What is it that we are supposed to learn from this story?

The story has been used as “proof” that litigation is out of control because someone simply spilled coffee on herself.

If she suffered serious injury, it’s a different story.

We didn’t learn much, as far as I know. Ever since that incident, McDick’s has lowered the heat at which they serve the coffee, but it’s still hot enough to cause injury if spilled on oneself.

@jaytkay I believe the woman hurt herself rather seriously.

@jaytkay what do you mean serious injury? It shouldn’t make a difference anyway,_
I could hurt myself seriously because it could be hotter than some other place , ... I shouldn’t put the cup between my knees even if I am not going to open it in case I accidentally squeeze it

@Symbeline Some people don’t ‘think it is not hot enough by the way.
”...but it’s still hot enough to cause injury if spilled on oneself.” And if people don’t look before crossing the street they end up dead or injured. Same thing right?

There was a documentary about it: “Hot Coffee.”

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp

The woman was scalded between her legs. The movie said the suit was actually about tort reform.

No, I don’t think anything with the law has changed, and I don’t really see where it should, given the facts in your link. Unless it’s this:

” No one will ever know the final ending to this case.”
“The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.”

Not bloody likely to change.

How did the come up with 1 day’s worth of coffee sales anyway?

@ibstubro I read that too, which adds to the ridiculouslessness of the whole thing.

When you see the documentary, it helps explain things and helps make you realize it was not really ridiculous. When the media reports it, they make it all sound very trivial but it wasn’t. See my link to the documentary above.

@jca has it right.

From this article,

“The spill did not cause a trivial injury, but severe burns that required multiple operations and skin grafts to treat. McDonald’s, which served its coffee at 180 degrees, had received more than 700 complaints from customers, constituting a clear warning, but it nonetheless required its franchises to serve it at that temperature without warning customers.”

The text link in the details shows that the suit was not frivilous, @jca.

I’m not being argumentative, it’s just that I have limited connectivity for video, and I when I read the link in the details I was finally satisfied that the suit was very valid.

From this question’s details.

@ibstubro: I said it was not a trivial suit. I am not clear if you’re mistakenly disagreeing with me or you understand that you are agreeing with me.

I’m agreeing to agree with you, @jca. Just trying to point out that ‘the facts, mam, nothing but the facts’ had already been provided in an easily readable format.

For those short on time or internet usage.

Edit
With the added advantage of not allowing a derail because of the source of @dappled_leaves link.

I don’t know whether it was the movie in the link or a separate documentary which I saw but I agree that the FACTS leave little doubt that it was a valid suit.

If something is hot enough to cause the type of burns requiring skin grafts, then it clearly is way too damn hot. Certainly it isn’t drinkable at that temperature.

One more FACT for the record: everyone assumes she was the driver. NOT TRUE. She was a PASSENGER so was not doing anything wrong or engaging in risky driving.

In addition to the medical facts of the case, I think what really put the nail in McDonalds coffin was the overwhelming history of so many complaints from consumers about the temp of the coffee being way too hot (which they chose to ignore) -not a smart move on their part.

They were arrogant and got nailed for it.

I have noticed since that notorious lawsuit that many drive-throughs have signs and/or labels stating something to this effect: Caution: contents are hot and may cause injury!

McDonald’s knowingly and deliberately served their coffee at temperatures that were unsafe for consumption. They offered free coffee as an enticement to lure customers in, but didn’t want people actually taking advantage of the offer. So they deliberately served it at 180 degrees with the idea being that by the time it had cooled enough to drink the customer would be finished with their meal and on their way out the door, thus they would not get more than one cup of coffee. I don’t care how much you think the woman shouldn’t have put it between her legs or opened it, there’s no way to justify serving food or drink at a temperature hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. That’s just reckless endangerment, and all to avoid having customers from utilizing something that was freely offered.

The woman required skin grafts. That’s not cheap. As I recall she initially asked only for her medical expenses to be covered. McDonald’s basically laughed at her and offered her a few hundred dollars as a settlement. She did not ask for the millions that she was awarded, the jury elected to award her that amount. Her suit was absolutely valid.

@Yetanotheruser “I have noticed since that notorious lawsuit that many drive-throughs have signs and/or labels stating something to this effect: Caution: contents are hot and may cause injury!”

Yeah, but that might just be an attempt at the preemptive legal doctrine of “cover your ass”. I don’t think any restaurant would now be stupid enough to serve food so hot it causes injury.

Please source that McDonald’s was serving overly hot coffee to prevent free refills, @Darth_Algar. I find the idea ludicrous, in that the fluid is the least of the expense in a cup of take-out coffee.

Not to answer any specific question, but just general info with photos:

Relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

@ibstubro

I read it in an article years ago in a publication who’s name I no longer recall. So it’s not really something I could give a link to. You can believe it or not, I don’t really care ether way.

@ibstubro: That article you provided in link is interesting but I’m wondering if it would apply to this case (McDonalds) since the article in link referenced coffee shops and McDonalds is not really just a coffee shop, plus McD’s would likely buy everything it uses at rock bottom wholesale prices. Plus McD’s doesn’t typically use high quality coffee shop ingredients like Turbinado sugar, they use regular sugar packets, regular sweetener (no-name brand) and regular everything, not fancy.

Edited for typo:
Nothing but nothing changes that if thecoffee cup (open) weren’t in between the knees /thighs driver’s or passenger’s – where it absolutely doesn’t belong – it wouldn’t have spilled.

For example, at a certain intersection, if there are too many drivers who go over the speed limit. Should the city reduce the speed limit just because of that? Adults should be expected to assume it is too hot period. Maybe more of its customers like the hot coffee than the ones who don’t.

@flo

And nothing but nothing changes the fact that the coffee was served hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, which it absolutely shouldn’t have been. What if the woman had tried drinking it instead of putting it between her knees? Would you then find fault with the woman for attempting to use the coffee for its intended purpose?

-“What if the woman had tried drinking it instead of putting it between her knees?”
We can all tell how hot the food/liquid is, before it gets to our lips, since toddler stage. We wait till it gets cooler we blow on it etc. No excuse.

-I have never known Mcdonald’s coffee to be that hot. I’m guessing it would have been a known thing if it were that hot.

-Just because it caused 3rd degree burns with one person it doesn’t mean it would with everyone. Maybe her skin was especialy fragile. Added: the elederly are more careful when they walk in winter conditions for example than younger people, why is that?

According to the documentary and various links (if you google), McDonalds had known about this for years and done nothing about it, and other people had issues as well. That is why the jury awarded the punitive damages that they did. The woman did not sue for that amount, the jury awarded it. McDonalds offered the woman $800 for her medical bills which were over $10k. If you look at the links I provided above, @flo, you’ll see that they verify what I am saying. So it was a “known thing.”

@flo

When a person orders food or beverage they have a reasonable expectation of being able to enjoy it right away. If one must wait for it to cool down in order to consume it without risk of physical injury then it’s being served too goddamn hot. And no, having fragile skin doesn’t make it anymore susceptible to burns. Also, McDonalds had known for years that they were serving their coffee too hot. They’d had thousands of complaints and hundreds of injuries from their coffee. They knew about the issue and did nothing.

You can’t put hot coffee in between your legs and open it, that is all. Nothing mitigates that. Should we go around advising our loved ones to not worry about doing that, because someone won their case?

And had the coffee not been served at a physically unsafe temperature the woman would have ended up needing only a change of pants, not skin grafts. Accidents happen. People spill shit. If I ever meet anyone who’s managed to go through life without spilling a beverage on themselves I’ll shake their hand and buy them a beer. The fault here lies with McDonalds for serving a product intended for human consumption at a temperature hot enough to cause severe burns to human skin.

Whatever the evidence was that was shown in court, apparently a jury of the woman’s peers agreed with those of us who are saying it was justified that she was awarded that large settlement. They probably got tons of testimony and proof about what happened. We’re armchair quarterbacks. @flo you didn’t even know that there were other injuries due to the coffee before we told you. Now think of all that evidence that the jury got, and they realized that the large award was in order.

You are arguing against being prudent.

I am saying it’s hard to second guess a jury without knowing and seeing all that was presented to them.

By that logic then, there has never been, and will never be a wrong decision.

Also, accidents happen, but this is not really an accident the same way an accident casued by a drunk driver is not really an accident.

Plenty of possible cases which jury or judge got it wrong. http://goo.gl/DSM6iW

Plenty of wrongfully convicted (proven by DNA test) served years in jail.

^^^ By that logic then there are no accidents. Every accident is avoidable.

And can keep harping on the woman for taking the very common actions of putting a cup between her knees and opening up the cup to add sweetener to her coffee all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that the fault lies with McDonalds, not her.

1) A lot of accidents are avoidable not all, and this one screams completely, avoidable.

2) ”...taking the very common actions of putting a cup between her knees opening up the cup…” Now you’re trying to be funny, I guess.

@flo You appear to be the only person screaming that this was unavoidable. If you’re not interested in what anyone else has to say, why do you keep reading?

@dappled_leaves Avoidable, not unavoidable A typo.
If you could have added something to the debate you would have. I guess this is your way of saying I got nothing, it seems @flo has it right.”

@flo

Name me one kind of accident (aside from, say, a deer jumping out in front of a car) that is not the result of somebody blundering.

@Darth_Algar “common, action” I don’t think we’re on the same planet. No need to go any further.

Again, the fact that it happened many times in the past combined with whatever else the jury saw is why they awarded the woman the money that the woman did not ask for. They gave it to her regardless. Apparently if 12 people agreed on this award, there is something to it. No food or liquid that is intended for human consumption should be served so hot that it causes 3rd degree burns. If the coffee was not served so hot, the woman and all the other people who were injured (who were not part of this lawsuit) would not have been burned. See the documentary and then come back and let’s discuss it. I saw the documentary, @flo. Did you?

@flo “I guess this is your way of saying I got nothing, it seems @flo has it right.””

I assure you, that is not what I was saying. I’m perplexed by your attitude about this case.

So much McHate here. Can’t we all just go with the @flo? ;-(

@Brian1946 It’s @flo‘s hate that we’re all trying to understand.

@flo ”“common, action” I don’t think we’re on the same planet. No need to go any further.”

So you don’t understand the words “common” and “action”?

It’s not a case of belief or disbelief, @Darth_Algar & @jca. It’s a case of repeating something that defies logical thinking with no supporting evidence.

Why would McDonald’s discourage the purchase of an item generating the highest profit margin?

@ibstubro

They were not discouraging the purchase of that item, they were discouraging the use of the offer of free refills on that item.

@Darth_Algar and @jca and et al.
Promoting the idea that
America is so full of adults who need adult supervision that this can happen…. is what you are effectively doing. You are helping America’s enemies.

If advocating that corporations be held accountable for their malfeasance is, as you so dramatically put it, “helping America’s enemies”, then I will gladly stand trial for treason.

I gave the example of the traffic intersection here to show that there is no malfeasance in this case, only blundering (your word) customers. McDonald tried to accomodate everyone, hot coffee lovers, not so hot coffee lovers who should know to wait, and/or not open the coffee between the legs.

Sorry, but no amount of excusing McDonalds or attempting to shift the blame will ever justify the company knowingly serving a product intended for consumption at a temperature hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.

I accept your admission or whatever it is you are doing by not addressing the traffic example.

By the way, if I’m excusing Mcdonald you are excusing the lady who is shifted the blame and not accepting accountability.

- The traffic example was too ridiculous to warrant addressing, quite frankly. Might as well ask that since some people will still commit theft should we legalize theft.

- As I said before, had the coffee not been served hot enough to cause severe burns the woman would have ended up needing a change of pants, not skin grafts. That’s the usual result of people blundering and spilling liquid on themselves, at least when corporate malfeasance is not involved.

McDonald’s was giving free refills through the drive thru? @Darth_Algar

Besides, my link specifically states:
“McDonald’s offers free drink refills for its “dine-in” customers. Psychologically, the idea of getting a great bargain with free drink refills causes people to choose McDonald’s over its competitors. Studies show that people who think they are getting a bargain will spend more money on other products.

Incentives, another psychological tactic, keep customers happy. Knowing they can purchase a small size drink and get refills creates a sense of self control for the customer. However, many do not get refills, so this more than makes up the profits for those few who do get refills.”

But then, I can source my facts.

@ibstubro

- Your first question there assumes that they use specific coffee machines for dine-in and drive-thru. Somehow I doubt this was the case.

- Yup, nothing there disagrees with the idea that free refills are used as an incentive to lure customers in, but that they don’t necessarily want customers taking advantage of.

- As I said, it’s something I read in a publication long ago. You can believe it or not. No skin off my ass ether way.

So, you have nothing, @Darth_Algar.

Finally. We agree.

@Darth_Algar
1)“Might as well ask that since some people will still commit theft should we legalize theft.” I believe that is your side. Are you trying to funny again?

2)Imagine if people sued the stores that sold knives because they were “too sharp”, just like the coffe is “too hot”? when it is clear as a bell that it is improper/careless use of the products?