The Truth about the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit

[Amused]

What is so unbelievably sad is that a propaganda sheet put out by ambulance chasers is so blindly believed and taken as fact and truth.

Guys, throw the propaganda sheet out and look for UNBIASED accounts of the case. Including the fact that no such case since has been won.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BD2003

Im personally still at a loss as to how quickly this thread has degenerated into an argument as how best to brew coffee for optimal taste.

Because that was the meat of the case. Without the claim that McDonald's brewed and served their coffee at unreasonably high temps, and the insurance company's stupidity in not proving that to be false, the case would have fell apart

But the case wasnt about whether it was unreasonable for taste, it was about whether it was unreasonable for consumption. It's no different than serving undercooked, nearly raw meat. Many will argue that the less cooked, the better the taste, but you simply can't serve that kind of food to people without warning them of the *serious* risks.

You can argue night and day about the optimal brewing temperature for taste, but thats simply not the issue at hand.

Yes, it is. Because on busy mornings the coffee is often sold as fast as it is brewed.

What then? A manditory waiting period for coffee? A coffee Brady Bill?

How about a little personal responsibility? Coffee is hot. It burns. If you spill it on yourself you deserve what you get.

Sure, that would be a fine idea actually. Brew at it 10000F if you desire, but don't serve it to human beings until it reaches a reasonable temperature for consumption. Through the magic of modern science and engineering, we have the amazing device called the "thermometer", which allows us to monitor the temperature of various substances, including coffee.

If this is a problem for coffee houses, they simply need to brew coffee ahead of time and/or in larger volumes. The safety of the consumer should not come after the establishment's convenience.

I personally dont think she was merely 20% at fault, and I personally think the award was rather ridiculous. But the case still has merit.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
Do yourself a favor and stop displaying your ignorance about coffee and service for all to see. Please. It's even making me cringe it's so embarrassing.

It simply amazes me that you refuse to do a simple google search and read ANY gourmet coffee site to learn about ideal temps.

On the issue of neglegence:

They drove off with the coffee. It did not spill during the transaction. She stupidly placed the coffee between her legs and opened the securely fastened lid.

Drop the drive through bullsh!t. It's a pathetic dodge. Her injuries could have happened had she gone in the store and taken the coffee to go. The drive through had nothing to do with it. Her stupidity did.

I did a little checking, and we need to push the numbers higher - about 195-205 for brewing. But not for cooling. The main point of this is actually not the specific numbers, and the main response was actually improved cups and lids (I knew they were better, I didn't know this was considered the more important response). None of this helps your argument. In fact if the cup/lid and not the coffee was mainly to blame, the negligence is much more obvious.

That wasn't my point about the negligence, the point was that you're throwing out a red herring. 'The Ford Pinto would never have exploded if no one got rear-ended in one' - that's the argument you're making.

My gawd! You're doing it again. You're changing your argument midstream yet AGAIN!

The lid was securly fastened. SHE tried to remove it and in doing so, fudged it up. Had she not tried to remove the lid while the cup was between her legs, this wouldn't have happened.

Stop... just stop.

I'm just responding to what the coffee companies actually did - I was only aware that the temperatures had dropped and the cups had warning labels. I've also noticed that anytime I order two or more coffees I'm specifically offered a tray, though I don't know if this is related.

Your version of the argument is that the ideal serving temperature of coffee is an undrinkable one and that no consideration should be given to safety concerns, even when you're already serving the worst coffee on the planet. Now I'm not saying it isn't a swell argument, but it isn't.

So far you've thrown up red herrings, tried to compare McDonald's coffee (at that time) to 'good coffee', and pretended that I don't think the woman brought a lot of this one herself. For Fsck's sake of course she did! I'd even tend to agree that the court was right to lower the punitive damages, mostly because assanine stubborness, and not profit are the most likely motive I see for McDonald's failure to correct the problem earlier.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

That wasn't my point about the negligence, the point was that you're throwing out a red herring. 'The Ford Pinto would never have exploded if no one got rear-ended in one' - that's the argument you're making.

Only a delusional person could make that comparison.

Just stop already.

Why, because the coffee couldn't have killed anyone?

 

[Dean]

I find this kinda strange. Everyone knows the risk of getting a burn while spilling coffee, especially when purchasing via a drive through. I have gotten burned, light burns that I chalk up to my own stupidity.

I also know the coffee was not so damn hot, it caused me to be hospitalized for 8 days. The idea of buying coffee via a drive through with a popup lid comes with the expectation that it is ready to drink. It may be hot, but not life threatening.

McDonald's deserved that lawsuit against them for the simple fact, that they knew people would spill coffee (it happens) while in a vehicle while arrogantly knowing that same ultra hot coffee they served would seriously harm or possibly even kill them. All to maximize profits.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: JD50
Well you do have a point there, juries are right 100 percent of the time. :roll:

Nah, the ATOT judge and jury posters are right 100 percent of the time and they can toss out cliche terminology like no others. It's a great system.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Conky
McDonald's coffee used to be unbelievably insanely hot. They had to know it was a lawsuit waiting to happen.

And if anyone reads that article and still thinks the lawsuit was frivolous then they don't understand the circumstances surrounding this case. Eight days in the hospital with burnt genitals because a huge corporation can get an extra few ounces of coffee per pound by serving it at near boiling temps. That's just not right.

But it tastes better that way.[/q]

i wouldnt know, i always waited a period of time to start drinking it, just because it was too hot.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Citrix
in the latest survey 9/10 people prefer the new mcdonalds premium blend coffee over starbucks.

so i got a cup and i must say it is a very very good cup of coffee and not bitter at all like starbucks and about 2 bucks cheaper per cup.

was this from a survey involving a blind taste test, or one where people actually drank a cup of each? Results vary drastically from these type of tests. Blind taste tests, which led to the cola wars (pepsi being preferred over coke--even though people still didn't buy more pepsi, coke does the test themselves and finds it to be true--coke creates "new coke"--riots ensue--coke goes back to real coke--the world discovers that people prefer one sip of pepsi, but prefer drinking coke) are quite irrelevent. Doesn't mean they aren't used in marketing, but they do mean jack sh1t when it comes to what people actually want to enjoy

btw, sweeter products will always test better in sipping surveys, but people don't want to sit around and drink a full glass of it (on ave)

Price, of course (SB vs MD), will always decide what sells around here, though

first that national survey that came out that said so, then a couple of denver tv stations did a blind taste test, which had the same results. then the AM radio talk show i listened to did a blind test and they all said McDucks new coffee was better than starbucks.

that got me curious and i go a cup one morning driving to work and i must they were right. very very good coffee. and it wasnt served lava hot.

 

[glutenberg]

You will find that many jurors are more sympathetic to the individual than to a corporation who is negligent of the consumer for the sake of profit. It's a fact of life.

The reason why don't see similar cases like this that go all the way through is because the large corporations will settle the case early on instead of letting it get to court where it becomes public. Dealing out a settlement is more cost efficient than bad publicity at times.

 

[SampSon]

I'm just responding to what the coffee companies actually did - I was only aware that the temperatures had dropped and the cups had warning labels. I've also noticed that anytime I order two or more coffees I'm specifically offered a tray, though I don't know if this is related.

Your version of the argument is that the ideal serving temperature of coffee is an undrinkable one and that no consideration should be given to safety concerns, even when you're already serving the worst coffee on the planet. Now I'm not saying it isn't a swell argument, but it isn't.

So far you've thrown up red herrings, tried to compare McDonald's coffee (at that time) to 'good coffee', and pretended that I don't think the woman brought a lot of this one herself. For Fsck's sake of course she did! I'd even tend to agree that the court was right to lower the punitive damages, mostly because assanine stubborness, and not profit are the most likely motive I see for McDonald's failure to correct the problem earlier.

Hate to break it to ya, but you've made the same arguments and used the same style of arguments in every single McDonalds coffee case thread. The points you are making are irrelevant. The only relevance in your post is that the companies changed their policies in order to make it more "safe". Though the reality is that they only made the changes so they didn't get sued excessively after this landmark case that just happened to get the attention of a large portion of the nation. Simple enough?

Anything you argue beyond that is semantics. So here is a semantics argument for you, since you so dearly love them:

Do you really think the McDonalds corporation gives two flying sh!ts about the "safety" of it's customers drinking their coffee or eating their food? Really, just think outside of the idiotic forum menality for a second and ponder it. I know you're just going to come back with some defacto response, but hey, it's worth a shot, right? On top of that I'm going to a Sabres vs Maple Leafs game in a few minutes and won't be here to read your mindless posts like Amused does . I'll just throw this out there, would you sue the gas company (or cigarette company) if you burned yourself by spilling gas on your clothes from an open lawn mower tank and dropping your lit cigarette on yourself? I'm sure you'd try because common sense rarely applies in the court system.

Here is the simple answer, every restaurant, gas station, manufacturer, construction site, brothel, casino, bar, drug den or whatever, has to display a huge sign reading:

ATTENTION: POSSIBLE DANGER TO YOUR HEALTH, MOSTLY DUE TO YOUR OWN STUPIDITY. ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

That wasn't my point about the negligence, the point was that you're throwing out a red herring. 'The Ford Pinto would never have exploded if no one got rear-ended in one' - that's the argument you're making.

Only a delusional person could make that comparison.

Just stop already.

Why, because the coffee couldn't have killed anyone?

No. A valid comparison would be selling bug poison, and somebody stupidly sprays it in their face.

Coffee is hot. It's supposed to be hot.

Now, you really need to stop because you're making me cringe with your ever changing arguments. I'm not here to educate you through combative debate just so you can change your argument midstream rather than just capitulate.

I've debated this issue countless times on this forum. I have no idea why I'm doing it again. Want arguments that destroy yours? Just search the archives for this topic.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Citrix
in the latest survey 9/10 people prefer the new mcdonalds premium blend coffee over starbucks.

so i got a cup and i must say it is a very very good cup of coffee and not bitter at all like starbucks and about 2 bucks cheaper per cup.

was this from a survey involving a blind taste test, or one where people actually drank a cup of each? Results vary drastically from these type of tests. Blind taste tests, which led to the cola wars (pepsi being preferred over coke--even though people still didn't buy more pepsi, coke does the test themselves and finds it to be true--coke creates "new coke"--riots ensue--coke goes back to real coke--the world discovers that people prefer one sip of pepsi, but prefer drinking coke) are quite irrelevent. Doesn't mean they aren't used in marketing, but they do mean jack sh1t when it comes to what people actually want to enjoy

btw, sweeter products will always test better in sipping surveys, but people don't want to sit around and drink a full glass of it (on ave)

Price, of course (SB vs MD), will always decide what sells around here, though

first that national survey that came out that said so, then a couple of denver tv stations did a blind taste test, which had the same results. then the AM radio talk show i listened to did a blind test and they all said McDucks new coffee was better than starbucks.

that got me curious and i go a cup one morning driving to work and i must they were right. very very good coffee. and it wasnt served lava hot.

so blind taste tests then, eh? so...not very indicative of what people like to drink; just what they like to sip

 

[PokerGuy]

This case is the very definition of "frivolous". This is the kind of stupidity that makes lawyers try stupid lawsuits in the hopes of hitting the lottery......

Incidentally, Pale Horse keeps saying "people got hurt without spilling".... Well, this case was not brought by those people, it was brought by the person who spilled it on herself. If she doesn't spill it, there is no injury. Was this the first time she drank the coffee? If not, should she not know how hot it is and be more careful? Her clumsiness, her spill, and then we try to blame someone else. Typical.

I ate 10000 big macs, now I weigh 500 pounds, surely it's McD's fault! Sue!

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Hate to break it to ya, but you've made the same arguments and used the same style of arguments in every single McDonalds coffee case thread. The points you are making are irrelevant. The only relevance in your post is that the companies changed their policies in order to make it more "safe". Though the reality is that they only made the changes so they didn't get sued excessively after this landmark case that just happened to get the attention of a large portion of the nation. Simple enough?

Anything you argue beyond that is semantics. So here is a semantics argument for you, since you so dearly love them:

Do you really think the McDonalds corporation gives two flying sh!ts about the "safety" of it's customers drinking their coffee or eating their food? Really, just think outside of the idiotic forum menality for a second and ponder it. I know you're just going to come back with some defacto response, but hey, it's worth a shot, right? On top of that I'm going to a Sabres vs Maple Leafs game in a few minutes and won't be here to read your mindless posts like Amused does . I'll just throw this out there, would you sue the gas company (or cigarette company) if you burned yourself by spilling gas on your clothes from an open lawn mower tank and dropping your lit cigarette on yourself? I'm sure you'd try because common sense rarely applies in the court system.

Here is the simple answer, every restaurant, gas station, manufacturer, construction site, brothel, casino, bar, drug den or whatever, has to display a huge sign reading:

ATTENTION: POSSIBLE DANGER TO YOUR HEALTH, MOSTLY DUE TO YOUR OWN STUPIDITY. ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK!

I'm really unclear as you what your argument is. Is it a slippery slope argument? Because it's not a good one.

As for how many of these threads there have been, I remember one, but I can't find it, and frankly don't remember what level of involvement I had. If I posted much, I hope I posted roughly the same arguments, because they were right then, too.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

That wasn't my point about the negligence, the point was that you're throwing out a red herring. 'The Ford Pinto would never have exploded if no one got rear-ended in one' - that's the argument you're making.

Only a delusional person could make that comparison.

Just stop already.

Why, because the coffee couldn't have killed anyone?

No. A valid comparison would be selling bug poison, and somebody stupidly sprays it in their face.

Coffee is hot. It's supposed to be hot.

Now, you really need to stop because you're making me cringe with your ever changing arguments. I'm not here to educate you through combative debate just so you can change your argument midstream rather than just capitulate.

I've debated this issue countless times on this forum. I have no idea why I'm doing it again. Want arguments that destroy yours? Just search the archives for this topic.

The Ford Pinto is not a bad comparison - both products carry inherent risks, but a specific model carried a greater risk, known to the manufacturer, and no action was taken to mitigate it. The Ford Pinto was much, much worse, there's no doubt, and ethically they are not on the same level. But as for cause and effect, they are pretty good. If you think the Pinto comparison carries with it an inherent appeal to emotion, I'd be willing to accept this and change teh analogy, but:

Only a delusional person could make that comparison.

is not a good argument.

You accuse me of changing my argument, but the basic premise is unchanged - the coffee was too hot, McDonald's new it was too hot, and they didn't take the steps to prevent the accidents that were going to happen from being so serious.

The argument from quality is bunk for a number of reasons. The coffee does not need to be served substantially hotter than it will be when consumed; if holding the coffee hotter kills it faster, as you say, it cannot also make it taste better. Some very good coffee is served from thermos-style containers, which are the ideal way to preserve heat because they don't cook anything. McDonald's has plenty of volume to avoid throwing out substantial amounts of coffee from age, which would be my main concern about letting it cool at all, but apparently is not a concern (according to you).

All of this is superfluous because the coffee we are talking about was absolute crap at any temperature, so an argument from quality is really dubious at best.

Your position is that all risk of any product, whether known or unknown should be borne by the consumer. It's a perfectly valid position, but not supported by your laws. You have indeed managed to destroy a strawman based on my argument, if by 'destroy' one means berate and argue with in ALL CAPS, and try to badger me into accepting a flawed position. Like I said, all you have to say is 'I don't believe in negligence' and we'll all be clear on what you mean, then the argument is over. You can even say 'I don't believe a corporation can be negligent' if you like.

Now, I'll leave you to be king of your little castle.

 

[maziwanka]

Look. The point is that the coffee is unnecessarily hot. There is no REASONABLE reason why the coffee should be that hot (especially considering the temperature of coffee served by competitors).

Spilling coffee isn't something all that uncommon and if the coffee is capable of causing 3rd degree burns, something is wrong. it seems to me that the marginal cost to mcdonalds of lowering the temperature of its coffee is not comparable to the risk to millions of people of potential third degree burns from spilling that coffee.

Obviously a punitive damage amount of two days coffee sales IS excessive and it was soundly reduced. After all, the woman incurred $20K worth of costs as a result of injuries she sustained. This certainly isn't sensible for a spilled cup of coffee (that is served at this temperature to millions of individuals across the US).

When you make billions off of your customers you DO owe them some duty of care for your products. It's NOT the pussification of america. Continue defending corporate america in this way and they'll continue to get away with what they want. Yes, many americans are stupid, but I don't agree with corporations attempting to take advantage of that in every way possible.

FINALLY, someone responded to my post by arguing that I should think for myself instead of listening to/regurgitating what my professor says. I was ignorant of the facts of this case before law school. My point in posting this article was to let people know the facts behind the case instead of the byline that McDonalds pushed to the media. In law school its all to easy to LOSE your sense of morals in favor of reasoning that is counter to what you feel is right and sounds like an easy and logical extension of the law or prior cases. It's all too easy to ignore the real facts and backgrounds of cases in law school.

 

[maziwanka]

Amused - The analogy to bug poison is less relevant. Spilling coffee is a far more foreseeable consequence of buying the coffee than spraying bug poison in your face as a consequence of purchasing bug poison. Likewise, getting into an rear end fender bender is a similarly foreseeable consequence of purchasing a ford pinto.

the point from the analogies is that the companies selling the bug poison or a car should be far more aware of the likelihood of these events occurring. The bug poison case is different.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

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

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

you should not rely on McDonald's for common sense.

 

[Pacfanweb]

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.

No they aren't. The people who spilled the coffee are at fault, every single time. They knew it was hot, and they took the chance anyway. These same people are the ones who'd be bitching if McDonald's made the coffee cooler.

 

[LS20]

hopefully when they repaired her burnt ****** they removed the sand from it

mcdonalds didnt heat the coffee to hurt people. to maintain their desired craptastic taste or for whatever other reason is their prerogative.. hell i dont drink the "warm" coffee at work until after a while.

x2 ambulance chaser propaganda

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

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.

No they aren't. The people who spilled the coffee are at fault, every single time. They knew it was hot, and they took the chance anyway. These same people are the ones who'd be bitching if McDonald's made the coffee cooler.

You make it sound like the action of spilling the coffee was deliberate. Of course, the plaintiff's lawyers had to address the issue of whether placing the coffee between one's legs was negligent on her part; as far as I'm concerned, getting in your car and placing a coffee between your legs isn't that far fetched - i imagine many people have done that (and this is the early 90s where cupholders might not have been as common as they are now).

obviously, we may differ on these opinions. The judgment in her case reflected the idea that most people would agree with my view.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

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.

No they aren't. The people who spilled the coffee are at fault, every single time. They knew it was hot, and they took the chance anyway. These same people are the ones who'd be bitching if McDonald's made the coffee cooler.

No. The coffee was EXCESSIVELY hot compared to almost anyone else's coffee. To serve coffee that will cause 3rd degree burns (with 700 documented cases of such) is negligent and irresponsible. Everyone knows coffee is hot, they aren't that stupid. The thing is, coffee should not send you to the hospital for skin grafts if you spill it on yourself because it is so freakin' hot.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: maziwanka

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

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.

No they aren't. The people who spilled the coffee are at fault, every single time. They knew it was hot, and they took the chance anyway. These same people are the ones who'd be bitching if McDonald's made the coffee cooler.

You make it sound like the action of spilling the coffee was deliberate. Of course, the plaintiff's lawyers had to address the issue of whether placing the coffee between one's legs was negligent on her part; as far as I'm concerned, getting in your car and placing a coffee between your legs isn't that far fetched - i imagine many people have done that (and this is the early 90s where cupholders might not have been as common as they are now).

obviously, we may differ on these opinions. The judgment in her case reflected the idea that most people would agree with my view.

She took the risk by putting hot coffee between her legs. Would she have sued if she only got 1st or 2nd degree burns? Probably. And it would have still been her fault for putting it between her legs in the first place.

People need to accept the potential consequences of their actions.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: AmusedActually, no.

There have been DOZENS of similar lawsuits involving self inflicted coffee burns since the McDonald's case. All have lost. Find me another successful lawsuit involving a self inflicted coffee injury that has been successful.

You cannot. If there was, that lawyer propaganda spam would list them.

Sorry, but read my second post. You're just wrong. Look to ANY gourmet coffee site to see that the ideal brewing and serving temp is exactly what McDonald's was serving it at.

And McDonald's coffee is not better because they lowered the temp. It is better now because they are using premium beans and charging a premium for them.

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.

Instead of having to go through this yet again, why don't you search the archives for all the threads over the years about this case. I have destroyed every one of your arguments countless times in them. You are merely parrotting the same lame argumets others have.

Fact: Not a single self inflicted coffe injury lawsuit has won since, though dozens have been pressed.

Gee, I wonder why?

Fact: The defense in this case was incompentent and did not take the case seriously. That hasn't happened since.

Meanwhile, ask yourself why McDonald's served it at that temp? It costs them more to keep it that hot. It makes the coffee go bad faster, thus costing them more as well.

Is it because they were evil and set out to burn stupid old ladies?

NO. It's because that is the ideal brewing and holding temp for good coffee.

And yes, my little nanny-state friend. The ideal brewing and holding temp IS relevant. It's why this case was won, and every case since has lost. Because the fact of the matter is 170-180 degrees IS the ideal brewing and holding temp for good coffee flavor and is the temp most coffee houses still serve it at.

McDonald's isn't a coffee house. They may serve a lot of coffee, but they hand it out through their little window to people in vehicles.

Find me a case of 180 degree coffee, going out through a window that resulted in a lost lawsuit.

The ideal holding temperature is NOT relevant, because no one is going to be able to drink that coffee until it cools down anyway. You can't have a temperature both be 'the ideal holding temperature' and 'make the coffee go bad faster', especially when it's aboce the ideal drinking temperature. Maybe you've never thought about this before, but that's the first legitimately dumb thing I've ever heard you say.

McDonald's serves coffee, and obviously they're trying to do it properly. Why should there be a double standard between what McDonald's serves their coffee at and anybody else? The customer did order "coffee", right?

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

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.

No they aren't. The people who spilled the coffee are at fault, every single time. They knew it was hot, and they took the chance anyway. These same people are the ones who'd be bitching if McDonald's made the coffee cooler.

No. The coffee was EXCESSIVELY hot compared to almost anyone else's coffee. To serve coffee that will cause 3rd degree burns (with 700 documented cases of such) is negligent and irresponsible. Everyone knows coffee is hot, they aren't that stupid. The thing is, coffee should not send you to the hospital for skin grafts if you spill it on yourself because it is so freakin' hot.

Would you stick your finger in a fresh cup of hot coffee from anywhere? Better yet, would you risk pouring it on your inner legs?
I thought not.
So what difference does it make if it causes 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree burns? Even mildly hot coffee will burn tender skin if it touches it.
Would she have still sued if she only got a few blisters instead of the 3rd degree burns?
Probably, yes...and it still would have been her fault for putting it between her legs in the first place.
Only an idiot would do such a thing, IMO.