The Truth about the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: 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.

And the question for you is whether 3rd degree burns and a total of $20K in hospital costs is a foreseeable consequence of spilling coffee on yourself.

again, i think most people would answer that question in the negative.

 

[FrustratedUser]

bookmark

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: maziwanka

Originally posted by: 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.

And the question for you is whether 3rd degree burns and a total of $20K in hospital costs is a foreseeable consequence of spilling coffee on yourself.

again, i think most people would answer that question in the negative.

That depends. Might not have done so much damage on another person. 20k isn't that much for an inner thigh burn repair, IMO.
She still should be held accountable for putting something like that in such a precarious position in the first place.
Basically, if you asked her before the accident "Ma'am , would you like some piping hot coffee poured on your inner thighs with that biscuit?"...and she said "HELL NO"...then that automatically makes her a super-stupe for putting a cup of it there.

 

[Babbles]

Some of you nimrods need to look up the terms "punitive damages" and use that big brain of yours and think about things.

 

[maziwanka]

Now, i'm not sure of the reasons why the previous lawsuits involving spilled coffee had failed, but I think it's just as bad to simply state the fact that none of the suits have been successful and then state "gee, i wonder why?"

who were the defendants? what were their backgrounds? what were the circumstances of their cases? where did these lawsuits originate? think about the typical customers bringing these suits. mcdonalds is a massive corporation that strong arm many individuals into settling or intimidating (and I don't think we would be aware of any settlement that took place) (i.e. sure the lawsuits weren't successful, but that could have been because many didn't go to trial but settled instead, which is what often happens).

i'm not saying that what i've said was what actually happened; if i'm wrong i'm certainly interested in hearing more about it.

i'm glad this thread is getting this kind of attention.

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: maziwanka

And the question for you is whether 3rd degree burns and a total of $20K in hospital costs is a foreseeable consequence of spilling coffee on yourself.

again, i think most people would answer that question in the negative.

That depends. Might not have done so much damage on another person. 20k isn't that much for an inner thigh burn repair, IMO.
She still should be held accountable for putting something like that in such a precarious position in the first place.
Basically, if you asked her before the accident "Ma'am , would you like some piping hot coffee poured on your inner thighs with that biscuit?"...and she said "HELL NO"...then that automatically makes her a super-stupe for putting a cup of it there.

i definitely agree with you on what you've said. That's why her awarded damages were adjusted by a panel of judges who, in theory, are supposed to be more fair and take into account the things that you've just mentioned (for example, i would agree that awarding her the equivalent of two days coffee sales is ridiculous).

I will DEFINITELY concede that many corporations hate going to court because juries often think, "Hmm. This corporation is worth billions of dollars. It isn't gonna affect them at all if they have to pay for this poor lady's injuries." I'd like to think that judges take these kind of things into consideration and adjust damages accordingly.

edited to remove excessive quoting.

 

[hysperion]

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?

only if 700 other people were as stupid as you and did it too

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: hysperion

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?

only if 700 other people were as stupid as you and did it too

btw what's 700 cases out of mcdonald's lifetime coffee customers? .0001% or less I would bet.......

 

[dmcowen674]

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

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

Fact - It is and always will be BUllsh!t.

 

[angminas]

"Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused."

To me, this is an extremely important part of the case. And why people so enjoy making fun of a clumsy old lady, I'll never understand.

Well, I understand it in one sense- she's an easy target, and bullies are cowards.

 

[DrPizza]

Question: why don't McD's and other companies put very small toys in happy meals? Answer: because they know that a few - not too many, but a few - little kids will put the toys in their mouths and end up choking on them... By putting little toys into happy meals, McD's would be creating a known hazzard.

Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if you're selling millions of cups of coffee with secure lids to people in cars that some of them are going to spill that coffee while attempting to add their own cream and sugar - not too many, but a few people. Then again, perhaps it does take a rocket scientist to figure this out, since a few of you haven't figured out that McD's should have known that this was an accident waiting to happen, and it did happen, hundreds of times.

Part 2: Amused, sure, I have no problem believing no one has ever won a lawsuit over hot beverages since. However, I'd be willing to wager that there have been plenty of lawsuits that were settled out of court for undisclosed amounts of money. Why did McD's/their insurance company take it to court? Because they thought they'd win. Why didn't they win? Because apparently the people sitting in the jury were rocket scientists who recognized an inherent danger created by McD's.

Question: how the heck does anyone know that coffee tastes best at 180 degrees (i.e. that's the optimum serving temperature)?? If you get coffee at that temp, you've gotta wait 10 minutes to drink it! What's the optimum serving temperature if I want to drink it NOW (i.e. fast food drive through)?

 

[Chaotic42]

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

If you put a cup of fresh, hot coffee between your legs, you're begging to get burned. That's pure stupidity; there is no excuse.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

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

If you put a cup of fresh, hot coffee between your legs, you're begging to get burned. That's pure stupidity; there is no excuse.

Where else are you going to put it in order to take off the lid and put your cream and sugar in it? Remember, you're in a car, presumably seat belted in place.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Where else are you going to put it in order to take off the lid and put your cream and sugar in it? Remember, you're in a car, presumably seat belted in place.

If you're not dexterous enough to do that, you have multiple options, all of which would have worked here:

-Park the car and take off your seat belt
-Put the coffee in your cup holder and do it
-Ask the other person in the car to hold the coffee for you
-Ask the people in drive through to put it in for you
-Don't add the cream and sugar until you reach your destination

Look, we all do stupid things. I've burned my mouth on coffee. A lot of people have. It's not anyone's fault but mine though. Hot coffee is called hot coffee because it's hot. It can and will burn you. If you're not able to deal with potentially dangerous liquids properly, you shouldn't be upset when try it anyway and get injured.

I've been around and around with this. I like to think that I can see both sides of an argument, but I have not heard any logical arguments that sway me at all. It was her fault.

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Question: why don't McD's and other companies put very small toys in happy meals? Answer: because they know that a few - not too many, but a few - little kids will put the toys in their mouths and end up choking on them... By putting little toys into happy meals, McD's would be creating a known hazzard.

Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if you're selling millions of cups of coffee with secure lids to people in cars that some of them are going to spill that coffee while attempting to add their own cream and sugar - not too many, but a few people. Then again, perhaps it does take a rocket scientist to figure this out, since a few of you haven't figured out that McD's should have known that this was an accident waiting to happen, and it did happen, hundreds of times.

Part 2: Amused, sure, I have no problem believing no one has ever won a lawsuit over hot beverages since. However, I'd be willing to wager that there have been plenty of lawsuits that were settled out of court for undisclosed amounts of money. Why did McD's/their insurance company take it to court? Because they thought they'd win. Why didn't they win? Because apparently the people sitting in the jury were rocket scientists who recognized an inherent danger created by McD's.

Question: how the heck does anyone know that coffee tastes best at 180 degrees (i.e. that's the optimum serving temperature)?? If you get coffee at that temp, you've gotta wait 10 minutes to drink it! What's the optimum serving temperature if I want to drink it NOW (i.e. fast food drive through)?

At least someone sees the other side of it (well someone who cares to talk about it at length) ...

I'm not trying to be mean, but I still don't understand how some of you don't see the logical argument for the other side. Is spilling coffee in a car while it's held between your legs really that far fetched of a situation?

I think the point is that keeping a cup of coffee between one's legs isn't THAT far fetched of a situation; the court and likely the plaintiff's lawyers focused on the fact that the coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. I'm sure you've all spilled coffee at some point in time. Do none of you think that suffering 3rd degree burns is an acceptable consequence of the risk of spilling coffee?

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Where else are you going to put it in order to take off the lid and put your cream and sugar in it? Remember, you're in a car, presumably seat belted in place.

If you're not dexterous enough to do that, you have multiple options, all of which would have worked here:

-Park the car and take off your seat belt
-Put the coffee in your cup holder and do it
-Ask the other person in the car to hold the coffee for you
-Ask the people in drive through to put it in for you
-Don't add the cream and sugar until you reach your destination

Look, we all do stupid things. I've burned my mouth on coffee. A lot of people have. It's not anyone's fault but mine though. Hot coffee is called hot coffee because it's hot. It can and will burn you. If you're not able to deal with potentially dangerous liquids properly, you shouldn't be upset when try it anyway and get injured.

I've been around and around with this. I like to think that I can see both sides of an argument, but I have not heard any logical arguments that sway me at all. It was her fault.

i understand that everyone's burned their mouth on coffee. What if you burned your mouth to such a degree to cause 3rd degree burns? Would you just "deal" with that because its an "expected" hazard of drinking the coffee?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: maziwanka

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Where else are you going to put it in order to take off the lid and put your cream and sugar in it? Remember, you're in a car, presumably seat belted in place.

If you're not dexterous enough to do that, you have multiple options, all of which would have worked here:

-Park the car and take off your seat belt
-Put the coffee in your cup holder and do it
-Ask the other person in the car to hold the coffee for you
-Ask the people in drive through to put it in for you
-Don't add the cream and sugar until you reach your destination

Look, we all do stupid things. I've burned my mouth on coffee. A lot of people have. It's not anyone's fault but mine though. Hot coffee is called hot coffee because it's hot. It can and will burn you. If you're not able to deal with potentially dangerous liquids properly, you shouldn't be upset when try it anyway and get injured.

I've been around and around with this. I like to think that I can see both sides of an argument, but I have not heard any logical arguments that sway me at all. It was her fault.

i understand that everyone's burned their mouth on coffee. What if you burned your mouth to such a degree to cause 3rd degree burns? Would you just "deal" with that because its an "expected" hazard of drinking the coffee?

exactly. This coffee wasn't just hot, it was SCALDING hot. this would be like giving dry ice to a customer who asked for ice in a cup.

 

[NaOH]

I love the people blaming the old lady for spilling coffee on her self. I've burned myself with hot substances (food, liquids). Mainly because I was too hungry or too eager to eat the damn thing without waiting. Yes it hurt, and it's my fault. But when u knowingly serve people a cup of liquids that has the slightest chance of spilling on them (whether it's their fault or not), wouldn't it be a good idea not to have it at a temperature that could cause 3RD DEGREE burns in a matter of seconds? I've had hot crap spill on me too (soup, drinks) through "accidents" and have never been burned to that degree.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: maziwanka
i understand that everyone's burned their mouth on coffee. What if you burned your mouth to such a degree to cause 3rd degree burns? Would you just "deal" with that because its an "expected" hazard of drinking the coffee?

Coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns would be hot enough for me to instantly stop trying to drink it as soon as I brought it to my mouth, but for the sake of argument, let's say that I just spotted some coffee and slammed it down and burned myself.

It's still absolutely my fault. Sure, I'd be pissed. Sure, I'd probably cuss and scream at McDonald's or whoever was incharge of the coffee's temperature. That doesn't mean that it's not my fault.

 

[masterxfob]

i can't believe how inane some of you people are

if something is hot, you should be careful when handling it. the crazy old grandma made a rather stupid mistake and she wanted McD's to cover for it. that's pretty much like how some black people blame slavery for why they're homeless or have some form of addiction. no one forced them to screw up their lives and no one forced the grandma to open the fresh hot coffee in her lap. it's too much like the lawsuits against gun makers. people need to take responsibility for their actions and stop trying to make up stupid excuses.

however, many of you are completely delusional and apparantly can not accept logic.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: maziwanka
i understand that everyone's burned their mouth on coffee. What if you burned your mouth to such a degree to cause 3rd degree burns? Would you just "deal" with that because its an "expected" hazard of drinking the coffee?

Coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns would be hot enough for me to instantly stop trying to drink it as soon as I brought it to my mouth, but for the sake of argument, let's say that I just spotted some coffee and slammed it down and burned myself.

It's still absolutely my fault. Sure, I'd be pissed. Sure, I'd probably cuss and scream at McDonald's or whoever was incharge of the coffee's temperature. That doesn't mean that it's not my fault.

No my friend, you would not be screaming. You would have a nice hole in your esophagus and who knows what other major complications. Then when you get your $20,000 bill from the hospital, you'll most likely come onto ATOT and bitch about how McDonalds served you coffee hot enough to not only blister your mouth and throat but burn a hole through it. Isn't life grand when one's not sitting on their mountain looking down on their subservient public.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: masterxfob
i can't believe how inane some of you people are

if something is hot, you should be careful when handling it. the crazy old grandma made a rather stupid mistake and she wanted McD's to cover for it. that's pretty much like how some black people blame slavery for why they're homeless or have some form of addiction. no one forced them to screw up their lives and no one forced the grandma to open the fresh hot coffee in her lap. it's too much like the lawsuits against gun makers. people need to take responsibility for their actions and stop trying to make up stupid excuses.

however, many of you are completely delusional and apparantly can not accept logic.

Punitive damages were awarded against McDonalds because the jury and judge felt the need to punish McDonalds for the reckless endangerment of the consumer. I can see both sides of the issue which makes it funny when I see people who are adamant that they have the only correct answer. A case that's defended poorly doesn't mean that it automatically wins. Have any of you been in any major lawsuits at the corporate level? Do you think that cases are won that easily? Come on, be honest.

Also, why isn't everyone talking about the responsibility of the individual? Where are all the screams against McDonalds for not taking their own responsibility? The corporation should not be serving items at scalding levels through a drive thru.

On the flip side, I can see the outrage that people have about the lawsuit. Had she not spilled it, she wouldn't have been burned. The case is not black nor white so stop treating it as such.

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: glutenbergThe corporation should not be serving items at scalding levels through a drive thru.

Yes, but why should the state force them to stop? It's not like they advertised it as "cold coffee" and then laughed when she spilled it. And the extra $2 million she got was just silly.

In conclusion,
I hate people.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
No my friend, you would not be screaming. You would have a nice hole in your esophagus and who knows what other major complications. Then when you get your $20,000 bill from the hospital, you'll most likely come onto ATOT and bitch about how McDonalds served you coffee hot enough to not only blister your mouth and throat but burn a hole through it. Isn't life grand when one's not sitting on their mountain looking down on their subservient public.

Uh, oh. I see it's time for the deep, holier-than-thou posts to start creeping up.

I don't eat anything or drink anything or take any medicine without making sure that it's safe for me to take. It's my responsibility to make sure that I don't eat or drink anything that will harm me. It would be easy to tell if your coffee was hot enough to "burn a hole through my mouth".

Back on the actual subject though. Based on what I know about the case, it's simple in my mind. You are responsible for your own actions. Don't put a coffee-cup style container of liquid between your legs and open it. I wouldn't do it with water. To me, it's obvious that a container like has a possibility of spilling. Add to that the fact that this was hot coffee and it's open and shut in my mind.

Now, I can respect other people's informed opinions, so long as they've shown some insight.

 

[ForumMaster]

even if McDonald's is at fault for keeping their coffee warm, the person that spilled the coffee is an idiot. who keeps fresh coffee between their legs?