandled by the customer is NOT negligent.

Some things in life are potentially dangerous. I refuse to buy into the padded room, nanny-state mentality you and some others advocate.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Um yeah. OK :roll:

Serving coffee at the recommended temp for ideal flavor is NOT negligent. Serving that coffee in a cup and lid that does not fail unless mishandled by the customer is NOT negligent.

Some things in life are potentially dangerous. I refuse to buy into the padded room, nanny-state mentality you and some others advocate.

You yammer about "nanny state" this and that, and I guess even a fool is entitled to his opinion. Still, you are not the one who decides what is negligent. Your opinion isn't the law, as you've demonstrated over and over and over.
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Amused
Um yeah. OK :roll:

Serving coffee at the recommended temp for ideal flavor is NOT negligent. Serving that coffee in a cup and lid that does not fail unless mishandled by the customer is NOT negligent.

Some things in life are potentially dangerous. I refuse to buy into the padded room, nanny-state mentality you and some others advocate.

You yammer about "nanny state" this and that, and I guess even a fool is entitled to his opinion. Still, you are not the one who decides what is negligent. Your opinion isn't the law, as you've demonstrated over and over and over.


Amused is Juror Number 13, in fact the mods should give him a special title. :)
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,719
13,497
146
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Amused
Um yeah. OK :roll:

Serving coffee at the recommended temp for ideal flavor is NOT negligent. Serving that coffee in a cup and lid that does not fail unless mishandled by the customer is NOT negligent.

Some things in life are potentially dangerous. I refuse to buy into the padded room, nanny-state mentality you and some others advocate.

You yammer about "nanny state" this and that, and I guess even a fool is entitled to his opinion. Still, you are not the one who decides what is negligent. Your opinion isn't the law, as you've demonstrated over and over and over.

Talk about yammering. :roll:

Fact of the matter is, not one case has been won except the Stella case. That's why it's so remarkable. Most cases have lost and a very few were settled, stupidly.

The courts have repeatedly decided what is negligent. And in the all cases but one, they have found that coffee served at the recommended temps in reliable packaging is NOT negligence.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Amused
Um yeah. OK :roll:

Serving coffee at the recommended temp for ideal flavor is NOT negligent. Serving that coffee in a cup and lid that does not fail unless mishandled by the customer is NOT negligent.

Some things in life are potentially dangerous. I refuse to buy into the padded room, nanny-state mentality you and some others advocate.

You yammer about "nanny state" this and that, and I guess even a fool is entitled to his opinion. Still, you are not the one who decides what is negligent. Your opinion isn't the law, as you've demonstrated over and over and over.

Talk about yammering. :roll:

Fact of the matter is, not one case has been won except the Stella case. That's why it's so remarkable. Most cases have lost and a very few were settled, stupidly.

The courts have repeatedly decided what is negligent. And in the all cases but one, they have found that coffee served at the recommended temps in reliable packaging is NOT negligence.

There haven't been all that many hot-coffee cases. Before, you claimed that scads had been brought and lost by the lawyer from one case, but never ponied up. Scads have been settled, as most cases are. In addition, many of the coffee cases have involved airlines, and have been decided on other grounds.

McDonald's was negligent. Period. That's why they lost, and were forced to settle. Even before that case, they had settled others, to the tune of $500,000. I guess despite the wishes of an ATOT poster like yourself, a company that causes extensive third-degree burns really can be found negligent.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: bctbct
Originally posted by: Amused



Post the link to that, NOW!

Amused, wrong again.

We may disagree on opinions but you are constantly wrong on facts.

Well, it was posted in this thread already and destroyed. I figured it was you. If it wasn't I'm rather shocked that two people would make such an absurd comparison and logical fallacy.

You are completely taking my arguement out of context. My reference to the Pinto was in regard to overall safety of products being attributed to lawsuits that have forced change in product defects.

[/quote]

180 degree holding temp is NOT a defect. It is ideal for quality coffee. The cup and lid did not fail. No defect. The only defect was in the judgement of the consumer.

Comparing the Pinto case or ANY product defect case to this is simply absurd.[/quote]

No, the problem was McDonald's' negligence. That's why they lost.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,719
13,497
146
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Amused
Um yeah. OK :roll:

Serving coffee at the recommended temp for ideal flavor is NOT negligent. Serving that coffee in a cup and lid that does not fail unless mishandled by the customer is NOT negligent.

Some things in life are potentially dangerous. I refuse to buy into the padded room, nanny-state mentality you and some others advocate.

You yammer about "nanny state" this and that, and I guess even a fool is entitled to his opinion. Still, you are not the one who decides what is negligent. Your opinion isn't the law, as you've demonstrated over and over and over.

Talk about yammering. :roll:

Fact of the matter is, not one case has been won except the Stella case. That's why it's so remarkable. Most cases have lost and a very few were settled, stupidly.

The courts have repeatedly decided what is negligent. And in the all cases but one, they have found that coffee served at the recommended temps in reliable packaging is NOT negligence.

There haven't been all that many hot-coffee cases. Before, you claimed that scads had been brought and lost by the lawyer from one case, but never ponied up. Scads have been settled, as most cases are. In addition, many of the coffee cases have involved airlines, and have been decided on other grounds.

McDonald's was negligent. Period. That's why they lost, and were forced to settle. Even before that case, they had settled others, to the tune of $500,000. I guess despite the wishes of an ATOT poster like yourself, a company that causes extensive third-degree burns really can be found negligent.

And yet again you twist the facts. The cases McDonald's settled were cases in which an employee caused the spill, or the cup/lid was defective and caused the spill.

Nice try, though. It was very bold of you to try and lie about such a thing in the very thread these facts were exposed in... but maybe you counted on me having a short memory and others not willing to read the whole thread.

McDonald's did NOT cause the burns. Stella did by spilling it on herself. Nice try again.

You have yet to present a win. Not one single win besides the Stella case.

In fact, all you have left is insults.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Amused
Um yeah. OK :roll:

Serving coffee at the recommended temp for ideal flavor is NOT negligent. Serving that coffee in a cup and lid that does not fail unless mishandled by the customer is NOT negligent.

Some things in life are potentially dangerous. I refuse to buy into the padded room, nanny-state mentality you and some others advocate.

You yammer about "nanny state" this and that, and I guess even a fool is entitled to his opinion. Still, you are not the one who decides what is negligent. Your opinion isn't the law, as you've demonstrated over and over and over.

Talk about yammering. :roll:

Fact of the matter is, not one case has been won except the Stella case. That's why it's so remarkable. Most cases have lost and a very few were settled, stupidly.

The courts have repeatedly decided what is negligent. And in the all cases but one, they have found that coffee served at the recommended temps in reliable packaging is NOT negligence.

There haven't been all that many hot-coffee cases. Before, you claimed that scads had been brought and lost by the lawyer from one case, but never ponied up. Scads have been settled, as most cases are. In addition, many of the coffee cases have involved airlines, and have been decided on other grounds.

McDonald's was negligent. Period. That's why they lost, and were forced to settle. Even before that case, they had settled others, to the tune of $500,000. I guess despite the wishes of an ATOT poster like yourself, a company that causes extensive third-degree burns really can be found negligent.

And yet again you twist the facts. The cases McDonald's settled were cases in which an employee caused the spill, or the cup/lid was defective and caused the spill.

Nice try, though. It was very bold of you to try and lie about such a thing in the very thread these facts were exposed in... but maybe you counted on me having a short memory and others not willing to read the whole thread.

McDonald's did NOT cause the burns. Stella did by spilling it on herself. Nice try again.

You have yet to present a win. Not one single win besides the Stella case.

In fact, all you have left is insults.

You're the king of short memory, as you've proven time and again. McDonald's did indeed cause the burns, hence the many settlements. We can disagree about that, but one thing's undeniable: you know nothing of the law. That's not an insult, just a fact.

There have been many wins for plaintiffs, in the form of millions of dollars of settlements from the companies at fault.
 

s0ssos

Senior member
Feb 13, 2003
965
0
76
Originally posted by: bctbct
Originally posted by: JD50


You didn't even address his point....


Yeah I did about 5 pages back, same thing he latched onto and wont give up on. McDonalds is not at fault because everyone else is doing the same thing, typical teenage
thinking.

I dont buy the arguement because there is not way to tell what the actual temp was, could have been 280 if the machine was defective.

What we do know is that is caused injuries above what a typical cup of coffee would cause. I have spilled coffee many times and never had to seek medical attention.[/quote]

sorry bctbct, i'm not too good at this thing called science.
how does one make 280 degree coffee? i thought some things boil, but i guess coffee doesn't.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,719
13,497
146
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Amused
Um yeah. OK :roll:

Serving coffee at the recommended temp for ideal flavor is NOT negligent. Serving that coffee in a cup and lid that does not fail unless mishandled by the customer is NOT negligent.

Some things in life are potentially dangerous. I refuse to buy into the padded room, nanny-state mentality you and some others advocate.

You yammer about "nanny state" this and that, and I guess even a fool is entitled to his opinion. Still, you are not the one who decides what is negligent. Your opinion isn't the law, as you've demonstrated over and over and over.

Talk about yammering. :roll:

Fact of the matter is, not one case has been won except the Stella case. That's why it's so remarkable. Most cases have lost and a very few were settled, stupidly.

The courts have repeatedly decided what is negligent. And in the all cases but one, they have found that coffee served at the recommended temps in reliable packaging is NOT negligence.

There haven't been all that many hot-coffee cases. Before, you claimed that scads had been brought and lost by the lawyer from one case, but never ponied up. Scads have been settled, as most cases are. In addition, many of the coffee cases have involved airlines, and have been decided on other grounds.

McDonald's was negligent. Period. That's why they lost, and were forced to settle. Even before that case, they had settled others, to the tune of $500,000. I guess despite the wishes of an ATOT poster like yourself, a company that causes extensive third-degree burns really can be found negligent.

And yet again you twist the facts. The cases McDonald's settled were cases in which an employee caused the spill, or the cup/lid was defective and caused the spill.

Nice try, though. It was very bold of you to try and lie about such a thing in the very thread these facts were exposed in... but maybe you counted on me having a short memory and others not willing to read the whole thread.

McDonald's did NOT cause the burns. Stella did by spilling it on herself. Nice try again.

You have yet to present a win. Not one single win besides the Stella case.

In fact, all you have left is insults.

You're the king of short memory, as you've proven time and again. McDonald's did indeed cause the burns, hence the many settlements. We can disagree about that, but one thing's undeniable: you know nothing of the law. That's not an insult, just a fact.

There have been many wins for plaintiffs, in the form of millions of dollars of settlements from the companies at fault.

Um, no. There has been only ONE successful court opinion for a self inflicted coffee injury case. One.

I know enough about the law to know that. And I have enough common sense to know you'll twist the facts and outright lie to support your side. You've repeatedly tried to include cases in which the cup/lid failed or an employee caused the spill. None of those are relevant to this debate.

I also know enough about the law to know many companies who are not at fault will still settle because the cost to settle is cheaper than fighting it in court. So the VERY few settlements in self inflicted coffee injury cases are largely moot.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Um, no. There has been only ONE successful court opinion for a self inflicted coffee injury case. One.

I know enough about the law to know that. And I have enough common sense to know you'll twist the facts and outright lie to support your side. You've repeatedly tried to include cases in which the cup/lid failed or an employee caused the spill. None of those are relevant to this debate.

I also know enough about the law to know many companies who are not at fault will still settle because the cost to settle is cheaper than fighting it in court. So the VERY few settlements in self inflicted coffee injury cases are largely moot.

Um, no. Not a self-inflicted injury, but an injury inflicted by the negligence of the defendants. Hence the loss. You just haven't gotten it, after all this time. You know nothing of the law-- hence your dumb pronouncement that the jury would find for you, because of popular opinion.

Don't tell me what's relevant in this debate, newbie. Stick to running restaurants and you'll be fine. There have not been very few settlements; there have probably been many more than the cases that made it to court. McDonald's alone settled over $500,000 of coffee-burn claims before going to court in Liebeck, based on over 700 complaints of burns. With your Google-powered research skills you would of course probably not know this.

I haven't lied, ever. You, on the other hand, have. You should stick to opinion.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,719
13,497
146
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Amused
Um, no. There has been only ONE successful court opinion for a self inflicted coffee injury case. One.

I know enough about the law to know that. And I have enough common sense to know you'll twist the facts and outright lie to support your side. You've repeatedly tried to include cases in which the cup/lid failed or an employee caused the spill. None of those are relevant to this debate.

I also know enough about the law to know many companies who are not at fault will still settle because the cost to settle is cheaper than fighting it in court. So the VERY few settlements in self inflicted coffee injury cases are largely moot.

Um, no. Not a self-inflicted injury, but an injury inflicted by the negligence of the defendants. Hence the loss. You just haven't gotten it, after all this time. You know nothing of the law-- hence your dumb pronouncement that the jury would find for you, because of popular opinion.

Don't tell me what's relevant in this debate, newbie. Stick to running restaurants and you'll be fine. There have not been very few settlements; there have probably been many more than the cases that made it to court. McDonald's alone settled over $500,000 of coffee-burn claims before going to court in Liebeck, based on over 700 complaints of burns. With your Google-powered research skills you would of course probably not know this.

I haven't lied, ever. You, on the other hand, have. You should stick to opinion.

Again, you try to twist facts. You deny lying while doing it. Amazing. It has already been proved that of the cases McDonald's settled previously, all were due to employees causing the spill, or defective cups/lids. Yet you keep bringing those up. Why? They are totally irrelevant to this case.

You can keep calling me names. You can keep trying to represent yourself as some kind of expert. (HA!) But you won't change that simple fact no matter how many times you try to misrepresent it.

Again, find a SINGLE case of a self inflicted coffee injury that has won in court. (Employee did not cause spill and integrity of cup/lid is not in question).

You cannot with the exception of the Stella case. It never happened before, and it hasn't happened since. The reason the Stella case is so famous is because it's THE ONLY ONE THAT WON.

Finally, McDonald's and most other vendors STILL hold their coffee at around 180 degrees. Amazingly enough, no federal, state or local regulation has been passed to end that practice. Not a one. So not only the vast majority of the courts disagree with you, so do safety and food regulators.

Wanna know why? Because coffee is SUPPOSED to be held at 180 degrees for highest quality and taste.

So keep insulting me, twisting facts, outright lying and claiming to be some kind of expert. None of that will help you win an argument you lost pages ago.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Amused
Um, no. There has been only ONE successful court opinion for a self inflicted coffee injury case. One.

I know enough about the law to know that. And I have enough common sense to know you'll twist the facts and outright lie to support your side. You've repeatedly tried to include cases in which the cup/lid failed or an employee caused the spill. None of those are relevant to this debate.

I also know enough about the law to know many companies who are not at fault will still settle because the cost to settle is cheaper than fighting it in court. So the VERY few settlements in self inflicted coffee injury cases are largely moot.

Um, no. Not a self-inflicted injury, but an injury inflicted by the negligence of the defendants. Hence the loss. You just haven't gotten it, after all this time. You know nothing of the law-- hence your dumb pronouncement that the jury would find for you, because of popular opinion.

Don't tell me what's relevant in this debate, newbie. Stick to running restaurants and you'll be fine. There have not been very few settlements; there have probably been many more than the cases that made it to court. McDonald's alone settled over $500,000 of coffee-burn claims before going to court in Liebeck, based on over 700 complaints of burns. With your Google-powered research skills you would of course probably not know this.

I haven't lied, ever. You, on the other hand, have. You should stick to opinion.

Again, you try to twist facts. You deny lying while doing it. Amazing. It has already been proved that of the cases McDonald's settled previously, all were due to employees causing the spill, or defective cups/lids. Yet you keep bringing those up. Why? They are totally irrelevant to this case.

You can keep calling me names. You can keep trying to represent yourself as some kind of expert. (HA!) But you won't change that simple fact no matter how many times you try to misrepresent it.

Again, find a SINGLE case of a self inflicted coffee injury that has won in court. (Employee did not cause spill and integrity of cup/lid is not in question).

You cannot with the exception of the Stella case. It never happened before, and it hasn't happened since. The reason the Stella case is so famous is because it's THE ONLY ONE THAT WON.

Finally, McDonald's and most other vendors STILL hold their coffee at around 180 degrees. Amazingly enough, no federal, state or local regulation has been passed to end that practice. Not a one. So not only the vast majority of the courts disagree with you, so do safety and food regulators.

Wanna know why? Because coffee is SUPPOSED to be held at 180 degrees for highest quality and taste.

So keep insulting me, twisting facts, outright lying and claiming to be some kind of expert. None of that will help you win an argument you lost pages ago.

There's no twisting going on by me, just you. Despite the finding of the legal system, which knows more about the law and the facts of the situation than you, you deny that McDonald's was negligent. Here's a news-flash for you: it's not about causing the spill alone. It's about causing the injury, and knowingly at that. McDonald's knowingly failed in its duty to its public to act as a reasonable seller of coffee. Period.

Wanna know why? Because coffee that causes flesh to melt is too hot to safely use. A company that knows this, serves coffee at that temperature, and does it knowing that it will cause horrible burns, may be found negligent.

Oh, and I never lost an argument. All I did was point out your stupid lies and misreading of very simple language. Have fun with your quasi-legal mumbo jumbo and talk of a "nanny state mentality". :laugh::laugh::laugh: Here's another one of your lies, retard: I never claimed to be a legal expert (although there is admittedly a wide gulf between you and me on the subject). Here's another: I never lied. Here's another: I never twisted a fact.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,719
13,497
146
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: Amused
Um, no. There has been only ONE successful court opinion for a self inflicted coffee injury case. One.

I know enough about the law to know that. And I have enough common sense to know you'll twist the facts and outright lie to support your side. You've repeatedly tried to include cases in which the cup/lid failed or an employee caused the spill. None of those are relevant to this debate.

I also know enough about the law to know many companies who are not at fault will still settle because the cost to settle is cheaper than fighting it in court. So the VERY few settlements in self inflicted coffee injury cases are largely moot.

Um, no. Not a self-inflicted injury, but an injury inflicted by the negligence of the defendants. Hence the loss. You just haven't gotten it, after all this time. You know nothing of the law-- hence your dumb pronouncement that the jury would find for you, because of popular opinion.

Don't tell me what's relevant in this debate, newbie. Stick to running restaurants and you'll be fine. There have not been very few settlements; there have probably been many more than the cases that made it to court. McDonald's alone settled over $500,000 of coffee-burn claims before going to court in Liebeck, based on over 700 complaints of burns. With your Google-powered research skills you would of course probably not know this.

I haven't lied, ever. You, on the other hand, have. You should stick to opinion.

Again, you try to twist facts. You deny lying while doing it. Amazing. It has already been proved that of the cases McDonald's settled previously, all were due to employees causing the spill, or defective cups/lids. Yet you keep bringing those up. Why? They are totally irrelevant to this case.

You can keep calling me names. You can keep trying to represent yourself as some kind of expert. (HA!) But you won't change that simple fact no matter how many times you try to misrepresent it.

Again, find a SINGLE case of a self inflicted coffee injury that has won in court. (Employee did not cause spill and integrity of cup/lid is not in question).

You cannot with the exception of the Stella case. It never happened before, and it hasn't happened since. The reason the Stella case is so famous is because it's THE ONLY ONE THAT WON.

Finally, McDonald's and most other vendors STILL hold their coffee at around 180 degrees. Amazingly enough, no federal, state or local regulation has been passed to end that practice. Not a one. So not only the vast majority of the courts disagree with you, so do safety and food regulators.

Wanna know why? Because coffee is SUPPOSED to be held at 180 degrees for highest quality and taste.

So keep insulting me, twisting facts, outright lying and claiming to be some kind of expert. None of that will help you win an argument you lost pages ago.

There's no twisting going on by me, just you. Despite the finding of the legal system, which knows more about the law and the facts of the situation than you, you deny that McDonald's was negligent. Here's a news-flash for you: it's not about causing the spill alone. It's about causing the injury, and knowingly at that. McDonald's knowingly failed in its duty to its public to act as a reasonable seller of coffee. Period.

Wanna know why? Because coffee that causes flesh to melt is too hot to safely use. A company that knows this, serves coffee at that temperature, and does it knowing that it will cause horrible burns, may be found negligent.

Oh, and I never lost an argument. All I did was point out your stupid lies and misreading of very simple language. Have fun with your quasi-legal mumbo jumbo and talk of a "nanny state mentality". :laugh::laugh::laugh: Here's another one of your lies, retard: I never claimed to be a legal expert (although there is admittedly a wide gulf between you and me on the subject). Here's another: I never lied. Here's another: I never twisted a fact.

Oh, yes you did twist and lie by repeatedly trying to include irrelavant cases in your argument. On the other hand, I have not lied, nor tried to twist facts. I was mistaken on one point about rare cases of settlements and admitted my mistake.

Many things sold can cause harm if mishandled by the consumer. By your logic, all are a sign of neglegence. An absurd conclusion.

Finally, "the legal system" has made no such finding. An over emotional jury did after an incompetent defense bungled the case and McDonald's chose not to appeal further because of cost. A concept you obviously have trouble understanding. Companies settle frivolous cases everyday because settling the case is cheaper than the cost of fighting it.

If anything, the "legal system" agrees with me. Only one relevant case has won, all others that have gone to trial have lost. Most have had summery judgments against them. A very few rare cases were settled by companies not wanting to shoulder the cost of trial.

Meanwhile, know that hundreds of coffee vendors and coffee machine manufacturers know what I know, and you refuse to admit: That a 180 degree holding temp is ideal, legal, and not negligent in any way. No federal, state or local law has regulated that coffee must be held at less than 180 degrees. They are all still selling their coffee at that temp, even McDonald's. I bet you'll try claiming you're smarter than all of them too, huh? :roll:

I see now that all you are left with is insults and childish name calling. If that's what it takes to make you feel superior, I feel sorry for you.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Oh, yes you did twist and lie by repeatedly trying to include irrelavant cases in your argument. On the other hand, I have not lied, nor tried to twist facts. I was mistaken on one point about rare cases of settlements and admitted my mistake.

I included no irrelevant cases. It's too bad you can't back that statement up, like your other lies in this thread about what people have said. (I believe you got the smackdown about a lie regarding someone else just two or three pages back.) You included irrelevant cases, actually, in your eagerness to assign too much importance to the Bunn-O-Matic case, in which Frank Easterbrook, a very pro-corporation judge, refers to cases settled on other grounds of airline negligence instead of the hot-coffee issue. Hot coffee, alone, is not the issue anyway-- it's the knowing serving of hot coffee in a way that you know is causing injuries.

Many things sold can cause harm if mishandled by the consumer. By your logic, all are a sign of neglegence. An absurd conclusion.
Don't be more retarded than necessary. I realize you are out of your depth, but you can stay away from the obvious lies that you'll get called on again and again. I made no such statement, and don't believe anything of the sort-- RETARD. If you don't want me to call you a retard, don't make obvious lying statements about me that are so easy to attack.

You don't understand negligence at all. Take a class, then come back and see me.

Finally, "the legal system" has made no such finding.

Oh, yes they have.

An over emotional jury did after an incompetent defense bungled the case and McDonald's chose not to appeal further because of cost.

Nope. An unemotional jury awarded punitive damages due to McDonald's extreme negligence, as a warning to the industry. It actually costs very little for McDonald's to appeal a case, in terms of lawyer's fees and costs. They have in-house counsel, believe it or not. The defense bungled nothing; the case was straightforward.

A concept you obviously have trouble understanding. Companies settle frivolous cases everyday because settling the case is cheaper than the cost of fighting it.

You're an idiot if you think this passes for an argument, even on this sloppy discussion board. This case is not frivolous because of your opinion.

Let's restate the actual situation: a company can hold its coffee at whatever temperature it wants. Bunn-O-Matic is a corporate-friendly judge's opinion on how hot is too hot when brewing and holding coffee. The negligence of McDonald's, the proven negligence, was not in holding the coffee hot; it was in knowingly serving a product that it knew would cause injury.

I don't need to admit anything about a holding temperature, numbskull. I've never made an argument about a holding temperature. It's irrelevant.

I see now that all you are left with is insults and childish name calling.

Nope, I'm left with your obvious inadequacy. I just point it out.