The Truth about the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit

[Amused]

Gee, more insults. :roll:

You've got nothing 6000SUX. Why not admit it and move on?

Google "cost of defending a lawsuit."

There you will find that it can easily cost a company $500,000+ to defend itself in a lawsuit. This is why most companies settle frivolous lawsuits every day if the cost to settle is less than the cost to fight it. I own a business, 6000SUX. Don't tell me how lawsuits work or how much they cost. I've been sued more than once for frivolous reasons. Unfortunately because of people like you, it's the cost of doing business in the US now.

This case is a self inflicted/self spilled coffee injury case. Cases in which the lid/cup failed or the employee spilled the coffee on the customer are TOTALLY irrelevant. What part of that can you not understand? How is it possible you cannot see the obvious difference?

Again, you keep claiming that there are other wins. Where are they?

Finally, ALL accounts of the Stella case include references to the jurors being disgusted by the McDonald's defense "callousness." That's an emotional response.

But hey... maybe if you keep calling me names you'll feel like a winner, huh?

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Amused
Gee, more insults. :roll:

You've got nothing 6000SUX. Why not admit it and move on?

Google "cost of defending a lawsuit."

There you will find that it can easily cost a company $500,000+ to defend itself in a major lawsuit. This is why most companies settle frivolous lawsuits every day if the cost to settle is less than the cost to fight it. I own a business, 6000SUX. Don't tell me how lawsuits work or how much they cost. I've been sued more than once for frivolous reasons. Unfortunately because of people like you, it's the cost of doing business in the US now.

This case is a self inflicted/self spilled coffee injury case. Cases in which the lid/cup failed or the employee spilled the coffee on the customer are TOTALLY irrelevant. What part of that can you not understand? How is it possible you cannot see the obvious difference?

Again, you keep claiming that there are other wins. Where are they?

Finally, ALL accounts of the Stella case include references to the jurors being disgusted by the McDonald's defense "callousness." That's an emotional response.

But hey... maybe if you keep calling me names you'll feel like a winner, huh?

No, it is actually a negligence case, where the defendant corporation was negligent. I have accepted that you do not understand negligence. It is inevitable that a small restaurant operator who comes here to blather does not understand legal issues. Your latest apparent fallacy: that because some lawsuits may cost a significant amount, all hot-coffee-suit settlements are made on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. Another: that McDonald's settled because it would have cost them too much to appeal (which is truly stupid in this case; believe me, they can get a lot of hours of in-house counsel for the settlement amount).

Your characterization of the Liebeck jurors is insulting and stupid. They were originally prepared to find for the corporation, but when confronted with their knowing injury of many, many customers became disgusted. With your "logic", no one could possibly find against a restaurant unless they were biased. Stupid much?

You know nothing of how lawsuits work. I don't believe you've ever been involved with one; witness your statement that the jury could only find for you because of popular opinion. Shens, you stupid f*ck.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Amused
Gee, more insults. :roll:

You've got nothing 6000SUX. Why not admit it and move on?

Google "cost of defending a lawsuit."

There you will find that it can easily cost a company $500,000+ to defend itself in a major lawsuit. This is why most companies settle frivolous lawsuits every day if the cost to settle is less than the cost to fight it. I own a business, 6000SUX. Don't tell me how lawsuits work or how much they cost. I've been sued more than once for frivolous reasons. Unfortunately because of people like you, it's the cost of doing business in the US now.

This case is a self inflicted/self spilled coffee injury case. Cases in which the lid/cup failed or the employee spilled the coffee on the customer are TOTALLY irrelevant. What part of that can you not understand? How is it possible you cannot see the obvious difference?

Again, you keep claiming that there are other wins. Where are they?

Finally, ALL accounts of the Stella case include references to the jurors being disgusted by the McDonald's defense "callousness." That's an emotional response.

But hey... maybe if you keep calling me names you'll feel like a winner, huh?

No, it is actually a negligence case, where the defendant corporation was negligent. I have accepted that you do not understand negligence. It is inevitable that a small restaurant operator who comes here to blather does not understand legal issues. Your latest apparent fallacy: that because some lawsuits may cost a significant amount, all hot-coffee-suit settlements are made on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. Another: that McDonald's settled because it would have cost them too much to appeal (which is truly stupid in this case; believe me, they can get a lot of hours of in-house counsel for the settlement amount).

Your characterization of the Liebeck jurors is insulting and stupid. They were originally prepared to find for the corporation, but when confronted with their knowing injury of many, many customers became disgusted. With your "logic", no one could possibly find against a restaurant unless they were biased. Stupid much?

You know nothing of how lawsuits work. I don't believe you've ever been involved with one; witness your statement that the jury could only find for you because of popular opinion. Shens, you stupid f*ck.

Wow...

You really need to calm down there, Skippy.

I understand negligence perfectly. There is no negligence if the company took all precautions in delivering the coffee safely. In this case and all the lost cases like it, they did. The employee did not spill the coffee and the lid/cup performed as intended. It was the negligence of the customer that caused the spill, and the injury.

Again, an emotional irrational response from the jury. 700 complaints in 10 years is a 1 in 24 million compliant rate. A person stands a five times greater chance of being hit by lightning.

BTW, this is what I was speaking of when I spoke of the emotional response to the perceived "callousness" of the McDonald's defense. You'd think you could understand that since you're so superior and all.

And popular opinion means everything in a jury trial. That's all it is is a vote of your supposed peers.

Oh, and instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself, please Google "cost of defending a lawsuit." Please? Because your arguments against that are really embarrassing for you.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Amused
Gee, more insults. :roll:

You've got nothing 6000SUX. Why not admit it and move on?

Google "cost of defending a lawsuit."

There you will find that it can easily cost a company $500,000+ to defend itself in a major lawsuit. This is why most companies settle frivolous lawsuits every day if the cost to settle is less than the cost to fight it. I own a business, 6000SUX. Don't tell me how lawsuits work or how much they cost. I've been sued more than once for frivolous reasons. Unfortunately because of people like you, it's the cost of doing business in the US now.

This case is a self inflicted/self spilled coffee injury case. Cases in which the lid/cup failed or the employee spilled the coffee on the customer are TOTALLY irrelevant. What part of that can you not understand? How is it possible you cannot see the obvious difference?

Again, you keep claiming that there are other wins. Where are they?

Finally, ALL accounts of the Stella case include references to the jurors being disgusted by the McDonald's defense "callousness." That's an emotional response.

But hey... maybe if you keep calling me names you'll feel like a winner, huh?

No, it is actually a negligence case, where the defendant corporation was negligent. I have accepted that you do not understand negligence. It is inevitable that a small restaurant operator who comes here to blather does not understand legal issues. Your latest apparent fallacy: that because some lawsuits may cost a significant amount, all hot-coffee-suit settlements are made on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. Another: that McDonald's settled because it would have cost them too much to appeal (which is truly stupid in this case; believe me, they can get a lot of hours of in-house counsel for the settlement amount).

Your characterization of the Liebeck jurors is insulting and stupid. They were originally prepared to find for the corporation, but when confronted with their knowing injury of many, many customers became disgusted. With your "logic", no one could possibly find against a restaurant unless they were biased. Stupid much?

You know nothing of how lawsuits work. I don't believe you've ever been involved with one; witness your statement that the jury could only find for you because of popular opinion. Shens, you stupid f*ck.

Wow...

You really need to calm down there, Skippy.

I understand negligence perfectly. There is no negligence if the company took all precautions in delivering the coffee safely. In this case and all the lost cases like it, they did. The employee did not spill the coffee and the lid/cup performed as intended. It was the negligence of the customer that caused the spill, and the injury.

You know nothing of negligence, or products liability. Let's agree to leave it at that. You have made a fool of yourself yet again. You also know nothing of this case, preferring just to opine that the jury was motivated by emotion.

Again, an emotional irrational response from the jury. 700 complaints in 10 years is a 1 in 24 million compliant rate. A person stands a five times greater chance of being hit by lightning.

Anope. Your numbers are faulty, but I won't go into that because I'd be giving weight to a stupid argument. Even one action may be negligent-- here there were 700. It has nothing to do with lightning.

BTW, this is what I was speaking of when I spoke of the emotional response to the perceived "callousness" of the McDonald's defense. You'd think you could understand that since you're so superior and all.

The phrase "1 in 24 million" has derailed your reason. It does not mean the jury was emotional. Your insults of them peg you as the biased jackass you are.

And popular opinion means everything in a jury trial. That's all it is is a vote of your supposed peers.

Aha, your legal inadequacy rears its huge and ugly head. You are fond of Google-- use it to find the university nearest you.

Oh, and instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself, please Google "cost of defending a lawsuit." Please? Because your arguments against that are really embarrassing for you.

Different kinds of lawsuits cost different amounts to settle. Defending with in-house counsel costs significantly less, as well. It would have cost McDonald's less to appeal, which is not nearly as expensive as the trial itself, than it would have cost to settle. You know nothing here and are embarrassing yourself badly. I believe someone already remarked in this thread that you've owned yourself, and here you do it again.

I found one link with a figure around $500,000:
http://lawdepartmentmanagement.typepad....anagement/2005/06/average_costs_o.html
"The average cost of defending a D&O claim ? back in 2000 ? was $540,000. The average payment was $5,650,000. Thus, the ratio of defense costs to settlement or judgment costs was one dollar for every ten."

Ya gotta stick to food-management stuff. Seriously.

 

[Amused]

Wow...

More names and insults. Do you really think that makes you look smart?

And thanks for making my case on the cost of defending a lawsuit. If the plaintiff is willing to settle for less than half a million, it's CHEAPER to settle.

Just wow... I'm absolutely amazed you thought that made your case.

Finally, are you actually trying to claim that popular opinion and personal bias play NO part in jury decisions? WOW!

I guess you missed the OJ trial. :laugh:

 

[Phokus]

Holy crap this thread is long. I read about 14 pages of this thread a week ago and based on the facts, i think the decision to have McDonalds partially negligent and not fully negligent is the correct judgement. I thought this was a frivilous lawsuit just like everyone else based on the latenight comedy jokes about this case, but given the facts, it was the correct judgement. I think your average coffee buyer is smart enough to know that if you spill coffee on yourself while it's still hot, you will feel a lot of pain. However, i don't think your average coffee buyer would expect to have their skin melt off, even right after the coffee comes out of the coffee maker. I sure didn't until reading this thread. Spilling coffee is a very common occurrence. I've splashed coffee on myself numerous times (although not full spills) and i'm not even a heavy coffee drinker. I've seen countless other people spill/splash coffee on themselves. And i don't even buy coffee through a drive through, but i imagine the chances of spilling coffee purchasing through a drive through is even worse.

edit:

P.S. Amused, how do you have so much time arguing about this kind of stuff on ATOT? I thought entrepreneurs/franchise operators work long ass hours

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Holy crap this thread is long. I read about 14 pages of this thread a week ago and based on the facts, i think the decision to have McDonalds partially negligent and not fully negligent is the correct judgement. I thought this was a frivilous lawsuit just like everyone else based on the latenight comedy jokes about this case, but given the facts, it was the correct judgement. I think your average coffee buyer is smart enough to know that if you spill coffee on yourself while it's still hot, you will feel a lot of pain. However, i don't think your average coffee buyer would expect to have their skin melt off, even right after the coffee comes out of the coffee maker. I sure didn't until reading this thread. Spilling coffee is a very common occurrence. I've splashed coffee on myself numerous times (although not full spills) and i'm not even a heavy coffee drinker. I've seen countless other people spill/splash coffee on themselves. And i don't even buy coffee through a drive through, but i imagine the chances of spilling coffee purchasing through a drive through is even worse.

edit:

P.S. Amused, how do you have so much time arguing about this kind of stuff on ATOT? I thought entrepreneurs/franchise operators work long ass hours

I do most of my work at home. I have managers in the stores and a GM.

And don't judge the case by the propaganda piece in the OP. It's full of crap. The most blatant lie in it is the claim that 180 degrees is "40 degrees above the industry average." That little gem has been blown to hell in this thread. The vast majority of coffee vendors hold their coffee at the temp recommended by all coffee experts and gourmet coffee guidelines: and that is about 180 degrees. What's more, they recommend it is served immediately after brewing. And their recommended brewing temps are 195-220 degrees.

They also lie when they claim McDonald's dropped the temp of their coffee. It has been proven in this thread that McDonald's still holds and sells their coffee at about 180 degrees. Especially after switching to their new premium coffee.

The other misleading item is the 700 complaints in 10 years. That's 1 complaint in 24 million cups sold. An amazingly low complaint rate.

In no way was McDonald's negligent. Their coffee was at the industry recommended temps and the lid/cup system worked perfectly.

The woman not only fiddled with an obviously hot cup of coffee between her legs and spilled it due to her own negligence, she then sat in the puddle of coffee for a full 90+ seconds.

 

[rh71]

how did it spill anyway ? she should sue the driver of the car for moving it or sue herself for spilling it on her own. That sounds perfectly fine too.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: rh71
how did it spill anyway ? she should sue the driver of the car for moving it or sue herself for spilling it on her own. That sounds perfectly fine too.

Her son (IIRC) was driving. They ordered the coffee and he pulled away, then stopped the car. She put the coffee between her legs and proceeded to take off the lid to add condiments while the coffee cup was beteeen her legs. She fumbled and spilled the coffee while it was uncapped and between her legs.

And now... the amazing part: She sat in that puddle of coffee for 90+ seconds. She took even longer to drop her soaked sweat pants and panties.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Amused
Wow...

More names and insults. Do you really think that makes you look smart?

And thanks for making my case on the cost of defending a lawsuit. If the plaintiff is willing to settle for less than half a million, it's CHEAPER to settle.

Just wow... I'm absolutely amazed you thought that made your case.

Finally, are you actually trying to claim that popular opinion and personal bias play NO part in jury decisions? WOW!

I guess you missed the OJ trial. :laugh:

That's the kind of "special" person that gets to be a juror on these types of lawsuits.

I loved the part about SUX6000 doing some self pwnge with basic numeric relationships.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus
Holy crap this thread is long. I read about 14 pages of this thread a week ago and based on the facts, i think the decision to have McDonalds partially negligent and not fully negligent is the correct judgement. I thought this was a frivilous lawsuit just like everyone else based on the latenight comedy jokes about this case, but given the facts, it was the correct judgement. I think your average coffee buyer is smart enough to know that if you spill coffee on yourself while it's still hot, you will feel a lot of pain. However, i don't think your average coffee buyer would expect to have their skin melt off, even right after the coffee comes out of the coffee maker. I sure didn't until reading this thread. Spilling coffee is a very common occurrence. I've splashed coffee on myself numerous times (although not full spills) and i'm not even a heavy coffee drinker. I've seen countless other people spill/splash coffee on themselves. And i don't even buy coffee through a drive through, but i imagine the chances of spilling coffee purchasing through a drive through is even worse.

edit:

P.S. Amused, how do you have so much time arguing about this kind of stuff on ATOT? I thought entrepreneurs/franchise operators work long ass hours

I do most of my work at home. I have managers in the stores and a GM.

And don't judge the case by the propaganda piece in the OP. It's full of crap. The most blatant lie in it is the claim that 180 degrees is "40 degrees above the industry average." That little gem has been blown to hell in this thread. The vast majority of coffee vendors hold their coffee at the temp recommended by all coffee experts and gourmet coffee guidelines: and that is about 180 degrees. What's more, they recommend it is served immediately after brewing. And their recommended brewing temps are 195-220 degrees.

They also lie when they claim McDonald's dropped the temp of their coffee. It has been proven in this thread that McDonald's still holds and sells their coffee at about 180 degrees. Especially after switching to their new premium coffee.

The other misleading item is the 700 complaints in 10 years. That's 1 complaint in 24 million cups sold. An amazingly low complaint rate.

In no way was McDonald's negligent. Their coffee was at the industry recommended temps and the lid/cup system worked perfectly.

The woman not only fiddled with an obviously hot cup of coffee between her legs and spilled it due to her own negligence, she then sat in the puddle of coffee for a full 90+ seconds.

But the point is, regardless of the industry recommended temperatures, if the temperature is hot enough to melt your skin, then that is a problem. Is the industry recommended temperature based on the taste of the coffee rather than the safety of the temp (i think that's what you said pages ago, but i forgot)? Like i said, i think most people are aware that spilling coffee on yourself will be painful and would produce a red welt or something, but i would have never known that 180 degrees coffee would be able to melt your skin. This isn't like selling steak knives where it should be obvious to even the lowest common denominator that the knives are sharp and can harm you if you don't handle them with care. Also, i don't think anybody is making the argument that mcdonalds is 100% at fault since the woman was careless in handling the coffee, but i think the common expectation is that coffee won't melt your skin if it spills on you.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus
Holy crap this thread is long. I read about 14 pages of this thread a week ago and based on the facts, i think the decision to have McDonalds partially negligent and not fully negligent is the correct judgement. I thought this was a frivilous lawsuit just like everyone else based on the latenight comedy jokes about this case, but given the facts, it was the correct judgement. I think your average coffee buyer is smart enough to know that if you spill coffee on yourself while it's still hot, you will feel a lot of pain. However, i don't think your average coffee buyer would expect to have their skin melt off, even right after the coffee comes out of the coffee maker. I sure didn't until reading this thread. Spilling coffee is a very common occurrence. I've splashed coffee on myself numerous times (although not full spills) and i'm not even a heavy coffee drinker. I've seen countless other people spill/splash coffee on themselves. And i don't even buy coffee through a drive through, but i imagine the chances of spilling coffee purchasing through a drive through is even worse.

edit:

P.S. Amused, how do you have so much time arguing about this kind of stuff on ATOT? I thought entrepreneurs/franchise operators work long ass hours

I do most of my work at home. I have managers in the stores and a GM.

And don't judge the case by the propaganda piece in the OP. It's full of crap. The most blatant lie in it is the claim that 180 degrees is "40 degrees above the industry average." That little gem has been blown to hell in this thread. The vast majority of coffee vendors hold their coffee at the temp recommended by all coffee experts and gourmet coffee guidelines: and that is about 180 degrees. What's more, they recommend it is served immediately after brewing. And their recommended brewing temps are 195-220 degrees.

They also lie when they claim McDonald's dropped the temp of their coffee. It has been proven in this thread that McDonald's still holds and sells their coffee at about 180 degrees. Especially after switching to their new premium coffee.

The other misleading item is the 700 complaints in 10 years. That's 1 complaint in 24 million cups sold. An amazingly low complaint rate.

In no way was McDonald's negligent. Their coffee was at the industry recommended temps and the lid/cup system worked perfectly.

The woman not only fiddled with an obviously hot cup of coffee between her legs and spilled it due to her own negligence, she then sat in the puddle of coffee for a full 90+ seconds.

But the point is, regardless of the industry recommended temperatures, if the temperature is hot enough to melt your skin, then that is a problem. Is the industry recommended temperature based on the taste of the coffee rather than the safety of the temp (i think that's what you said pages ago, but i forgot)? Like i said, i think most people are aware that spilling coffee on yourself will be painful and would produce a red welt or something, but i would have never known that 180 degrees coffee would be able to melt your skin. This isn't like selling steak knives where it should be obvious to even the lowest common denominator that the knives are sharp and can harm you if you don't handle them with care. Also, i don't think anybody is making the argument that mcdonalds is 100% at fault since the woman was careless in handling the coffee, but i think the common expectation is that coffee won't melt your skin if it spills on you.

She sat in the coffee puddle for 90+ seconds and took even longer to remove her sweats and panties. She would have melted her skin with almost ANY temp above scalding.

Duration of exposure until injury:

155F (68.3C) 1 second
145F (62.9C) 3 seconds
135F (57.2C) 10 seconds
130F (54.4C) 30 seconds
125F (51.6C) 2 minutes
120F (48.8C) 5 minutes

Be it 150 degrees, or 180 when served, she would have cooked her cooter.

The real issue is, can a potentially dangerous product be sold at all? The coffee is potentially dangerous if mishandled, yes. But so are many consumer products. The key to determining neglegence here is did McDonald's take every reasonable step to prevent injury and inform of the risks while selling a product at the expected and best temps for quality? In this case, yes. There was a warning on the cup and the lid/cup did not fail.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

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

That says it all right there folks. McDonalds knew about the problem well in advance and didn't try to fix it. They are at fault, even if she spilled the drink.

Huh?

Talk about the ultimate in stupid views.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus
Holy crap this thread is long. I read about 14 pages of this thread a week ago and based on the facts, i think the decision to have McDonalds partially negligent and not fully negligent is the correct judgement. I thought this was a frivilous lawsuit just like everyone else based on the latenight comedy jokes about this case, but given the facts, it was the correct judgement. I think your average coffee buyer is smart enough to know that if you spill coffee on yourself while it's still hot, you will feel a lot of pain. However, i don't think your average coffee buyer would expect to have their skin melt off, even right after the coffee comes out of the coffee maker. I sure didn't until reading this thread. Spilling coffee is a very common occurrence. I've splashed coffee on myself numerous times (although not full spills) and i'm not even a heavy coffee drinker. I've seen countless other people spill/splash coffee on themselves. And i don't even buy coffee through a drive through, but i imagine the chances of spilling coffee purchasing through a drive through is even worse.

edit:

P.S. Amused, how do you have so much time arguing about this kind of stuff on ATOT? I thought entrepreneurs/franchise operators work long ass hours

I do most of my work at home. I have managers in the stores and a GM.

And don't judge the case by the propaganda piece in the OP. It's full of crap. The most blatant lie in it is the claim that 180 degrees is "40 degrees above the industry average." That little gem has been blown to hell in this thread. The vast majority of coffee vendors hold their coffee at the temp recommended by all coffee experts and gourmet coffee guidelines: and that is about 180 degrees. What's more, they recommend it is served immediately after brewing. And their recommended brewing temps are 195-220 degrees.

They also lie when they claim McDonald's dropped the temp of their coffee. It has been proven in this thread that McDonald's still holds and sells their coffee at about 180 degrees. Especially after switching to their new premium coffee.

The other misleading item is the 700 complaints in 10 years. That's 1 complaint in 24 million cups sold. An amazingly low complaint rate.

In no way was McDonald's negligent. Their coffee was at the industry recommended temps and the lid/cup system worked perfectly.

The woman not only fiddled with an obviously hot cup of coffee between her legs and spilled it due to her own negligence, she then sat in the puddle of coffee for a full 90+ seconds.

But the point is, regardless of the industry recommended temperatures, if the temperature is hot enough to melt your skin, then that is a problem. Is the industry recommended temperature based on the taste of the coffee rather than the safety of the temp (i think that's what you said pages ago, but i forgot)? Like i said, i think most people are aware that spilling coffee on yourself will be painful and would produce a red welt or something, but i would have never known that 180 degrees coffee would be able to melt your skin. This isn't like selling steak knives where it should be obvious to even the lowest common denominator that the knives are sharp and can harm you if you don't handle them with care. Also, i don't think anybody is making the argument that mcdonalds is 100% at fault since the woman was careless in handling the coffee, but i think the common expectation is that coffee won't melt your skin if it spills on you.

She sat in the coffee puddle for 90+ seconds and took even longer to remove her sweats and panties. She would have melted her skin with almost ANY temp above scalding.

Duration of exposure until injury:

155F (68.3C) 1 second
145F (62.9C) 3 seconds
135F (57.2C) 10 seconds
130F (54.4C) 30 seconds
125F (51.6C) 2 minutes
120F (48.8C) 5 minutes

Be it 150 degrees, or 180 when served, she would have cooked her cooter.

The real issue is, can a potentially dangerous product be sold at all? The coffee is potentially dangerous if mishandled, yes. But so are many consumer products. The key to determining neglegence here is did McDonald's take every reasonable step to prevent injury and inform of the risks while selling a product at the expected and best temps for quality? In this case, yes. There was a warning on the cup and the lid/cup did not fail.

But one of the people in this thread said something to the effect that after a certain temperature, heat becomes exponentially more dangerous as the temperature goes up... if it was 150 degrees, the damage might not have required skin grafts. As for dangerous products, yes i think they can be sold. Knives, guns, etc. are dangerous, but it's common sense how dangerous those products are and how to handle them. If someone cuts themselves with a steak knife, it's a very obvious danger that you might hurt yourself if you're not careful... Also, Coffee is problematic because it's a liquid, and liquids by there very nature are not stable. I've never cut myself with a knife before, but i have spilled coffee many times and i've seen it quite often from other people. Before this thread, i've always accepted the fact that if i buy my coffee in a hurry and run to class or work, i might spill some on myself and get a stinging red welt and i was ok with that. I sure as hell would not be ok with having my skin melt.

 

[CityShrimp]

Didn't read the whole thread (way too long), but I thought part of the issue is that McD's is serving coffee at an undrinkable temperature when the majority of the consumers drink it while they drive... So it is pointless to keep it at 185F in the first place. Thus, the old lady's suing because she wouldn't have suffered as much injury if the coffee was served at a lower temperature. And for people who think it'll too cold by the time you want to drink it, Styrofoam will keep it warm for a long~ time.

For people who keep talking about guns hurt and knives cut, here's my counter-argument (sort of). Suppose you bought a knife that doesn't have to be very sharp, like say, it only needs to be as sharp as a crappy scissor. But the knife was extremely sharp anyways because the manufacturers just... felt like it. After you got the knife, you accidentally cut your finger. Oops, your finger came off because the knife was THAT sharp. But if the knife wasn't as sharp, you would've only gotten a cut. Now, would you be pissed off about that? I would, since the knife didn't have to be that sharp, and yet it is. Especially if 700 other people have already complained about the sharpness and the company KNEW that the knife had NO REASON to be that sharp.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus
Holy crap this thread is long. I read about 14 pages of this thread a week ago and based on the facts, i think the decision to have McDonalds partially negligent and not fully negligent is the correct judgement. I thought this was a frivilous lawsuit just like everyone else based on the latenight comedy jokes about this case, but given the facts, it was the correct judgement. I think your average coffee buyer is smart enough to know that if you spill coffee on yourself while it's still hot, you will feel a lot of pain. However, i don't think your average coffee buyer would expect to have their skin melt off, even right after the coffee comes out of the coffee maker. I sure didn't until reading this thread. Spilling coffee is a very common occurrence. I've splashed coffee on myself numerous times (although not full spills) and i'm not even a heavy coffee drinker. I've seen countless other people spill/splash coffee on themselves. And i don't even buy coffee through a drive through, but i imagine the chances of spilling coffee purchasing through a drive through is even worse.

edit:

P.S. Amused, how do you have so much time arguing about this kind of stuff on ATOT? I thought entrepreneurs/franchise operators work long ass hours

I do most of my work at home. I have managers in the stores and a GM.

And don't judge the case by the propaganda piece in the OP. It's full of crap. The most blatant lie in it is the claim that 180 degrees is "40 degrees above the industry average." That little gem has been blown to hell in this thread. The vast majority of coffee vendors hold their coffee at the temp recommended by all coffee experts and gourmet coffee guidelines: and that is about 180 degrees. What's more, they recommend it is served immediately after brewing. And their recommended brewing temps are 195-220 degrees.

They also lie when they claim McDonald's dropped the temp of their coffee. It has been proven in this thread that McDonald's still holds and sells their coffee at about 180 degrees. Especially after switching to their new premium coffee.

The other misleading item is the 700 complaints in 10 years. That's 1 complaint in 24 million cups sold. An amazingly low complaint rate.

In no way was McDonald's negligent. Their coffee was at the industry recommended temps and the lid/cup system worked perfectly.

The woman not only fiddled with an obviously hot cup of coffee between her legs and spilled it due to her own negligence, she then sat in the puddle of coffee for a full 90+ seconds.

But the point is, regardless of the industry recommended temperatures, if the temperature is hot enough to melt your skin, then that is a problem. Is the industry recommended temperature based on the taste of the coffee rather than the safety of the temp (i think that's what you said pages ago, but i forgot)? Like i said, i think most people are aware that spilling coffee on yourself will be painful and would produce a red welt or something, but i would have never known that 180 degrees coffee would be able to melt your skin. This isn't like selling steak knives where it should be obvious to even the lowest common denominator that the knives are sharp and can harm you if you don't handle them with care. Also, i don't think anybody is making the argument that mcdonalds is 100% at fault since the woman was careless in handling the coffee, but i think the common expectation is that coffee won't melt your skin if it spills on you.

She sat in the coffee puddle for 90+ seconds and took even longer to remove her sweats and panties. She would have melted her skin with almost ANY temp above scalding.

Duration of exposure until injury:

155F (68.3C) 1 second
145F (62.9C) 3 seconds
135F (57.2C) 10 seconds
130F (54.4C) 30 seconds
125F (51.6C) 2 minutes
120F (48.8C) 5 minutes

Be it 150 degrees, or 180 when served, she would have cooked her cooter.

The real issue is, can a potentially dangerous product be sold at all? The coffee is potentially dangerous if mishandled, yes. But so are many consumer products. The key to determining neglegence here is did McDonald's take every reasonable step to prevent injury and inform of the risks while selling a product at the expected and best temps for quality? In this case, yes. There was a warning on the cup and the lid/cup did not fail.

But one of the people in this thread said something to the effect that after a certain temperature, heat becomes exponentially more dangerous as the temperature goes up... if it was 150 degrees, the damage might not have required skin grafts. As for dangerous products, yes i think they can be sold. Knives, guns, etc. are dangerous, but it's common sense how dangerous those products are and how to handle them. If someone cuts themselves with a steak knife, it's a very obvious danger that you might hurt yourself if you're not careful... Also, Coffee is problematic because it's a liquid, and liquids by there very nature are not stable. I've never cut myself with a knife before, but i have spilled coffee many times and i've seen it quite often from other people. Before this thread, i've always accepted the fact that if i buy my coffee in a hurry and run to class or work, i might spill some on myself and get a stinging red welt and i was ok with that. I sure as hell would not be ok with having my skin melt.

Your skin wont melt unless you expose yourself to it for an unresonable amount of time. Most people are smart enough to get out of the puddle and/or wipe it off in a hurry... not sit in it for 90+ seconds.

You've spilled 180 degree coffee on yourself. And all you get is a welt (first degree burn). That's because you don't let it stand on you for a minute and a half or longer.

I posted the chart. She would have suffered the same injuries had it been held at 150 because of the time she sat in the puddle and allowed her coffee soaked cloths to remain on. She is also very old with extremely thin and fragile skin. 150 degree liquid WILL cause third degree burns in a minute and a half... actually, less.

But the real point is, coffee is not ideal if held at 150 degrees. And coffee held at 180 degrees is NOT 180 degrees by the time it's served and cream and sugar are added. In fact, coffee served at 150 degrees ends up luke warm after one serves it in a cold cup, takes it where they're going, adds cold cream and sugar and a cold spoon to stir it with.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: CityShrimp
Didn't read the whole thread (way too long), but I thought part of the issue is that McD's is serving coffee at an undrinkable temperature when the majority of the consumers drink it while they drive... So it is pointless to keep it at 185F in the first place. Thus, the old lady's suing because she wouldn't have suffered as much injury if the coffee was served at a lower temperature. And for people who think it'll too cold by the time you want to drink it, Styrofoam will keep it warm for a long~ time.

For people who keep talking about guns hurt and knives cut, here's my counter-argument (sort of). Suppose you bought a knife that doesn't have to be very sharp, like say, it only needs to be as sharp as a crappy scissor. But the knife was extremely sharp anyways because the manufacturers just... felt like it. After you got the knife, you accidentally cut your finger. Oops, your finger came off because the knife was THAT sharp. But if the knife wasn't as sharp, you would've only gotten a cut. Now, would you be pissed off about that? I would, since the knife didn't have to be that sharp, and yet it is. Especially if 700 other people have already complained about the sharpness and the company KNEW that the knife had NO REASON to be that sharp.

Wow. I hope you don't think that passes for logic.

And you should have read the thread. Coffee is ideal when it is held at around 180 degrees. Actually, it's ideal when served after brewing at just over 200 degrees. Search any and all gourmet coffee sites to find out why.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus
Holy crap this thread is long. I read about 14 pages of this thread a week ago and based on the facts, i think the decision to have McDonalds partially negligent and not fully negligent is the correct judgement. I thought this was a frivilous lawsuit just like everyone else based on the latenight comedy jokes about this case, but given the facts, it was the correct judgement. I think your average coffee buyer is smart enough to know that if you spill coffee on yourself while it's still hot, you will feel a lot of pain. However, i don't think your average coffee buyer would expect to have their skin melt off, even right after the coffee comes out of the coffee maker. I sure didn't until reading this thread. Spilling coffee is a very common occurrence. I've splashed coffee on myself numerous times (although not full spills) and i'm not even a heavy coffee drinker. I've seen countless other people spill/splash coffee on themselves. And i don't even buy coffee through a drive through, but i imagine the chances of spilling coffee purchasing through a drive through is even worse.

edit:

P.S. Amused, how do you have so much time arguing about this kind of stuff on ATOT? I thought entrepreneurs/franchise operators work long ass hours

I do most of my work at home. I have managers in the stores and a GM.

And don't judge the case by the propaganda piece in the OP. It's full of crap. The most blatant lie in it is the claim that 180 degrees is "40 degrees above the industry average." That little gem has been blown to hell in this thread. The vast majority of coffee vendors hold their coffee at the temp recommended by all coffee experts and gourmet coffee guidelines: and that is about 180 degrees. What's more, they recommend it is served immediately after brewing. And their recommended brewing temps are 195-220 degrees.

They also lie when they claim McDonald's dropped the temp of their coffee. It has been proven in this thread that McDonald's still holds and sells their coffee at about 180 degrees. Especially after switching to their new premium coffee.

The other misleading item is the 700 complaints in 10 years. That's 1 complaint in 24 million cups sold. An amazingly low complaint rate.

In no way was McDonald's negligent. Their coffee was at the industry recommended temps and the lid/cup system worked perfectly.

The woman not only fiddled with an obviously hot cup of coffee between her legs and spilled it due to her own negligence, she then sat in the puddle of coffee for a full 90+ seconds.

But the point is, regardless of the industry recommended temperatures, if the temperature is hot enough to melt your skin, then that is a problem. Is the industry recommended temperature based on the taste of the coffee rather than the safety of the temp (i think that's what you said pages ago, but i forgot)? Like i said, i think most people are aware that spilling coffee on yourself will be painful and would produce a red welt or something, but i would have never known that 180 degrees coffee would be able to melt your skin. This isn't like selling steak knives where it should be obvious to even the lowest common denominator that the knives are sharp and can harm you if you don't handle them with care. Also, i don't think anybody is making the argument that mcdonalds is 100% at fault since the woman was careless in handling the coffee, but i think the common expectation is that coffee won't melt your skin if it spills on you.

She sat in the coffee puddle for 90+ seconds and took even longer to remove her sweats and panties. She would have melted her skin with almost ANY temp above scalding.

Duration of exposure until injury:

155F (68.3C) 1 second
145F (62.9C) 3 seconds
135F (57.2C) 10 seconds
130F (54.4C) 30 seconds
125F (51.6C) 2 minutes
120F (48.8C) 5 minutes

Be it 150 degrees, or 180 when served, she would have cooked her cooter.

The real issue is, can a potentially dangerous product be sold at all? The coffee is potentially dangerous if mishandled, yes. But so are many consumer products. The key to determining neglegence here is did McDonald's take every reasonable step to prevent injury and inform of the risks while selling a product at the expected and best temps for quality? In this case, yes. There was a warning on the cup and the lid/cup did not fail.

But one of the people in this thread said something to the effect that after a certain temperature, heat becomes exponentially more dangerous as the temperature goes up... if it was 150 degrees, the damage might not have required skin grafts. As for dangerous products, yes i think they can be sold. Knives, guns, etc. are dangerous, but it's common sense how dangerous those products are and how to handle them. If someone cuts themselves with a steak knife, it's a very obvious danger that you might hurt yourself if you're not careful... Also, Coffee is problematic because it's a liquid, and liquids by there very nature are not stable. I've never cut myself with a knife before, but i have spilled coffee many times and i've seen it quite often from other people. Before this thread, i've always accepted the fact that if i buy my coffee in a hurry and run to class or work, i might spill some on myself and get a stinging red welt and i was ok with that. I sure as hell would not be ok with having my skin melt.

Your skin wont melt unless you expose yourself to it for an unresonable amount of time. Most people are smart enough to get out of the puddle and/or wipe it off in a hurry... not sit in it for 90+ seconds.

You've spilled 180 degree coffee on yourself. And all you get is a welt (first degree burn). That's because you don't let it stand on you for a minute and a half or longer.

I posted the chart. She would have suffered the same injuries had it been held at 150 because of the time she sat in the puddle and allowed her coffee soaked cloths to remain on. She is also very old with extremely thin and fragile skin. 150 degree liquid WILL cause third degree burns in a minute and a half... actually, less.

But the real point is, coffee is not ideal if held at 150 degrees. And coffee held at 180 degrees is NOT 180 degrees by the time it's served and cream and sugar are added. In fact, coffee served at 150 degrees ends up luke warm after one serves it in a cold cup, takes it where they're going, adds cold cream and sugar and a cold spoon to stir it with.

Is your chart assuming that for a minute and a half that the spilled liquid stays at 150 degrees or is it adjusting for cooling?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Is your chart assuming that for a minute and a half that the spilled liquid stays at 150 degrees or is it adjusting for cooling?

I would assume it's assuming it stays at that temp in the chart. But that's just a guess.

But if you look at the difference between 150 degrees and 180 degrees, there isn't going to be all that much difference after 90 full seconds of stewing in it. The injuries are going to be severe either way... especially on 80+ year old skin.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Is your chart assuming that for a minute and a half that the spilled liquid stays at 150 degrees or is it adjusting for cooling?

I would assume it's assuming it stays at that temp in the chart. But that's just a guess.

But if you look at the difference between 150 degrees and 180 degrees, there isn't going to be all that much difference after 90 full seconds of stewing in it. The injuries are going to be severe either way... especially on 80+ year old skin.

This was the post i was talking about regarding the exponential difference in damage done between 155F and 180F and was one of the posts that convinced me of the validity of the lawsuit. The statistics you show don't say to what extent 150F can damage your skin in a given amount of time.

<From Zinfamous>

The lady was putting cream and sugar in her coffee when the accident happened. It said nothing about her attempting to drink it at that temperature. Do you think yoiu people could possibly consider that this 80 year-old woman, who will not have skin as resilient as any of you, had intended to drink the coffee later?

The chief MD's food engineer dude claimed that 180F is a dangerous temp, and the thermodynamics expert mentioned the exponential difference beween liquid at 155F and 180F on human skin. It was proven than MD's was aware of this as well, but continued on. 700 lawsuits later, someone finally does something about it.

It sounds as if the defense thought this was a frivulous case as well, until their investigation uncovered years of negligence at the hands of MD's. I say: good for her.

Then again, I have a lifetime ban on McDonald's, and would love to see them extracated from the American (and International) diet, anyway .

 

[bctbct]

Amused you lose just like McDonalds did.

You use the exact same arguments McDonalds did at trial before 12 people and a judge, in fact the jury was so outraged by those BS arguments they upped the punitive damages.

Apparently you havent googled enough and found the jurors comments.

McDonalds LOST, the case was mischaracterized in the press, lawyers wont touch these cases because they dont think they can win.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Is your chart assuming that for a minute and a half that the spilled liquid stays at 150 degrees or is it adjusting for cooling?

I would assume it's assuming it stays at that temp in the chart. But that's just a guess.

But if you look at the difference between 150 degrees and 180 degrees, there isn't going to be all that much difference after 90 full seconds of stewing in it. The injuries are going to be severe either way... especially on 80+ year old skin.

This was the post i was talking about regarding the exponential difference in damage done between 155F and 180F and was one of the posts that convinced me of the validity of the lawsuit. The statistics you show don't say to what extent 150F can damage your skin in a given amount of time.

<From Zinfamous>

The lady was putting cream and sugar in her coffee when the accident happened. It said nothing about her attempting to drink it at that temperature. Do you think yoiu people could possibly consider that this 80 year-old woman, who will not have skin as resilient as any of you, had intended to drink the coffee later?

The chief MD's food engineer dude claimed that 180F is a dangerous temp, and the thermodynamics expert mentioned the exponential difference beween liquid at 155F and 180F on human skin. It was proven than MD's was aware of this as well, but continued on. 700 lawsuits later, someone finally does something about it.

It sounds as if the defense thought this was a frivulous case as well, until their investigation uncovered years of negligence at the hands of MD's. I say: good for her.

Then again, I have a lifetime ban on McDonald's, and would love to see them extracated from the American (and International) diet, anyway .

180 degrees is nothing unique, as much as the ambulance chasers would have you believe. Not only is it the industry recommended temp for quality, it is in fact the industry standard.

There is nothing neglegent in what McDonald's did. The 700 number out of context (not lawsuits, complaints) is inflamatory. It results in one complaint for every 24 million cups sold. Most product manufacturers could only dream of a complaint rate so low.

She sat in the liquid for 90 seconds. There would have been very little difference in her injuries had the hold temp been 150 instead of 180.

Yes, 180 is dangerous. Why would the engineer deny that? The 450 degrees your pizza is served at is dangerous as well. Next time you get a pizza, drop your drawers and sit on it for 90 seconds as soon as it comes out to you and see how bad the burns are.

Phokus, even you have described your mild coffee burns. And chances are, it was served to you at 180 degrees since the vast majority of vendors serve coffee at that temp. Did it melt your skin? Of course not. You didn't sit in it for 90 seconds.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: bctbct
Amused you lose just like McDonalds did.

You use the exact same arguments McDonalds did at trial before 12 people and a judge, in fact the jury was so outraged by those BS arguments they upped the punitive damages.

Apparently you havent googled enough and found the jurors comments.

McDonalds LOST, the case was mischaracterized in the press, lawyers wont touch these cases because they dont think they can win.

I've lost nothing. Yes, I have read the over-emotional responses of the jurors. They only show the incompetence of McDonald's insurance company lawyers. They focused on facts only, expecting a jury to weigh the case on those alone, forgetting that most jurors are uneducated, emotional and subjective people.

Lawyers won't touch these cases? WTF are you talking about? Most are thrown out of court on summery judgments. Most have been lost, and only one case has won.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bctbct
Amused you lose just like McDonalds did.

You use the exact same arguments McDonalds did at trial before 12 people and a judge, in fact the jury was so outraged by those BS arguments they upped the punitive damages.

Apparently you havent googled enough and found the jurors comments.

McDonalds LOST, the case was mischaracterized in the press, lawyers wont touch these cases because they dont think they can win.

I've lost nothing. Yes, I have read the over-emotional responses of the jurors. They only show the incompetence of McDonald's insurance company lawyers. They focused on facts only, expecting a jury to weigh the case on those alone, forgetting that most jurors are uneducated, emotional and subjective people.
Lawyers won't touch these cases? WTF are you talking about? Most are thrown out of court on summery judgments. Most have been lost, and only one case has won.

Dude I told you this before, bolded above is what a jury is, every jury, every case. You think the facts are tried in a vaccum? When an issue goes to trial it is a crap shoot, cases that should win everyday are lost and vica versa.

Public opinion has a huge impact on juries, I stand by my comment that many cases never got off the ground because lawyers wont touch a case like this.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bctbct
Amused you lose just like McDonalds did.

You use the exact same arguments McDonalds did at trial before 12 people and a judge, in fact the jury was so outraged by those BS arguments they upped the punitive damages.

Apparently you havent googled enough and found the jurors comments.

McDonalds LOST, the case was mischaracterized in the press, lawyers wont touch these cases because they dont think they can win.

I've lost nothing. Yes, I have read the over-emotional responses of the jurors. They only show the incompetence of McDonald's insurance company lawyers. They focused on facts only, expecting a jury to weigh the case on those alone, forgetting that most jurors are uneducated, emotional and subjective people.
Lawyers won't touch these cases? WTF are you talking about? Most are thrown out of court on summery judgments. Most have been lost, and only one case has won.

Dude I told you this before, bolded above is what a jury is, every jury, every case. You think the facts are tried in a vaccum? When an issue goes to trial it is a crap shoot, cases that should win everyday are lost and vica versa.

Public opinion has a huge impact on juries, I stand by my comment that many cases never got off the ground because lawyers wont touch a case like this.

If you stand by your assumtion that many cases were never pressed because personal injury lawyers won't touch a case like this, what does that tell you?

The fact of the matter is, MANY lawyers have taken up similar cases. All have lost except one. Most thrown out on summery judgements.