-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
The Truth about the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ShotgunSteven
Lifer
1. Order hot coffee.
2. Pour it on your crotch.
3. Scream, call the media, then sue.
4. Profit!
2. Pour it on your crotch.
3. Scream, call the media, then sue.
4. Profit!
ShotgunSteven
Lifer
I realize that, I've read pages upon pages about the case. I just decided I would rather nef in here than drag out the old arguments when everyone else has already done that. 😉
AMDZen
Lifer
You never really answered the question though, where do you draw the line? Seriously, at what point does the labeling end. Give me a single product on the market today and I could fill the whole damn label with disclaimers and need the cap too. Every product doesn't need every obvious disclaimer on it, except now it does because people in America are sue happy. You dont see anything wrong with the fact that everytime someone sues company A for something they have to now have whatever that dumbass did labeled on the product? Its insulting really. I once saw on a Dremel box, "Do not use dremel on your limbs." On my limbs, really. So where do you draw the line? Do you need to put on the coffee cup "Do not feed coffee to your kids as it may make them hyperactive"? Do you need to list the pets that people could possibly have that coffee may harm? "DO NOT FEED COFFEE TO YOUR LIZARD AS IT COULD KILL THE LIZARD"
Vic
Elite Member
Amused is right (and he should be, he owns and operates restaurants IIRC). The ideal brewing temp for coffee is near boiling. The ideal serving temp is 180F. This was not, as that lawyer's page so obviously libeled, so that McD's could save a few beans and hence a few pennies. Ask any true coffee aficionado. They want it HOT. HOT. HOT.
In fact, McD's was the largest seller of coffee in the country at the time of that lawsuit. You can almost directly tie the fall of McD's coffee business after this suit to the rise of Starbucks. And why? Because espresso is prepared by steam, at even higher (above boiling) temperatures, making for an even better coffee but one that can be served at lower (read, less dangerous) temperatures.
BTW, the rules of good coffee preparation are (1) obtain premium Arabica beans at your preferred roasting level (lighter roast means more caffeine BTW, darker roast less caffeine), (2) store in cool dark dry place, (3) grind as soon before brewing as possible, (4) use A LOT of coffee in preparation, 2 tablespoons per 6 ounces of water, (5) use good, clean, cold water, (6) brew HOT, (7) brew FAST, (8) serve HOT.
I love coffee BTW. Starbucks sucks.
In fact, McD's was the largest seller of coffee in the country at the time of that lawsuit. You can almost directly tie the fall of McD's coffee business after this suit to the rise of Starbucks. And why? Because espresso is prepared by steam, at even higher (above boiling) temperatures, making for an even better coffee but one that can be served at lower (read, less dangerous) temperatures.
BTW, the rules of good coffee preparation are (1) obtain premium Arabica beans at your preferred roasting level (lighter roast means more caffeine BTW, darker roast less caffeine), (2) store in cool dark dry place, (3) grind as soon before brewing as possible, (4) use A LOT of coffee in preparation, 2 tablespoons per 6 ounces of water, (5) use good, clean, cold water, (6) brew HOT, (7) brew FAST, (8) serve HOT.
I love coffee BTW. Starbucks sucks.
Gunslinger08
Lifer
Your argument is moot. The court found her responsible for the spill. Again the spill isn't the issue.
McDonalds had 700 documented cases of burns, many 3rd degree burns and didn not fix their problem. They were at fault, case closed - this was decided long ago. 🙂
[/quote]
The spill is the issue. Without spilling, there is no issue. If you don't handle HOT liquids with some sort of intelligence and respect, it's your own fault completely. If the coffee is too HOT for you, then let it cool down. If you don't like waiting for your HOT coffee to cool down, buy coffee somewhere else. It's not like coffee is an absolute must have item. You know it's HOT. If you've bought it from McD's before, you know it's very HOT. You either let it cool down or you buy somewhere else.
Is it a gun maker's responsibility if you accidentally pull the trigger and kill someone? Even if it's a very light trigger? Lighter than the industry standard? Absolutely not.[/quote]
The temp was the issue, not the spill. People were burned without spilling the drink. The court decided that your point of view was incorrect. Good day. 🙂[/quote]
Please point out in the article where it states that "people were burned without spilling the drink."
If you don't sip coffee to see if it's very HOT before taking a chug, you also deserve what you get.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
I'm not paying any more for McDonald's coffee. In fact it's cheaper than the competition.
You've made it clear before that the concept of negligence is foreign to you.
It's the lady's fault she spilled the coffee. It's McDonald's fault they served a product that was statistically going to be spilled, knew it had caused serious injuries before and did nothing to mitigate the risk.
The ideal brewing temperature is irrelevant - and the ideal serving temp is irrelevant too, because the ideal drinking temp is not 180 degrees. Most places that sell a high volume of coffee get around this by serving the coffee at a relatively safe temperature (which is normally still hot enough that you don't want to drink it 'right away' and throwing out the odd pot of coffee that sits at this temperature for too long. It doesn't take much planning to keep this waste to a bare minimum.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
'The line' for negligence is quite clear. You need to take substantive action to mitigate serious risks that are 'realistic'.
There is an 'out' in Canadian law at least, that says if you couldn't realistically have predicted the danger, you can't be found negligent. But once it happens, you have to add it to your list. I learned about this many years ago in lifeguard training. If someone dies in your pool, for example, but does it due to a risk that was legitimately not known, you have to take action with respect to the risk, but you can't be found negligent for what happened in the past. I *believe* the first case involving hair caught in a pool filter may have been decided based on this (i.e. that the lifeguards, and facility were not negligent).
Gunslinger08
Lifer
Notice that little adjective "iced" the precedes coffee in your sentence and does not in mine. All cars have engines. "Not toy cars! Hahhahaha! Lollerskates! I am so funny and clever!"
And if true steak afficiandos agree that steak is best served raw, does that make it a good idea to serve that to millions of people without taking more than the slightest of precautions to warn people of the danger?
The label said "Caution: Hot". The most blithering of idiots knows coffee is hot. But there are degrees of hot (literally 😛), and the labeling should have certainly been a bit more explicit as to how ridiculously hot and how badly it could hurt you. They dont need a paragraph, just a better choice of words. McDonalds is the lowest common denominator, and they should have recognized that.
Similarly, when you go to buy sushi, it doesnt say "Caution: raw". It says "Caution: this food can make you very ill."
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
Yeah, that really was deserved😀
Is Siegfried and Jensen for real? This is the American legal system at its worst (I hope!). The "facts" alone.
Fact #1 - For years McDonalds served their coffee up to 40 degrees hotter than other fast food restaurants. In this way, they could get more coffee per pound of beans and increase their profits by a few cents per cup.
OK, the first part is proven, but the second is pure speculation. It MAY be right, but to present it is a fact is very manipulative.
Fact #2 - McDonald's coffee was so hot that, if spilled, it could cause third degree burns, which would burn through skin and down to the muscle in less than three seconds.
If you spill hot liquid on yourself, you get burned. The part with "which would burn through your skin etc." is gibberish, and purely mentioned for a wow-effect.
Fact #3 - McDonald's has had over 700 previous claims related to serious burns from their coffee to their customers, many of whom had been injured in the genital area, inner thighs, and buttocks areas. Yet, McDonald's refused to lower the temperature of their coffee.
Well, McDonald's has clumsy customers. Stop pouring coffee over yourselves.
Fact #4 - The injured (burned) plaintiff in this case, 79 year old Stella Lieback, was not driving her car. She was seated as the passenger in her grandson's parked car, holding the coffee cup between her legs while removing the plastic lid. The cup tipped over and poured the scalding hot coffee into her lap, causing third degree burns.
"holding the coffee cup between her legs while removing the plastic lid" ... Yep, that sounds like a great idea. She should have poured the coffee in her ears, that way she would not have suffered any damage.
Fact #5 - Mrs. Lieback required eight days of hospitalization and multiple surgeries, including skin grafts as a result of being scalded by McDonald's coffee.
No, was a result of her own stupidity.
Fact #6 - Mrs. Lieback only took legal action against McDonald's after they refused to reimburse her for her medical expenses.
If you are stupid and clumsy, get a medical insurance.
Fact #7 - The jury was so outraged at the arrogance and callousness of McDonald's that they awarded punitive damages, to punish McDonald's and to deter McDonald's from such conduct in the future. They awarded $2.7 million.
The JURY decides the amount of the compensation? Do they WANT corruption?
Fact #8 - The day after the verdict, McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee.
Gee, did they? What a surprise.
Fact #9 - The trial judge thought the verdict was too high and reduced the verdict to about $400,000 at McDonald's request. (This is one fact that the insurance lawyers and McDonald's corporate lawyers never mention.)
At McDonald's request? So you can request a milder punishment?
All-in-all, this is a tasteless commercial for the lawfirm. Sickening.
Fact #1 - For years McDonalds served their coffee up to 40 degrees hotter than other fast food restaurants. In this way, they could get more coffee per pound of beans and increase their profits by a few cents per cup.
OK, the first part is proven, but the second is pure speculation. It MAY be right, but to present it is a fact is very manipulative.
Fact #2 - McDonald's coffee was so hot that, if spilled, it could cause third degree burns, which would burn through skin and down to the muscle in less than three seconds.
If you spill hot liquid on yourself, you get burned. The part with "which would burn through your skin etc." is gibberish, and purely mentioned for a wow-effect.
Fact #3 - McDonald's has had over 700 previous claims related to serious burns from their coffee to their customers, many of whom had been injured in the genital area, inner thighs, and buttocks areas. Yet, McDonald's refused to lower the temperature of their coffee.
Well, McDonald's has clumsy customers. Stop pouring coffee over yourselves.
Fact #4 - The injured (burned) plaintiff in this case, 79 year old Stella Lieback, was not driving her car. She was seated as the passenger in her grandson's parked car, holding the coffee cup between her legs while removing the plastic lid. The cup tipped over and poured the scalding hot coffee into her lap, causing third degree burns.
"holding the coffee cup between her legs while removing the plastic lid" ... Yep, that sounds like a great idea. She should have poured the coffee in her ears, that way she would not have suffered any damage.
Fact #5 - Mrs. Lieback required eight days of hospitalization and multiple surgeries, including skin grafts as a result of being scalded by McDonald's coffee.
No, was a result of her own stupidity.
Fact #6 - Mrs. Lieback only took legal action against McDonald's after they refused to reimburse her for her medical expenses.
If you are stupid and clumsy, get a medical insurance.
Fact #7 - The jury was so outraged at the arrogance and callousness of McDonald's that they awarded punitive damages, to punish McDonald's and to deter McDonald's from such conduct in the future. They awarded $2.7 million.
The JURY decides the amount of the compensation? Do they WANT corruption?
Fact #8 - The day after the verdict, McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee.
Gee, did they? What a surprise.
Fact #9 - The trial judge thought the verdict was too high and reduced the verdict to about $400,000 at McDonald's request. (This is one fact that the insurance lawyers and McDonald's corporate lawyers never mention.)
At McDonald's request? So you can request a milder punishment?
All-in-all, this is a tasteless commercial for the lawfirm. Sickening.
Gunslinger08
Lifer
Ouch. :-(
You still haven't responded to my earlier statement:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
