lol.. as a law student, I think I can shed some light on this issue. As far as I understand it, it boils down to an issue of 1) foreseeability and 2) the ease of the fix compared to the danger.
The CARDINAL RULE of negligence law is the B<PL analysis.
The B is the Burden to FIX the danger. The P is the probability that harm will occur becasue of the danger. The L is the magnitude of the danger, ie a small sting vs. death.
Thus, if the burden to fix (B) is lower than the probability (P) times the magnitude (L) then the company will LOSE. An example is this: A $1 piece of tape will prevent 99% of ships from sinking with 1000 passengers. Thus, if you omit the tape, you are liable.
But, if the burden is huge, and the probability or liability magnitude are small, the company will win, even if it omits the fix. An example would be a $10000000 radar that would save 1% of ships with 2 people on them.
In the McDs case, the fix is pretty effing cheap and easy -- redesign the cup a little and serve the coffee slightly colder. The probability is low to moderate (700 previous cases). But the danger is high -- major burns. Thus, McDs loses the BPL analysis.
An interesting note is that BPL is usually decided by a JURY -- it is usually NOT a "matter of law". Rather it is usually a "matter of fact" to be determined by a jury of ones peers.
Foreseeability is basically just the probability part of BPL. But the bottomline is that at 180 degrees, a company like McDs KNOWS that SOME of its customers WILL spill and WILL get badly burned. Courts (and most juries) look VERY poorly on companies that can EASILY fix a problem that is dangerous.
NOTE ALSO to AMUSED: It does not really matter that coffee tastes better at 180 to coffee addicts. See the case: TJ Hooper.
"In many a textbook on tort liability, Judge Learned Hand's celebrated 1932 opinion in the case of The T.J. Hooper stands for the proposition that a liability defendant may not argue in defense of a disputed act or omission that it was simply following the customary practice of its trade or business."
In TJ Hooper, many tug boats did NOT have a wireless radio. The judge said, from now all, if you do not have a wireless, you are NEGLIGENT. Social benefit > business profit. Basically, that is what the jury said in this McD case. 180 degrees may get you a few extra customers, but it is not worth the danger.
Another side note to Amused-- if your mom or daughter bit into a pizza tomorrow and was horribly burned because the restaurant thought 200 degree pizza was "better", I bet you would be mad as hell and want to sue. Just think about that.
Oh, and another reason McD might have lost: courts often ask who has a better opportunity to fix a danger. Sure, we coffee drinkers can "be more careful" but let's face it, spills still happen to EVERYONE. McD on the other hand, has a FOOL PROOF fix -- lower the temp a few dozen degrees. Thus, a court/jury will often demand that the party with a fool proof fix must fix it.
The bottom line is that this case was NOT about 2 million. It was about McD KNOWING about a danger, and ignoring it for unknown reasons (money? lazy? etc). This case was a warning shot -- fix the effing coffee, or you will lose a LOT MORE THAN 2 MILL NEXT TIME.
The CARDINAL RULE of negligence law is the B<PL analysis.
The B is the Burden to FIX the danger. The P is the probability that harm will occur becasue of the danger. The L is the magnitude of the danger, ie a small sting vs. death.
Thus, if the burden to fix (B) is lower than the probability (P) times the magnitude (L) then the company will LOSE. An example is this: A $1 piece of tape will prevent 99% of ships from sinking with 1000 passengers. Thus, if you omit the tape, you are liable.
But, if the burden is huge, and the probability or liability magnitude are small, the company will win, even if it omits the fix. An example would be a $10000000 radar that would save 1% of ships with 2 people on them.
In the McDs case, the fix is pretty effing cheap and easy -- redesign the cup a little and serve the coffee slightly colder. The probability is low to moderate (700 previous cases). But the danger is high -- major burns. Thus, McDs loses the BPL analysis.
An interesting note is that BPL is usually decided by a JURY -- it is usually NOT a "matter of law". Rather it is usually a "matter of fact" to be determined by a jury of ones peers.
Foreseeability is basically just the probability part of BPL. But the bottomline is that at 180 degrees, a company like McDs KNOWS that SOME of its customers WILL spill and WILL get badly burned. Courts (and most juries) look VERY poorly on companies that can EASILY fix a problem that is dangerous.
NOTE ALSO to AMUSED: It does not really matter that coffee tastes better at 180 to coffee addicts. See the case: TJ Hooper.
"In many a textbook on tort liability, Judge Learned Hand's celebrated 1932 opinion in the case of The T.J. Hooper stands for the proposition that a liability defendant may not argue in defense of a disputed act or omission that it was simply following the customary practice of its trade or business."
In TJ Hooper, many tug boats did NOT have a wireless radio. The judge said, from now all, if you do not have a wireless, you are NEGLIGENT. Social benefit > business profit. Basically, that is what the jury said in this McD case. 180 degrees may get you a few extra customers, but it is not worth the danger.
Another side note to Amused-- if your mom or daughter bit into a pizza tomorrow and was horribly burned because the restaurant thought 200 degree pizza was "better", I bet you would be mad as hell and want to sue. Just think about that.
Oh, and another reason McD might have lost: courts often ask who has a better opportunity to fix a danger. Sure, we coffee drinkers can "be more careful" but let's face it, spills still happen to EVERYONE. McD on the other hand, has a FOOL PROOF fix -- lower the temp a few dozen degrees. Thus, a court/jury will often demand that the party with a fool proof fix must fix it.
The bottom line is that this case was NOT about 2 million. It was about McD KNOWING about a danger, and ignoring it for unknown reasons (money? lazy? etc). This case was a warning shot -- fix the effing coffee, or you will lose a LOT MORE THAN 2 MILL NEXT TIME.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
You really don't need to keep going out of your way to come up with alternatives that could have been done. Yeah, we can all think of dozens of other things she could have done. Here's one you missed: Pull over to the side of the road and say to a total stranger walking on the sidewalk, "hi, I'm old and not quite so nimble any more. Could you put the cream in my coffee for me?" I understand what you're trying to say. But, you're missing the point: McD's had to know (you'd be an idiot not to) that some of their customers would spill their coffee. It's reasonable to expect that some people are going to hold a beverage between their legs. I've watched my wife do it dozens of times. Maybe if you have longer arms, it's easy to do it in the drink holder; I'd have no problem putting cream in my coffee while it's in the drink holder. But my wife would have her arms outstretched quite a bit more in order to do so.
Here, look at it this way: Suppose I invent a special coffee cup that has a container of molten lava on the bottom. (Guaranteed to keep your coffee hot for 10 hours!). But, if you tipped your cup over, the molten lava would pour out, immediately burning a hole through whatever it landed on and starting a fire. Think for a second why I couldn't sell such a product: because I know that eventually, someone is going to spill their coffee. And I know a defense of "well, they should have known better. Lava is hot." The funny thing though is that if people had such a device, they would expect the outcome if it spilled, and thus would more likely take extra precautions. However, no one expects 3rd degree burns if they spill a cup of coffee in their lap.
Everyone - both sides of the argument - understands that coffee is hot and will burn you. McD's understands that. The lady, before the accident, understood that. You'd be a fool to believe that no one is ever going to spill their coffee in their lap. However, McD's coffee was excessively dangerous, and many people did not know that; I knew how hot it was, I can remember driving to Virgina and going through the entire state of Maryland with a cup of coffee untouched in my cup holder because it was too hot to drink. But, until this lawsuit came out, I never would have believed that it would have caused 3rd degree burns; I figured I'd just have some big red burns on my skin, nothing more.
My circular saw has a guard over the blade? Gee, I wonder why? After all, everyone knows not to touch a running blade with your hand. Do you think Black and Decker could redesign their saws without a guard in place (which would save a buck or two) and rely on this defense: "The plaintiff knew the saw was sharp. He could have clamped the wood on all four corners. He could have worn protective equipment on his hands. He could have pulled over to the side of the road and had someone else hold the wood for him. He could have... " You see, the thing is, Black and Decker knows that if those guards aren't there, more accidents are going to happen. They can't prevent all the accidents; that's impossible. But, they have a responsibility to make their product as safe as possible within reasonable costs.
fustercluck
Diamond Member
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,402
- 0
- 71
Dang, didn't notice this was such a huge threads 
I (like many others i hope) will just ignore the r-tards. It was an interesting read, so thanks for the link. I don't know why the guy repeats everything twice...just trying to get his opinion across i guess.
I think McD's was definitely at fault here, and were very lucky to only lose $400,000, which they make in about a minute.
I (like many others i hope) will just ignore the r-tards. It was an interesting read, so thanks for the link. I don't know why the guy repeats everything twice...just trying to get his opinion across i guess.
I think McD's was definitely at fault here, and were very lucky to only lose $400,000, which they make in about a minute.
Isn't saying that MickeyD's lawyers were icompetent an opinion and not a fact? It may be an opinion held by many, but it's still an opinion.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,059
- 18,428
- 146
Then explain why every other self inflicted coffee lawsuit has been thrown out or lost since.
If I or someone I loved bit into a slice of pizza and burned themselves I would ask them if they've learned their lesson. Pizza is cooked at 450 degrees and often served to the customer directly from the oven. Everyone I know has had a pizza burn on the roof of their mouth.
McDonald's lost because their insurance company lawyers did not present an adequate defense. End of story. The industry stood up and took notice of that and no case has been successful since. Coffee temps were NOT lowered because of this case. A few more idiot warnings were added and the industry got smart and never allowed an inadequate defense again.
Fact: Other major sellers of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, Wendy's, Burger King, and just about every coffee shop out there produce and hold coffee at the same or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over self inflicted third-degree burns. All have lost.
Fact: The only settled or won coffee cases are when a worker spilled the coffee on the customer. No SELF INFLICTED case has been successful with the exception of the McDonald's case.
Fact: The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71
Fact: Wikipedia and Overlawered.com both state that McDonald's does in fact still hold their coffee at 180 degrees, and has been sued many times since the Liebeck case. All unsuccessfully.
An example of a lost case since:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g...se.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=974131
The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 °F or 82 C in this case) is not "unreasonably dangerous.":
Maybe you should do some research before making comments.
The only reason the Liebeck case was won is because of inadequate defense. Nothing less, nothing more.
Coffee held at 180 degrees is NOT unusual, NOT an undue danger and IS the industry ideal AND standard.
Interesting reading. Some of my (somewhat random) thoughts:
The "facts" presented in the link are as seen by the attorneys for the plaintiff. They have a biased viewpoint.
Some of the statements on their web site are obviously wrong. One instance: There has never been a cup made from Styrofoam. Given the amount of time they spent preparing for and arguing this case, they know that fact, but they keep describing the cup incorrectly. For me, that makes the rest of their statements and arguments less credible.
I, personally, like VERY hot coffee. If a place served me coffee at 140F, I'd never order coffee there again.
McDonald's didn't settle because it would set precedent for others to sue them in hopes of a settlement. They defended themselves in this case and others since, and they have a right to do so. They also have the right to appeal and to negotiate with the plaintiff.
I have never placed hot coffee in a flexible cup between my legs. I use the ever-present cup-holders in a car.
I feel sorry for the lady and her pain. I also think she should have carried her own insurance.
McDonald's was at fault in this case (80%) for the same reason OJ was not guilty--a jury said so. Whether that constitutes anything beyond that point will be debated long into the future.
What is most interesting to me is how this case captured and has held the public's interest for many years.
Cheers. :beer:
The "facts" presented in the link are as seen by the attorneys for the plaintiff. They have a biased viewpoint.
Some of the statements on their web site are obviously wrong. One instance: There has never been a cup made from Styrofoam. Given the amount of time they spent preparing for and arguing this case, they know that fact, but they keep describing the cup incorrectly. For me, that makes the rest of their statements and arguments less credible.
I, personally, like VERY hot coffee. If a place served me coffee at 140F, I'd never order coffee there again.
McDonald's didn't settle because it would set precedent for others to sue them in hopes of a settlement. They defended themselves in this case and others since, and they have a right to do so. They also have the right to appeal and to negotiate with the plaintiff.
I have never placed hot coffee in a flexible cup between my legs. I use the ever-present cup-holders in a car.
I feel sorry for the lady and her pain. I also think she should have carried her own insurance.
McDonald's was at fault in this case (80%) for the same reason OJ was not guilty--a jury said so. Whether that constitutes anything beyond that point will be debated long into the future.
What is most interesting to me is how this case captured and has held the public's interest for many years.
Cheers. :beer:
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,080
- 136
Agreed. Coffee is supposed to be served hot. I dont drink the crap and even I know that.
If they served it warm a million people would be pissing and moaning about that instead.
They cant win.
Did you notice they still serve it hot? They just put warnings up to avoid more lawsuits.
Coffee drinkers like to drink HOT coffee. That an old woman didnt know this is very unbelievable.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
Ughh.. I'll not get dragged down into this debate again, but it's sufficient to say that as much as "frivolous" lawsuits suck and hurt our free market, this lawsuit is purely "frivolous" only when used by wanna-be comedians and late-night talk show hosts who only need 15-seconds worth of material to please the unwashed masses.
An evident by this multi-page thread, this is not a simple cut-n-dry issue of a "money-grubbing bitch" looking for a "free ride to wealth," and anyone who tries to paint it as such is simply a fool.
An evident by this multi-page thread, this is not a simple cut-n-dry issue of a "money-grubbing bitch" looking for a "free ride to wealth," and anyone who tries to paint it as such is simply a fool.
No a valid comparision would be that you sell bug spray with a defective spray tip that leaks, sending poison into your eyes as you intend to use the can like all others you have used before.
You find out that the company was notified at least 700 times previously about this fault, yet as a company they do nothing to correct the problem.
Apparently this has happened to you because you're arguments in this thread seem to indicate you are blind to common sense and personal responsiblity...of companies.
Many lawsuits like these center human perception. Remember when you were a kid and got close to the stove and your mom flipped out when there was a boiling pot on the stove? Yet when you would get near a cup of coffeee she would caution you about it being hot?
Two very different reaction to hot things and her response was based on the amount of danger she thought you were exposed too.
Do you think that we should do away with wet floor signs? How about yellow caution signs on the highway on curves indicating you should reduce your speed? Should toys marketed for children under the age of 3 not be designed so that objects do not come off causing a choke hazzard? Should manufactures not be required to alert consumers when they have reports of "problems"?
After all, if you are 100% intune with your surroundings and have a crystal ball we should'nt need these "reminders".
McD had a responsibility to either alert their customers with signage
"CAUTION WE HAVE RECEIVED OVER 700 COMPLAINTS FROM CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE BURNED THEMSELVES WITH OUR HIGHER THAN INDUSTRY STANDARD COFFEE TEMPS"
Please fill out this form if you want to 701
OR
Lower them temp to customer "expectations", similar to what these customers had experienced time after time drinking coffee.
You didn't mention the fact that you'd get burned drinking it unless you waited a long time for it to cool down. The 180F is NOT for coffee addicts. It's for serving as much of the coffee as they can before it goes stale.
Considering there's no temperature gauge on the cup, isn't every first sip a risk?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,059
- 18,428
- 146
If you scroll up three posts from yours you'll find how absurd your post is. All of your claims and arguments have already been destroyed.
There was nothing defective about the coffee, or the cup and lid. The cup and lid worked perfectly. The coffee was at the industry ideal AND standard of 180 degrees when poured from the pot. The cup did not fail. It held the liquid perfectly and did not break open or leak.
The CUSTOMER mishandled the cup and placed herself in a very dangerous situation. IT IS the same a customer misusing a bug spray can.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,059
- 18,428
- 146
Fact: The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71
An example of a lost case since:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g...se.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=974131
The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 °F or 82 C in this case) is not "unreasonably dangerous.":
180 degree holding temp IS ideal. And the coffee will NOT be 180 degrees when consumed. As the court points out, all the actions between pot and customer lower the temp considerably. Customer variables also lower it even more. Obviously the customer who likes it black will have to wait a bit. However the customer who adds mound of cream and sugar will not have to wait much at all.
Amused, you can post links to third-party web pages saying that coffee should be served at the temperature of the surface of the sun. It doesn't change McDonald's' negligence in ignoring the 700 reports of injuries to their customers, or the fact that coffee served so hot is a genuine danger to customers. It also means nothing to point to a different opinion; courts and juries disagree with each other all the time. In this case, McDonald's was negligent. End of story.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,059
- 18,428
- 146
700 complaints is irrelavant. McDonald's serves millions of cups a day. Billions over a decade. That 700 people over a decade or longer were foolish enough to spill, and then foolish enough to blame others for their idiocy is completely irrelavant.
That's a complaint rate of complaint rate of 1-in-24-million. By comparison, 1-in-4-million Americans will be killed by lightning in a given year, and 1-in-20-million Americans (and a much higher ratio of American toddlers) drown in 5-gallon buckets in an average year.
If McDonald's had 700 complaints about people choking on burgers over a decade, would you conclude that McDonald's should liquify their burgers to stop all choking hazards?
180 degrees is the industry standard and ideal. NO OTHER CASE since this has won. None. Even though dozens have been pressed for identical situations. The McDonald's case is an aberration for the simple fact that it was inadequately defended.
Nope, actually not "irrelavant". McDonald's has a duty not to knowingly injure their customers. The fact that you use the word "foolish" doesn't change a thing; they were negligent. End of story.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,059
- 18,428
- 146
No, it's not the "end of story." They did NOT injure their customers. Their customers took an OBVIOUSLY hot liquid and injured themselves.
As I edited my post:
That's a complaint rate of complaint rate of 1-in-24-million. By comparison, 1-in-4-million Americans will be killed by lightning in a given year, and 1-in-20-million Americans (and a much higher ratio of American toddlers) drown in 5-gallon buckets in an average year.
If McDonald's had 700 complaints about people choking on burgers over a decade, would you conclude that McDonald's should liquify their burgers to stop all choking hazards?
Actually, it is the end of the story. McDonald's basically admitted to scalding their customers and causing the third-degree burns intentionally, and settled. Your reasoning is so flawed as to be ridiculous. Nobody needs to serve coffee at a temperature that causes third-degree burns, numbskull. I won't waste time on you.
No the cup was not defective, however it is reasonable that McD should have foreseen the risk of selling something that was hot enough to cause great injury to people in cars on a routine basis and not expect for a situation like this to occur.
They may have not been smart enough to foresee it, but when it was repeately brought to their attention they still did nothing.
How is that different than a grocery store mopping floors and not placing signs?
The grocery store recognized they could injure their customers and took steps to minimize this from happening by placing a sign.
I dont recall, do you own a restaurant? Do you require your employees to put up a sign when you mop? Shouldnt customers be responsible for identifying a wet floor and take appropriate action on their own?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,059
- 18,428
- 146
No, they did not admit. Once they realized the insurance company had FUBARed the case, they quickly got the award reduced, threatened to keep the case in appeals for the rest of Stella's life and settled when she agreed to less than appealing the case would cost in lawyers fees.
McDonald's and others STILL hold their coffee at 180 degrees. EVERY self inflicted coffee injury case since has lost, and dozens were pressed after this case alone.
The reason this case stands out and is so famous is because it is an aberration.
Your time is not being wasted on me. It's being wasted on the idea that potentially dangerous items cannot be sold to the public at all and customers have little or no personal responsibility.
Had the server spilled the coffee on her, McDonald's would be liable. Had the cup failed with reasonable handling, McDonald's would be liable.
In this case, the server was careful and the cup worked as intended. The customer intentionally placed a known hot liquid between her legs in a car seat with little to no mobility and proceeded to open it.
I was certainly hesitant to make the argument that 700 people constituted enough to make McDonalds negligent for their continued actions (for the reasons Amused stated above; they serve coffee to millions of people a day).
I don't know if the case was defended poorly by McDonald's lawyers. I would definitely like to find out. Amused, your industry standard facts are certainly a great argument for the other side and if McDonald's attorneys could have definitely established that they were complying with normal industry practice, I feel that they would have been hard pressed to lose. Was this industry practice as well settled then as it is now?
Good thread and some great responses so far.
I don't know if the case was defended poorly by McDonald's lawyers. I would definitely like to find out. Amused, your industry standard facts are certainly a great argument for the other side and if McDonald's attorneys could have definitely established that they were complying with normal industry practice, I feel that they would have been hard pressed to lose. Was this industry practice as well settled then as it is now?
Good thread and some great responses so far.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,059
- 18,428
- 146
Yes, ideal brewing and holding temps have not changed much if at all in decades or longer.
(The only change has been in home brewers. Many cheaper home brewers would brew and hold the coffee at much lower temps. Not because of safety issues, but just because they are far cheaper to make them that way. Tolerances don't have to be as high and the electronics don't have to be as expensive.)
The reason the case lost is the insurance company was not prepared to defend against the brewing temps argument at all. They instead were only prepared to focus purely on responsibility for the spill. They were woefully unprepared and inept.
This is evidenced by the dozens and dozens of failed cases since.
Your logic is, well, not logical. The testimony of McDonald's own employees established clearly that McDonald's knew of the danger and did nothing. They admitted it and settled. Nothing had to do with subpar lawyering.
The stupidity of your reliance on several failed cases is profound. Big companies almost always settle liability cases when they know they will lose.
Your facts and knowledge of the legal process are as faulty as your logic. It doesn't take hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees to appeal such a case. In fact, the plaintiff's lawyers were almost certainly working on contingency.
McDonald's actually was liable, and settled.
preslove
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2003
- 16,754
- 64
- 91
For the last time, you idiots, if the coffee had been 140 degrees, instead of the insanely high 180 degrees, the woman would not have gone to the hospital. She would have been lightly burned, but not severely. There is a huge differnce between "oh crap my lap is hot and wet, this sucks," and "my skin is melting! Take me to the hospital," burning. There is NO valid reason to have coffee sitting at 180 degrees. It is especially risky to do so when you are selling it at a place with a drive thru, because people are going to drink it in the car leading to inevitable spilling. At 140 degrees, this is painful, but damaging to one's health. At 180 degrees, it leads to 3rd degree burns and requires intensive medical attantion.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter