• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Woman burned eating fatburger.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CinderElmo

Senior member
Jun 23, 2000
732
0
0
Next thing you know McDonalds is going to have to serve hamburgers cold (not frozen or someone might get their tongue stuck on it) and their coffee cold (not frozen - same reason).

I read and re-read this story and I just refuse to believe they are serious. It is just so stupid!
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
This is a suit without a tie....to reality.

This kind of stuff suggests we need about 50,000 fewer lawyers.

On the other hand, anything that might drive McDonald's out of business couldn't be all bad. :p
 

IronMike

Senior member
Jun 24, 2000
356
0
0


<< The chin is a prime spot to lay some &quot;love&quot;. >>



803 pages of the &quot;10,001 ways&quot; and cannot find this damn chin thing.
 

Spoooon

Lifer
Mar 3, 2000
11,562
201
106
I swear, the &quot;average&quot; American citizen that gets selected as jurors in cases like these just lets me down. I don't believe that people sue and win over crap like this. Did the old lady expect her coffee to be cold? This one with burns, would she have gasped in relief had the pickle been luke warm? &quot;Oh my goodness, thanks God the pickle was cold else I would have suffered severe burns and then not be able to satisfy my husband with my chin!&quot; ARGH!
 

AngelOfDeath

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2000
1,203
0
0
It's stupid in the US I could sue a company for manufacturing matches which I was able to by accident set a kid on fire with...Because they should have notified me on the box that I wasn't supposed to do that.

It's ironic that the land of fredom has a low against pratically everything except stupidity.

AoD ;)
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
<< It's ironic that the land of fredom has a low against pratically everything except stupidity. >>

The problems lies with lawyers and politicians. Most of the later are the former. Anybody see a conflict of interest here? Folks in charge of legislating are also penning laws! All kinds of stupidity makes its way to paper.
 

Yo Ma Ma

Lifer
Jan 21, 2000
11,635
2
0
I think the coffee burn woman deserved her settlement - the coffee was heated far beyond &quot;normal&quot; standards, and then served in styrofoam which we all know could have seen the dinosaurs through the ice age :p She required medical attention for her burns, they really were serious.

OTOH, the pickle lady... I'm not so sure. I've had the pickle come off the burger and burn me before, but it just smarted, it wasn't a 911 situation. It might have more validity if it'd happened at Burger King though, they will microwave a burger and that might get the pickle hot enough to do some real damage.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
&quot;She required medical attention for her burns, they really were serious.&quot;

So, if somebody jammed a coffee stirrer in their eye, that would be really serious. Should they be able to win a lawsuit against McDonalds too?

Makes me sick. It's a damn money grab in both cases.
 

Shazam

Golden Member
Dec 15, 1999
1,136
1
0
We all know that the &quot;hot coffee&quot; lady's settlement was readjusted to $500K, right? Right?
 

Zucchini

Banned
Dec 10, 1999
4,601
0
0
Hm no i think it got cut down to nothing because dirt was dug up on her.. or something. I'm sure someone remembers exactly why.

403,

oh i see &quot;love&quot; hehe, she could always just swallow u know:) anyways, couldn't &quot;love&quot; be considered soothing burn ointment :D
 

MrsSkywalker

Member
Jun 30, 2000
148
0
0
I hate stupid people. What's worse than stupid people though, is that tax dollars are going to have to pay for twelve of our citizens to sit and listen to these stupid people b!tch and moan about their stupidity and how being complete morons isn't their fault...that the big corportion should have made them a little safety bubble to travel through life in. I have a scar on my eyebrow from tripping and hitting the license plate of a yellow VW bug when I was a kid. Even though it was many years ago, whenever it rains or the air pressure changes, the scar becomes very tender and aches. Should I sue the owners of the car for inconsiderately parking in their driveway when they should have known there was always the possibility of a little kid playing tag in the area? How about suing VW for making the car at an unreasonable height (right where my head would hit if I tripped running down a 12% graded slope at 4.3 mph on an overcast day while wearing cheapie flip flops). Or how about the state of NH for making the license plate's edge sharp enough to inflict bodily harm. You know, I've spent YEARS in utter slight discomfort from this injury. That should be worth a few million.


Come on, people!!! This is absolute lunacy! I'm sick of this crap being allowed into courts, and I strongly feel that frivolous lawsuits not only make a mockery of our judicial system, but also mock the intergrity and hard work of our judges.

That said, although I disagree with these suits, I agree that everyone has the right to file a suit and try and make a claim against anyone they feel has wronged them. That's what makes America great...at least, that's what I keep telling myself! I just wish these bozos would be shamed out of going through with it. And, FYI, there are more places to catch the &quot;love&quot;...sounds like the guy's just PO'd that his sex life sucks.
 

Pastfinder

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2000
2,352
0
0
Let's just say that some people out in the world still have tails.
OR the lifeguard was looking the other way when they jumped in the gene pool.
 

IronMike

Senior member
Jun 24, 2000
356
0
0
In the McDonald's coffee case, it was either negligence by McDonald's or another corporate slimeball risk management decision.
Fact:
She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.
Fact:
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.
Fact:
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, it was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
&quot;Do you realize that the amount that the jury awarded (before it was lowered by the judge) did not even represent one day's profit from coffee.&quot; If Frenchie is correct, and IronMike is correct, &quot;...more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992.&quot; That means ONLY 700 people were stupid enough to spill coffee on themselves in 10 full years.

If a few hundred thousand dollars represents only one days coffee profit, can you imagine how many people drink a cup of coffee, without spilling it on themselves, in a single day? In a week? In a year? IN TEN YEARS? And yet only 700 or so lawsuits in that same ten years. It's bad enough that we are liable to pay damages when somebody slips and falls on our property. I mean, WTF? But to have somebody spill coffee on themselves and then go running to a lawyer just sucks outright. She should have made a claim against her own insurance and then let them go after what they were due from McDonalds.

Like I said, if she had inadvertently jammed a coffee stirrer in her eye, she would have been hospitalized for possibly eight days too. No less serious. And yet I don't see McDonalds being any more liable. But then again, those damn coffee stirrers have the potential to take a life in the wrong hands I guess...
 

IronMike

Senior member
Jun 24, 2000
356
0
0
The 79 year old woman was actually very nice and originally asked for only payment for hospital bills. McDonalds refused.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit. If Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 158 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.


 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
If I were the manager of the local Home Depot, I'd refuse to sell the ditz a friggen hand tool! Of course, they'd probably get sued for that too!
 

2ndhandnews

Senior member
Mar 10, 2000
251
0
0
Iron Mike,

I'm glad you had the facts. I, too, heard the full scoop on the elderly woman. If coffee is hot enough that when it scalds, it necessitates skin grafts, that isn't the &quot;stupidity&quot; of any customer, that is the &quot;stupidity&quot; of McDonald's.

I used to think it was a frivolous lawsuit until I read, quite some time ago, the full story on what actually happened.
 

convex

Banned
May 24, 2000
2,227
0
0
2nd, mcdonalds didn't spill it on her. i should sue chevy if i ever run my truck into a tree... &quot;well, you shouldn't have sold me such a dangerous vehicle...i'd like $25,000,000 please.&quot;
 

Frenchie

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 22, 1999
2,255
0
0
convex:

If you hit the tree doing 25mph in your chevy, one would expect to survive with little or no injury. If however, the chevy explodes on impact with the tree killing you instantly and ejecting your body a few hundred feet in the air, then chevy should be sued because their vehicle did not perform the way it should (perform within it's intended use.) The coffee was not heated and maintained in the normal and expected matter. And, like the defective chevy, a law suit for the defective coffee is approporiate.
 

perry

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2000
4,018
1
0
Loss of use of his wife's mouth.. hmm. Isn't oral sex illegal in most states? I'm gunna laugh when he/they is/are arrested during the trial.
 

PG

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,426
44
91
Frenchie,

Don't start with the defective Chevy truck thing. The TV explosion that I think you are referring to was rigged. They filled the gas tank and filler neck all the way to the top and they did not put the cap on fully. They just set it on top to make it look as if it was on correctly. They also had little model rocket engines wired up under the truck. They were set off just prior to impact. The impact caused fuel from the filler neck to spill and the rocket engines ignited the spilled fuel resulting in a big ball of flames.
I think they had to explain that they rigged the test on their show at a later time, but that's an example of too little, too late.

PG

 

Eeks

Senior member
Dec 8, 1999
457
0
0
Hmm that's the first time I have convince dto see the other side. Good work Frenchie, and even better analogy.
 

Frenchie

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 22, 1999
2,255
0
0
PG:

I was not referring to that alleged defect. Convex gave a Chevy Truck as his example, so I used it in my response to him. Feel free to insert any vehicle in it's place. (Especially a Pinto, Gremlin, Samarai, etc. LOL)


Eeks: Thanks for the compliment. I am glad that I was able to provide a clearer explanation. The coffee case was actually a case that we discussed (or more appropriately debated about) in law school.
 

PG

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,426
44
91
Frenchie,

OK, sorry. I get it now.

I still am not fully convinced about the coffee though. They didn't spill it on her. Somebody really needs to get her a cup holder. But, you are correct in saying that the only way to make big buisness change is to award serious damages. They wouldn't have changed their coffee temps without a lawsuit such as that one. These numbers seem huge, but it isn't a problem for a huge company. I am sure that they have huge amounts of money set aside for law suits such as this.

PG
 

Frenchie

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 22, 1999
2,255
0
0
It is true that the damages (burns) were partially her fault for doing the spilling. That is why the jury found her to be 20% contributorily negligent. But, it all comes down to the fact that even if she was a cup holderless idiot, if McD's didnt have the coffee at such an unreasonably high temperature, the spill would not have caused those serious burns...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY