The Truth about the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn

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.

It's not a problem. People slip and fall on cement.. Should all cement be turned into mattresses? People crash cars.. should all mobility be removed from cars so people cannot crash them?

You are dumb.

The spilled drink is not the issue dumbass.

Yes it is, if the coffee stayed in the cup how the hell would it burn you?

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

 

[AbAbber2k]

700 claims in 10 years. 70 claims per year. Less than 6 claims per month. I wonder how many people order a McD coffee in a month. I'm guessing it's enough to make that "ZOMG 700 CLAIMS" figure look insignificant.

That said, I still can't really side with McD on this one, primarily because the temperature was based on them making more money than if they served it at a reasonable temperature. If they were getting mass complaints and not seeing sales because of "warm" coffee, then I could support a higher temperature I guess. I'm a wuss when it comes to hot liquid. I put ice cubes in my soup after it's done to cool it... I wait FOREVER for coffee or hot coccoa... but I'm also not stupid enough to open drive-thu coffee in my fvcking lap.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: maziwanka
I gotta run, but this is definitely a good read.

I learned about this in my first year civil procedure class.

don't be so quick to jump to conclusions about "frivolous" lawsuits. the marketing power of the parties sued is amazing.

+ronnie

http://www.siegfriedandjensen.com/cases.html

Sounds like you've joined a large percentage of America's youth in placing way too much faith in your "professor's" ideals. Its a shame so many lib's honestly believe what you just said, and that its corrupting so many people our age. Pussification of America indeed. Learn to think for youself

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn

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.

It's not a problem. People slip and fall on cement.. Should all cement be turned into mattresses? People crash cars.. should all mobility be removed from cars so people cannot crash them?

You are dumb.

The spilled drink is not the issue dumbass.

Yes it is, if the coffee stayed in the cup how the hell would it burn you?

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

Topic of thread: The Truth about the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit

 

[AMDZen]

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.

And yet another it seems. People burn themselves with the coffee because coffee is HOT, jesus you sheeple are truly amazing

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn

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.

It's not a problem. People slip and fall on cement.. Should all cement be turned into mattresses? People crash cars.. should all mobility be removed from cars so people cannot crash them?

You are dumb.

The spilled drink is not the issue dumbass.

Yes it is, if the coffee stayed in the cup how the hell would it burn you?

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

When you drink coffee, do you let it cool off a little or do you just start chugging right when its done brewing?

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: JD50
One time, I took a bite of pizza, I think the cheese may have burned the roof of my mouth, I'm suing the pizza maker and the maker of the oven...

lol, I just did that last night. The burning part... not the suing.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn

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.

It's not a problem. People slip and fall on cement.. Should all cement be turned into mattresses? People crash cars.. should all mobility be removed from cars so people cannot crash them?

You are dumb.

The spilled drink is not the issue dumbass.

Yes it is, if the coffee stayed in the cup how the hell would it burn you?

I dunno if you've ever held a takeout coffee cup, but its not exactly the hardest thing to spill. Any slight pressure on it's sides will pop the top.

This is of course partially the womans fault (which the jury recognized) - but there is no excuse for serving the coffee at the temperature they do, other than to be cheap and squeeze every last cent of profit out.

It's just plain irresponsible to package something so harmful in such a fragile container.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn

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.

It's not a problem. People slip and fall on cement.. Should all cement be turned into mattresses? People crash cars.. should all mobility be removed from cars so people cannot crash them?

You are dumb.

The spilled drink is not the issue dumbass.

Yes it is, if the coffee stayed in the cup how the hell would it burn you?

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

Topic of thread: The Truth about the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit

So you CAN read... now read the article.

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Can I sue a knife maker for making an 'extra sharp' knife if I cut myself with it while I'm whittling a stick in a moving car?

Yes.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: JD50
One time, I took a bite of pizza, I think the cheese may have burned the roof of my mouth, I'm suing the pizza maker and the maker of the oven...

lol, I just did that last night. The burning part... not the suing.

Yea, hurts like hell

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn

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.

It's not a problem. People slip and fall on cement.. Should all cement be turned into mattresses? People crash cars.. should all mobility be removed from cars so people cannot crash them?

You are dumb.

The spilled drink is not the issue dumbass.

Yes it is, if the coffee stayed in the cup how the hell would it burn you?

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

Topic of thread: The Truth about the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit

So you CAN read... now read the article.

Would the old lady have gotten burned if she didn't spill the coffee?

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn

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.

It's not a problem. People slip and fall on cement.. Should all cement be turned into mattresses? People crash cars.. should all mobility be removed from cars so people cannot crash them?

You are dumb.

The spilled drink is not the issue dumbass.

The point is that retards f-up and then expect others to take the blame.

Good luck trying to consume any beverage over 110F. They spilled the "hot coffee" not McDonalds.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: maziwanka
I gotta run, but this is definitely a good read.

I learned about this in my first year civil procedure class.

don't be so quick to jump to conclusions about "frivolous" lawsuits. the marketing power of the parties sued is amazing.

+ronnie

http://www.siegfriedandjensen.com/cases.html

This has been spammed all over and shredded to death. What you are helping to spam is ambulance chaser propaganda.

The ONLY truth about the McDonald's coffee case it that the insurance company didn't take it seriously, and did not present an adequate defense. In short, it was handed to the ambulance chasers by McDonald's insurance company and their incompetence. McDonald's has learned from their mistake and will no longer allow it's insurance company to represent it in lawsuits.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn

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.

It's not a problem. People slip and fall on cement.. Should all cement be turned into mattresses? People crash cars.. should all mobility be removed from cars so people cannot crash them?

You are dumb.

The spilled drink is not the issue dumbass.

Yes it is, if the coffee stayed in the cup how the hell would it burn you?

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

When you drink coffee, do you let it cool off a little or do you just start chugging right when its done brewing?

The expectation of the customer is that the drink is ready for consumption when it is served.

This all had been argued in court already - and you lost. Feel free to keep going if you want.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Unlike the idiots in theis thread, McDonald's responded by serving their coffee at the same temperature as the other guys. It's also much better coffee now than it was then.

TBMK, their coffee has been lawsuit free since.

 

[RichardE]

In pretrial discovery, Ms. Lieback's attorney learned that McDonald's had already been sued some 700 other times (!) for burn injuries caused by their hot coffee, and that they had routinely settled with the injured party, requiring each person to sign a confidentiality agreement, barring the person from talking about the nature of settlement. At the trial of the case, a McDonald's representative maintained that it was appropriate to continue to serve the coffee at 180 degrees, although people were going to get burned, because the numbers of burned people were "statistically insignificant."

Yes, products are dangerous. Companies that knowingly make products that are dangerous should take steps to insure that they do not get sued and not rely on the fact that they will be able to settle. As we can see, as soon as McDonalds knew that future cases of this would be brought to trial they took steps to minimize the risks to customers. So while the customers actions were at fault, 145-155 degress coffee will not cause 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts whereas 185 degress will. 130-140 degrees coffee will not cause burns besides redish marks, yet will still steam. So steam is not an indicator of risk. In the end McDonalds was neglicent on purpose and was relying on a ability to settle rather than taking corrective actions to prevent future harm to its customers.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn

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.

It's not a problem. People slip and fall on cement.. Should all cement be turned into mattresses? People crash cars.. should all mobility be removed from cars so people cannot crash them?

You are dumb.

The spilled drink is not the issue dumbass.

The point is that retards f-up and then expect others to take the blame.

Good luck trying to consume any beverage over 110F. They spilled the "hot coffee" not McDonalds.

The native temp of your body is nearly 100F. You can drink liquids up to 150F without burning yourself. 180F liquids will cause 3rd degree burns. Read a medical book.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn

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.

It's not a problem. People slip and fall on cement.. Should all cement be turned into mattresses? People crash cars.. should all mobility be removed from cars so people cannot crash them?

You are dumb.

The spilled drink is not the issue dumbass.

Yes it is, if the coffee stayed in the cup how the hell would it burn you?

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

When you drink coffee, do you let it cool off a little or do you just start chugging right when its done brewing?

The expectation of the customer is that the drink is ready for consumption when it is served.

This all had been argues in court already - and you lost. Feel free to keep going if you want.

Well you do have a point there, the courts are right 100 percent of the time. :roll:

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn

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.

It's not a problem. People slip and fall on cement.. Should all cement be turned into mattresses? People crash cars.. should all mobility be removed from cars so people cannot crash them?

You are dumb.

The spilled drink is not the issue dumbass.

Yes it is, if the coffee stayed in the cup how the hell would it burn you?

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

When you drink coffee, do you let it cool off a little or do you just start chugging right when its done brewing?

The expectation of the customer is that the drink is ready for consumption when it is served.

This all had been argues in court already - and you lost. Feel free to keep going if you want.

Well you do have a point there, the courts are right 100 percent of the time. :roll:

Actually a jury decided the case, not a Judge or a lawyer; IE people like us right now...

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn

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.

It's not a problem. People slip and fall on cement.. Should all cement be turned into mattresses? People crash cars.. should all mobility be removed from cars so people cannot crash them?

You are dumb.

The spilled drink is not the issue dumbass.

Yes it is, if the coffee stayed in the cup how the hell would it burn you?

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

If they drank it and burned themselves, once again, it's hot coffee. That will happen.
If the cup fell apart and it burned them, cups are going to fail. It happens. Once again, a lawsuit would be frivolous.
If the coffee melted the cups time and time again and hurt people and McDonald's did nothing to rectify the faulty cups, that's negligence.
Sort of like cigarette people selling cigarettes and hiding the fact that cigarettes kill.
Had they said "Look folks, these are gonna kill you if you smoke them" the lawsuit would have been frivolous.

 

[fire400]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: tagej
Pale Rider, they knew about the 'hazard'... duuuuuuh. Ya think spilling hot coffee on yourself could cause burns??

140 degree coffee isn't causing third degree burns.

depends on the condition of skin. if skin is already burned to a degree, burning it some more will cause a 3rd degree burn. for infants or senior folks, yeah, 3rd degree burns are likely to occur.

of course the solution is to try your best to not spill coffee at all.

"who the hell drinks coffee anyway?" -shi_ is gross anyway.

good luck boys and girls. law suits are no fun. some take years to resolve. GL HF DD

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn

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.

It's not a problem. People slip and fall on cement.. Should all cement be turned into mattresses? People crash cars.. should all mobility be removed from cars so people cannot crash them?

You are dumb.

The spilled drink is not the issue dumbass.

Yes it is, if the coffee stayed in the cup how the hell would it burn you?

Another genius I see.

The temp of the drink is the issue, it burned people who didn't spill it.

When you drink coffee, do you let it cool off a little or do you just start chugging right when its done brewing?

The expectation of the customer is that the drink is ready for consumption when it is served.

This all had been argues in court already - and you lost. Feel free to keep going if you want.

Well you do have a point there, the courts are right 100 percent of the time. :roll:

Actually a jury decided the case, not a Judge or a lawyer; IE people like us right now...

Well you do have a point there, juries are right 100 percent of the time. :roll:

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: brxndxn

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.

It's not a problem. People slip and fall on cement.. Should all cement be turned into mattresses? People crash cars.. should all mobility be removed from cars so people cannot crash them?

You are dumb.

The spilled drink is not the issue dumbass.

The point is that retards f-up and then expect others to take the blame.

Good luck trying to consume any beverage over 110F. They spilled the "hot coffee" not McDonalds.

The native temp of your body is nearly 100F. You can drink liquids up to 150F without burning yourself. 180F liquids will cause 3rd degree burns. Read a medical book.

I know I can't drink hot water from my home without burning myself and my water heater is set to 125F.

Every product made has some danger to it. They didn't present the coffee as "cold".

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: maziwanka
I gotta run, but this is definitely a good read.

I learned about this in my first year civil procedure class.

don't be so quick to jump to conclusions about "frivolous" lawsuits. the marketing power of the parties sued is amazing.

+ronnie

http://www.siegfriedandjensen.com/cases.html

This has been spammed all over and shredded to death. What you are helping to spam is ambulance chaser propaganda.

The ONLY truth about the McDonald's coffee case it that the insurance company didn't take it seriously, and did not present an adequate defense. In short, it was handed to the ambulance chasers by McDonald's insurance company and their incompetence. McDonald's has learned from their mistake and will no longer allow it's insurance company to represent it in lawsuits.

You have to be kidding.

You may think that's how it should have been, but knowing your product is dangerous, and that failure is likely (obviously coffee is going to get spilled) in such a manner as to make that danger meaningful, and failing to do something about it is negligent.

That's what negligence is. If it were intentional, that would be called assault, not negligence.

Now, maybe you don't believe in the concept of negligence, but you've got no leg to stand on in terms of the laws of your country.