The Truth about the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit

[daveymark]

she burned her perenium?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: maziwanka
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.

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.

Not settled, lost or thrown out. No self infliced coffe burn case has been successful whatsoever.

And of COURSE McDonald's employees knew fresh hot coffee is dangerous. Your typical Down Syndrome short bus riding 8 year old knows hot coffee is dangerous. Stop trumpeting that as if it trumps all arguments. They are merely stating the obvious that any idiot knows. Hot coffee can and will burn you.

No, where the Insurance company defense failed was in not pointing out that the plaintiff's claims that 180 was above the industry standard was a pure fabrication. In not showing the ideal brewing and holding temps are exactly where McDonald's had them. In not showing that nearly every other chain and coffee house served, and STILL serves coffee held at 180 degrees.

As I said, they focused on responsibility for the spill, and were totally unprepared for the absurd temp argument and outright false claims by the Plaintiff's lawyers.

 

[bctbct]

Amused, do you own a restaurant? Do you require you're employees to place wet floor placards during mopping?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX


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.

WHAT???

McDonald's chose to settle for less than MCDONALD'S would have to pay in lawyers fees for appeals. The Plaintiff's lawyers are irrelevant.

Man, you are dense. :roll:

McDonald's was not liable. And in the dozens of cases since, no vender has been found liable. McDonald's chose to settle because the case had already been FUBARed by it's insurance company and it was now cheaper to settle than to keep appealing.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Amused
Not settled, lost or thrown out. No self infliced coffe burn case has been successful whatsoever.

And of COURSE McDonald's employees knew fresh hot coffee is dangerous. Your typical Down Syndrome short bus riding 8 year old knows hot coffee is dangerous. Stop trumpeting that as if it trumps all arguments. They are merely stating the obvious that any idiot knows. Hot coffee can and will burn you.

No, where the Insurance company defense failed was in not pointing out that the plaintiff's claims that 180 was above the industry standard was a pure fabrication. In not showing the ideal brewing and holding temps are exactly where McDonald's had them. In not showing that nearly every other chain and coffee house served, and STILL serves coffee held at 180 degrees.

As I said, they focused on responsibility for the spill, and were totally unprepared for the absurd temp argument and outright false claims by the Plaintiff's lawyers.

In the real world, the case settled. The testimony of McDonald's employees established clearly that McDonald's knew of the risk and intentionally did nothing. Hence the settlement. The case was extremely successful for the plaintiff.

LordSegan was a little off on B<PL analysis being "the cardinal rule" of negligence law, but he was absolutely right about one thing: evidence of a prevailing custom doesn't settle the matter of negligence. It certainly doesn't mean that if the insurance company had hired someone like yourself to sit in court and repeat "La la la, 180 degrees is perfectly fine and normal, la la la" and ignore everything else shoved in your face, that they would have won.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: bctbct
Amused, do you own a restaurant? Do you require you're employees to place wet floor placards during mopping?

The cup was securely fastened and warnings have been on coffee cups for decades.

That anyone would NEED a warning on a coffee cup is absurd to begin with. Coffee has been served at 180 degrees or there-abouts for longer than I have been alive.

A wet floor is not always an obvious risk. A coffee cup IS an obvious risk.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 6000SUX


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.

WHAT???

McDonald's chose to settle for less than MCDONALD'S would have to pay in lawyers fees for appeals. The Plaintiff's lawyers are irrelevant.

Man, you are dense. :roll:

McDonald's was not liable. And in the dozens of cases since, no vender has been found liable. McDonald's chose to settle because the case had already been FUBARed by it's insurance company and it was now cheaper to settle than to keep appealing.

I'm not dense because I fail to "correctly" interpret the meaning of your sloppy post. Far from it, moron. McDonald's certainly was liable. Repeating the acronym "FUBAR" does not change the situation. McDonald's went to court, were forced to admit negligence, then settled.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bctbct
Amused, do you own a restaurant? Do you require you're employees to place wet floor placards during mopping?

The cup was securely fastened and warnings have been on coffee cups for decades.

That anyone would NEED a warning on a coffee cup is absurd to begin with. Coffee has been served at 180 degrees or there-abouts for longer than I have been alive.

A wet floor is not always an obvious risk. A coffee cup IS an obvious risk.

This lawsuit was not about risk, it was because the risk was higher than norm. When I drink coffee at home I never have the risk of third degree burns.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Amused
Not settled, lost or thrown out. No self infliced coffe burn case has been successful whatsoever.

And of COURSE McDonald's employees knew fresh hot coffee is dangerous. Your typical Down Syndrome short bus riding 8 year old knows hot coffee is dangerous. Stop trumpeting that as if it trumps all arguments. They are merely stating the obvious that any idiot knows. Hot coffee can and will burn you.

No, where the Insurance company defense failed was in not pointing out that the plaintiff's claims that 180 was above the industry standard was a pure fabrication. In not showing the ideal brewing and holding temps are exactly where McDonald's had them. In not showing that nearly every other chain and coffee house served, and STILL serves coffee held at 180 degrees.

As I said, they focused on responsibility for the spill, and were totally unprepared for the absurd temp argument and outright false claims by the Plaintiff's lawyers.

In the real world, the case settled. The testimony of McDonald's employees established clearly that McDonald's knew of the risk and intentionally did nothing. Hence the settlement. The case was extremely successful for the plaintiff.

LordSegan was a little off on B<PL analysis being "the cardinal rule" of negligence law, but he was absolutely right about one thing: evidence of a prevailing custom doesn't settle the matter of negligence. It certainly doesn't mean that if the insurance company had hired someone like yourself to sit in court and repeat "La la la, 180 degrees is perfectly fine and normal, la la la" and ignore everything else shoved in your face, that they would have won.

Actually, I posted a case ruling that shows customs and ideal temps ARE relevant. Maybe you should read my posts before trying an argument that has already been shot down?

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.":

The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 degrees F to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150 degrees F to 160 degrees F, and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 degrees F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.

The case settled because it was screwed up from the beginning by inept lawyers. It was settled because the settlement cost them less than the cost of appeals. It was settled because the first ruling did all the PR damage and brought what they and the rest of the industry feared: a flood of self inflicted coffee burn cases. Which, again, have ALL lost.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Amused
Not settled, lost or thrown out. No self infliced coffe burn case has been successful whatsoever.

And of COURSE McDonald's employees knew fresh hot coffee is dangerous. Your typical Down Syndrome short bus riding 8 year old knows hot coffee is dangerous. Stop trumpeting that as if it trumps all arguments. They are merely stating the obvious that any idiot knows. Hot coffee can and will burn you.

No, where the Insurance company defense failed was in not pointing out that the plaintiff's claims that 180 was above the industry standard was a pure fabrication. In not showing the ideal brewing and holding temps are exactly where McDonald's had them. In not showing that nearly every other chain and coffee house served, and STILL serves coffee held at 180 degrees.

As I said, they focused on responsibility for the spill, and were totally unprepared for the absurd temp argument and outright false claims by the Plaintiff's lawyers.

In the real world, the case settled. The testimony of McDonald's employees established clearly that McDonald's knew of the risk and intentionally did nothing. Hence the settlement. The case was extremely successful for the plaintiff.

LordSegan was a little off on B<PL analysis being "the cardinal rule" of negligence law, but he was absolutely right about one thing: evidence of a prevailing custom doesn't settle the matter of negligence. It certainly doesn't mean that if the insurance company had hired someone like yourself to sit in court and repeat "La la la, 180 degrees is perfectly fine and normal, la la la" and ignore everything else shoved in your face, that they would have won.

Actually, I posted a case ruling that shows customs and ideal temps ARE relevant. Maybe you should read my posts before trying an argument that has already been shot down?

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.":

The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 degrees F to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150 degrees F to 160 degrees F, and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 degrees F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.

The case settled because it was screwed up from the beginning by inept lawyers. It was settled because the settlement cost them less than the cost of appeals. It was settled because the first ruling did all the PR damage and brought what they and the rest of the industry feared: a flood of self inflicted coffee burn cases. Which, again, have ALL lost.

You are about capable of reading a Wikipedia article, and that's it, from what I can see. You need to be more careful with your reading, writing, and critical thinking, what you have of these skills. I did not say it wasn't ever relevant, dumbkopf-- I said it doesn't settle the matter of negligence.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bctbct
Amused, do you own a restaurant? Do you require you're employees to place wet floor placards during mopping?

The cup was securely fastened and warnings have been on coffee cups for decades.

That anyone would NEED a warning on a coffee cup is absurd to begin with. Coffee has been served at 180 degrees or there-abouts for longer than I have been alive.

A wet floor is not always an obvious risk. A coffee cup IS an obvious risk.

This lawsuit was not about risk, it was because the risk was higher than norm. When I drink coffee at home I never have the risk of third degree burns.

Amused is in the "repeat yourself until your opposition retires" standard mode of argumentation for ATOT. He seems to be an expert in this particular technique.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Amused
Not settled, lost or thrown out. No self infliced coffe burn case has been successful whatsoever.

And of COURSE McDonald's employees knew fresh hot coffee is dangerous. Your typical Down Syndrome short bus riding 8 year old knows hot coffee is dangerous. Stop trumpeting that as if it trumps all arguments. They are merely stating the obvious that any idiot knows. Hot coffee can and will burn you.

No, where the Insurance company defense failed was in not pointing out that the plaintiff's claims that 180 was above the industry standard was a pure fabrication. In not showing the ideal brewing and holding temps are exactly where McDonald's had them. In not showing that nearly every other chain and coffee house served, and STILL serves coffee held at 180 degrees.

As I said, they focused on responsibility for the spill, and were totally unprepared for the absurd temp argument and outright false claims by the Plaintiff's lawyers.

In the real world, the case settled. The testimony of McDonald's employees established clearly that McDonald's knew of the risk and intentionally did nothing. Hence the settlement. The case was extremely successful for the plaintiff.

LordSegan was a little off on B<PL analysis being "the cardinal rule" of negligence law, but he was absolutely right about one thing: evidence of a prevailing custom doesn't settle the matter of negligence. It certainly doesn't mean that if the insurance company had hired someone like yourself to sit in court and repeat "La la la, 180 degrees is perfectly fine and normal, la la la" and ignore everything else shoved in your face, that they would have won.

Actually, I posted a case ruling that shows customs and ideal temps ARE relevant. Maybe you should read my posts before trying an argument that has already been shot down?

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.":

The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 degrees F to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150 degrees F to 160 degrees F, and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 degrees F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.

The case settled because it was screwed up from the beginning by inept lawyers. It was settled because the settlement cost them less than the cost of appeals. It was settled because the first ruling did all the PR damage and brought what they and the rest of the industry feared: a flood of self inflicted coffee burn cases. Which, again, have ALL lost.

You are about capable of reading a Wikipedia article, and that's it, from what I can see. You need to be more careful with your reading, writing, and critical thinking, what you have of these skills. I did not say it wasn't relevant, dumbkopf-- I said it doesn't settle the matter of negligence.

Actually, in that case it DID.

Anyhow, I see now you've resorted to insults.

Fact: The industry STILL serves coffee at 180 degrees. The last case won was in 1994. Why? I'm sure hundreds of people every day pull a boner and spill their coffee on themselves. Why is there only ONE successful case EVER?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bctbct
Amused, do you own a restaurant? Do you require you're employees to place wet floor placards during mopping?

The cup was securely fastened and warnings have been on coffee cups for decades.

That anyone would NEED a warning on a coffee cup is absurd to begin with. Coffee has been served at 180 degrees or there-abouts for longer than I have been alive.

A wet floor is not always an obvious risk. A coffee cup IS an obvious risk.

This lawsuit was not about risk, it was because the risk was higher than norm. When I drink coffee at home I never have the risk of third degree burns.

But that's the key. I have proven that 180 degree hgolding temps ARE the "norm." Even McDonald's STILL holds their coffee at 180 degrees. And it's not my fault you have a cheap home brewer. All moderate to high end brewers brew at around 200 degrees and hold at 180.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Amused
Not settled, lost or thrown out. No self infliced coffe burn case has been successful whatsoever.

And of COURSE McDonald's employees knew fresh hot coffee is dangerous. Your typical Down Syndrome short bus riding 8 year old knows hot coffee is dangerous. Stop trumpeting that as if it trumps all arguments. They are merely stating the obvious that any idiot knows. Hot coffee can and will burn you.

No, where the Insurance company defense failed was in not pointing out that the plaintiff's claims that 180 was above the industry standard was a pure fabrication. In not showing the ideal brewing and holding temps are exactly where McDonald's had them. In not showing that nearly every other chain and coffee house served, and STILL serves coffee held at 180 degrees.

As I said, they focused on responsibility for the spill, and were totally unprepared for the absurd temp argument and outright false claims by the Plaintiff's lawyers.

In the real world, the case settled. The testimony of McDonald's employees established clearly that McDonald's knew of the risk and intentionally did nothing. Hence the settlement. The case was extremely successful for the plaintiff.

LordSegan was a little off on B<PL analysis being "the cardinal rule" of negligence law, but he was absolutely right about one thing: evidence of a prevailing custom doesn't settle the matter of negligence. It certainly doesn't mean that if the insurance company had hired someone like yourself to sit in court and repeat "La la la, 180 degrees is perfectly fine and normal, la la la" and ignore everything else shoved in your face, that they would have won.

Actually, I posted a case ruling that shows customs and ideal temps ARE relevant. Maybe you should read my posts before trying an argument that has already been shot down?

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.":

The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 degrees F to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150 degrees F to 160 degrees F, and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 degrees F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.

The case settled because it was screwed up from the beginning by inept lawyers. It was settled because the settlement cost them less than the cost of appeals. It was settled because the first ruling did all the PR damage and brought what they and the rest of the industry feared: a flood of self inflicted coffee burn cases. Which, again, have ALL lost.

You are about capable of reading a Wikipedia article, and that's it, from what I can see. You need to be more careful with your reading, writing, and critical thinking, what you have of these skills. I did not say it wasn't relevant, dumbkopf-- I said it doesn't settle the matter of negligence.

Actually, in that case it DID.

Anyhow, I see now you've resorted to insults.

Fact: The industry STILL serves coffee at 180 degrees. The last case won was in 1994. Why? I'm sure hundreds of people every day pull a boner and spill their coffee on themselves. Why is there only ONE successful case EVER?

Actually, in that case it did NOT. See the quote from Judge Easterbrook you just splatted up there in the middle of your own post? That's Easterbrook explaining why, in his opinion, coffee needs to be kept hot. It's not him saying, "Everybody keeps coffee that hot, so it's automatically not negligent". Again, learn to read and think, not just spew.

 

[skace]

This woman was just doing her job, which is to show the rest of us what not to do. Mcdonalds was just paying her for a job well done. That's right folks, don't pop the lids off of hot liquids in your lap. Other things you shouldn't do in your lap: sharpen knives, light fireworks, build bombs, use a blowtorch, drill anything. Infact, you are probably better off to just sit there buckled until you arrive at your destination, because that is what vehicles were designed for.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Amused

The case settled because it was screwed up from the beginning by inept lawyers. It was settled because the settlement cost them less than the cost of appeals. It was settled because the first ruling did all the PR damage and brought what they and the rest of the industry feared: a flood of self inflicted coffee burn cases. Which, again, have ALL lost.

Inept lawyers? Not hardly, they chose a defense and thought they would succeed. They didnt. When it comes down to it a major corporation has the best attorneys money can buy and are frequently challenged by lawyers with a lower degree of talent.

Chances are that less cases were brought because of this verdict because the public outcry at the time was very negative given the fact that the average person did not know the specifics about this case.

ok, so you keep saying no cases since have been lost. If you were seated on a spilled coffee jury tomm, would you consider the evidence in accordance with the law or would you immediately come to the conclusion that it was frivlious?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Amused
Not settled, lost or thrown out. No self infliced coffe burn case has been successful whatsoever.

And of COURSE McDonald's employees knew fresh hot coffee is dangerous. Your typical Down Syndrome short bus riding 8 year old knows hot coffee is dangerous. Stop trumpeting that as if it trumps all arguments. They are merely stating the obvious that any idiot knows. Hot coffee can and will burn you.

No, where the Insurance company defense failed was in not pointing out that the plaintiff's claims that 180 was above the industry standard was a pure fabrication. In not showing the ideal brewing and holding temps are exactly where McDonald's had them. In not showing that nearly every other chain and coffee house served, and STILL serves coffee held at 180 degrees.

As I said, they focused on responsibility for the spill, and were totally unprepared for the absurd temp argument and outright false claims by the Plaintiff's lawyers.

In the real world, the case settled. The testimony of McDonald's employees established clearly that McDonald's knew of the risk and intentionally did nothing. Hence the settlement. The case was extremely successful for the plaintiff.

LordSegan was a little off on B<PL analysis being "the cardinal rule" of negligence law, but he was absolutely right about one thing: evidence of a prevailing custom doesn't settle the matter of negligence. It certainly doesn't mean that if the insurance company had hired someone like yourself to sit in court and repeat "La la la, 180 degrees is perfectly fine and normal, la la la" and ignore everything else shoved in your face, that they would have won.

Actually, I posted a case ruling that shows customs and ideal temps ARE relevant. Maybe you should read my posts before trying an argument that has already been shot down?

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.":

The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 degrees F to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150 degrees F to 160 degrees F, and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 degrees F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.

The case settled because it was screwed up from the beginning by inept lawyers. It was settled because the settlement cost them less than the cost of appeals. It was settled because the first ruling did all the PR damage and brought what they and the rest of the industry feared: a flood of self inflicted coffee burn cases. Which, again, have ALL lost.

You are about capable of reading a Wikipedia article, and that's it, from what I can see. You need to be more careful with your reading, writing, and critical thinking, what you have of these skills. I did not say it wasn't relevant, dumbkopf-- I said it doesn't settle the matter of negligence.

Actually, in that case it DID.

Anyhow, I see now you've resorted to insults.

Fact: The industry STILL serves coffee at 180 degrees. The last case won was in 1994. Why? I'm sure hundreds of people every day pull a boner and spill their coffee on themselves. Why is there only ONE successful case EVER?

Actually, in that case it did NOT. See the quote from Judge Easterbrook you just splatted up there in the middle of your own post? That's Easterbrook explaining why, in his opinion, coffee needs to be kept hot. It's not him saying, "Everybody keeps coffee that hot, so it's automatically not negligent". Again, learn to read and think, not just spew.

Wow...

Yes, coffee NEEDS to be kept that hot to be good. That has been my argument all along. The fact that the entire industry holds coffee at those temps just SUPPORTS that fact AND destroys the utterly fallacious claims in the propaganda sheet posted in the OP.

The funny thing, you think you've just somehow proven me wrong while in fact, you just proved my point.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Amused

The case settled because it was screwed up from the beginning by inept lawyers. It was settled because the settlement cost them less than the cost of appeals. It was settled because the first ruling did all the PR damage and brought what they and the rest of the industry feared: a flood of self inflicted coffee burn cases. Which, again, have ALL lost.

Inept lawyers? Not hardly, they chose a defense and thought they would succeed. They didnt. When it comes down to it a major corporation has the best attorneys money can buy and are frequently challenged by lawyers with a lower degree of talent.

Chances are that less cases were brought because of this verdict because the public outcry at the time was very negative given the fact that the average person did not know the specifics about this case.

ok, so you keep saying no cases since have been lost. If you were seated on a spilled coffee jury tomm, would you consider the evidence in accordance with the law or would you immediately come to the conclusion that it was frivlious?

McDonald's didn't defend itself. It allowed it's insurance company to do so.

And yes, the lawyers were inept. They did not argue against patently fallacious claims of their coffee being "40 degrees above the industry standard." That alone is totally and utterly inept.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bctbct
Amused, do you own a restaurant? Do you require you're employees to place wet floor placards during mopping?

The cup was securely fastened and warnings have been on coffee cups for decades.

That anyone would NEED a warning on a coffee cup is absurd to begin with. Coffee has been served at 180 degrees or there-abouts for longer than I have been alive.

A wet floor is not always an obvious risk. A coffee cup IS an obvious risk.

This lawsuit was not about risk, it was because the risk was higher than norm. When I drink coffee at home I never have the risk of third degree burns.

But that's the key. I have proven that 180 degree hgolding temps ARE the "norm." Even McDonald's STILL holds their coffee at 180 degrees. And it's not my fault you have a cheap home brewer. All moderate to high end brewers brew at around 200 degrees and hold at 180.

No but it will be your fault if I bust my ass on a wet floor in you're restaurant and you dont have a sign up, you're honor, I rest my case.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bctbct
Amused, do you own a restaurant? Do you require you're employees to place wet floor placards during mopping?

The cup was securely fastened and warnings have been on coffee cups for decades.

That anyone would NEED a warning on a coffee cup is absurd to begin with. Coffee has been served at 180 degrees or there-abouts for longer than I have been alive.

A wet floor is not always an obvious risk. A coffee cup IS an obvious risk.

This lawsuit was not about risk, it was because the risk was higher than norm. When I drink coffee at home I never have the risk of third degree burns.

But that's the key. I have proven that 180 degree hgolding temps ARE the "norm." Even McDonald's STILL holds their coffee at 180 degrees. And it's not my fault you have a cheap home brewer. All moderate to high end brewers brew at around 200 degrees and hold at 180.

No but it will be your fault if I bust my ass on a wet floor in you're restaurant and you dont have a sign up, you're honor, I rest my case.

Um, again. Coffee is, and always has been an obvious risk. To add to that, there have been warnings on hot cups for as long as I have been alive. Good old Stella's cup had a warning on it too. And she STILL opened it in her lap, spilled it, then proceeded to sit in the puddle for over 90 seconds.

You have nothing to rest. You never had a case.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Amused


No but it will be your fault if I bust my ass on a wet floor in you're restaurant and you dont have a sign up, you're honor, I rest my case.

Um, again. Coffee is, and always has been an obvious risk. To add to that, there have been warning on hot cups for as long as I have been alive.

You have nothing to rest. You never had a case.[/quote]

So, prove your point and mop your floor without a sign. You crack me up, you say the old lady is at fault but you protect your customers with a sign.

Wet floor/ obvious risk.....you sold out your beliefs to protect your customers.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Amused


No but it will be your fault if I bust my ass on a wet floor in you're restaurant and you dont have a sign up, you're honor, I rest my case.

Um, again. Coffee is, and always has been an obvious risk. To add to that, there have been warning on hot cups for as long as I have been alive.

You have nothing to rest. You never had a case.

So, prove your point and mop your floor without a sign. You crack me up, you say the old lady is at fault but you protect your customers with a sign.

Wet floor/ obvious risk.....you sold out out beliefs to protect your customers.

[/quote]

A wet floor is not an obvious risk.

*Are all floors ALWAYS wet? No.

*Is good hot coffee ALWAYS served hot enough to burn? Yes

*Is the water on the floor readily apparent? Not always, it depends on the lighting and the vision abilities of the observer.

*Is the heat of the coffee readily apparent? Of course.

The only thing cracking you up is your failed logic.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Amused


No but it will be your fault if I bust my ass on a wet floor in you're restaurant and you dont have a sign up, you're honor, I rest my case.

Um, again. Coffee is, and always has been an obvious risk. To add to that, there have been warning on hot cups for as long as I have been alive.

You have nothing to rest. You never had a case.

So, prove your point and mop your floor without a sign. You crack me up, you say the old lady is at fault but you protect your customers with a sign.

Wet floor/ obvious risk.....you sold out out beliefs to protect your customers.

A wet floor is not an obvious risk.

*Are all floors ALWAYS wet? No.

*Is good hot coffee ALWAYS served hot enough to burn? Yes

*Is the water on the floor readily apparent? Not always, it depends on the lighting.

*Is the heat of the coffee readily apparent? Of course.

The only thing cracking you up is your failed logic.[/quote]

Its all about the degree

Do the floors have wax, are they slippery when wet, how slippery

Is the coffee hot, how hot, do they cause burns, do they cause more burns than other coffee?

You are black and white, the world is gray, thats why you cant comprehend any difference here.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Amused


No but it will be your fault if I bust my ass on a wet floor in you're restaurant and you dont have a sign up, you're honor, I rest my case.

Um, again. Coffee is, and always has been an obvious risk. To add to that, there have been warning on hot cups for as long as I have been alive.

You have nothing to rest. You never had a case.

So, prove your point and mop your floor without a sign. You crack me up, you say the old lady is at fault but you protect your customers with a sign.

Wet floor/ obvious risk.....you sold out out beliefs to protect your customers.

A wet floor is not an obvious risk.

*Are all floors ALWAYS wet? No.

*Is good hot coffee ALWAYS served hot enough to burn? Yes

*Is the water on the floor readily apparent? Not always, it depends on the lighting.

*Is the heat of the coffee readily apparent? Of course.

The only thing cracking you up is your failed logic.

Its all about the degree

Do the floors have wax, are they slippery when wet, how slippery

Is the coffee hot, how hot, do they cause burns, do they cause more burns than other coffee?

You are black and white, the world is gray, thats why you cant comprehend any difference here.

[/quote]

No, I'm being reasonable and now you're splitting absurd, ridiculous hairs in a failing attempt to hold up your silly comparison.

Good hot coffee is ALWAYS held at temps hot enough to burn.

Floors are not always wet.

One is an obvious risk, the other is not.

And this is moot since coffee cups now, and even when Stella burned herself had warnings on them.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Amused


No but it will be your fault if I bust my ass on a wet floor in you're restaurant and you dont have a sign up, you're honor, I rest my case.

Um, again. Coffee is, and always has been an obvious risk. To add to that, there have been warning on hot cups for as long as I have been alive.

You have nothing to rest. You never had a case.

So, prove your point and mop your floor without a sign. You crack me up, you say the old lady is at fault but you protect your customers with a sign.

Wet floor/ obvious risk.....you sold out out beliefs to protect your customers.

A wet floor is not an obvious risk.

*Are all floors ALWAYS wet? No.

*Is good hot coffee ALWAYS served hot enough to burn? Yes

*Is the water on the floor readily apparent? Not always, it depends on the lighting.

*Is the heat of the coffee readily apparent? Of course.

The only thing cracking you up is your failed logic.

Its all about the degree

Do the floors have wax, are they slippery when wet, how slippery

Is the coffee hot, how hot, do they cause burns, do they cause more burns than other coffee?

You are black and white, the world is gray, thats why you cant comprehend any difference here.

No, I'm being reasonable and now you're splitting absurd, ridiculous hairs in a failing attempt to hold up your silly comparison.

Good hot coffee is ALWAYS held at temps hot enough to burn.

Floors are not always wet.

One is an obvious risk, the other is not.

And this is moot since coffee cups now, and even when Stella burned herself had warnings on them.[/quote]

No its moot because stella cashed her check and their is a record that she won this case.