McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

[adam]

She didn't sue because she wasn't given notice that the coffee was hot, she sued because the coffee was so unreasonably hot, to the point that it created serious safety hazards.

When you see a sign saying something is hot you assume it is reasonably hot. Coffee is meant to be served hot, you assume that if you drink it you will at the most burn your tongue a little and that you will have some discomfort. You do not assume that it is so unreasonably hot that any contact with it will result in serious burns requiring extensive reconstructive surgery.

You can stick a sign on orange juice saying it is acidic, and this is accurate. But that doesn't mean you can put boric acid into the juice and assume that you are free from liability just because you gave them notice.

Basically this was a products liability case. Products liability means that when you sell/manufacture a product you at the VERY least must make it safe enough to be used for its intended purpose. Coffee is intended to be drunk, yet it was so hot that just by drinking it she would have sustained serious burns. It is a textbook example of a products liabilty violation, and the fact that McDonals willingly and knowingly did it despite actual knowledge of people being injured by it, that just opened them up to the punitive damages which everyone got so worked up about.

[MOVIEGEEK]

I realize this is off-topic but I couldn't resist commenting on the McDonalds' lawsuit.
My opinion is coffee is meant to be hot otherwise it is called iced cappuccino and the lawsuit was frivilous.
Let me make this analogy:If I spill tap water on my kitchen floor and I slip and break a bone should I sue the water co.to reimburse my medical bills?NO of course not I have a conscience and common sense.
How about the civil suit against Tommy Lee(ex-Mr.Pamela Anderson),he is being sued because a child drowned in his pool at a birthday party and he didn't have a lifeguard. Maybe the child wouldn't have drowned if his parents were watching him. Give me a break,"TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS!"
For the topic at hand I think I should be able to make one back-up of any copyrighted material that I purchased as long as I don't sell or distribute.

[flaninacupboard]

well, given that Mc donalds serve TAKE AWAY food, don't you think people take away the coffe and then drink it? i know i do. i also know that i have burned my self on mc donalds coffee. it goes sometihng like this
*Read label saying "warning! contents hot!" think "duh" open lid, gently sip, burn my tongue, think "i'll drink that after i've eaten my burger" eat my burger, my coffee is -now- perfect drinking temperature. i don't sympathise with the old woman/ if a mcdonalds employee had put the lid on the cup incorrectly, or walked into her, making her spill it fine. she should get her medical expenses paid. but given she dropped it, that's her fault. if she doesn't have medical insurance in a country where medical treatment is not free, that's her fault too. Are mcdonalds liable if someone buys a burger with a hangover, collapse somewhere and choke on a half eaten burger? of course not. but surely if he couldn't eat it, then it was not fit for eating, so they are! what if someone who really needs the toilet goes into the restaurant and there is someone else in the toilet so they can't go because they are nervous and their bladder explodes and they die? is that mcdonalds fault for not providing toilets with better privacy?

And anyway, coffee at 85C isn't -that- hot.

[jarvis1781]

sorry MOVIEGEEK

you miss the point that Adam made...your analogy is nothing close to the point he was making

"When you see a sign saying something is hot you assume it is reasonably hot. Coffee is meant to be served hot, you assume that if you drink it you will at the most burn your tongue a little and that you will have some discomfort. You do not assume that it is so unreasonably hot that any contact with it will result in serious burns requiring extensive reconstructive surgery."

MOVIEGEEK you say "Give me a break,"TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS!" "

think about what Adam just said..."You can stick a sign on orange juice saying it is acidic, and this is accurate. But that doesn't mean you can put boric acid into the juice and assume that you are free from liability just because you gave them notice."

I want you to think about this and then try to reconstruct your argument because it makes no sense in relation to what was being said about liability.

the woman had no responsibility to take for coffee that was scalding (and knowingly so)

"hot" yes, "scalding" no

"acidic" yes, "Boric acid" no

now do you get the point?

this has nothing to do with iced cappuccino and unattended swimming pools

[Karate Media]

Forgive me for, uh...bringing this thread back on topic ...

Adam -- no need to apologize; I certainly wasn't trying to bait you into "proving" your case...That said, I must commend you on some pretty sweet Nex/Lex research.

I was kinda hoping that txpharaoh would stumble upon this thread -- I don't know the fellow, but he seems to have a healthy grasp of copyright law to a certain extent...

The US courts seem to be upholding the DMCA (don't have cites and "24" just started, so have to finish soon than expected) which in turn means that Fair Use is crumbling -- once all of our information/entertainment/etc. is on CDs and DVDs, and therefore encrypted, it very well could be a crime to back up anything -- it really will be a "Catch-ah 22" -- "Sure you make a backup copy of your CDs, just as long as you don't circumvent the anti-copying protection in any way! Thank you, have a nice day!"

It's a world where cracking open a gaming system that you've bought w/ your own hard-earned money ("I walked uphill both ways to earn that money!")will not only void your warranty, but could land you in jail.

Anyway, I'll ramble on about this later...

[MOVIEGEEK]

jarvis1781,
Who in the hell is putting boric acid in an orange anyway?And if they are that is a criminal offense,we were discussing civil lawsuits.Here's another analogy:what if I buy a pizza at Round Table Pizza and it's so hot I burn my mouth on the tomato sauce,should I call my attorney right there or should I have waited a few minutes to let it cool?If the McDonalds employee intentionally spilled coffee on the plaintiffs lap then I could see grounds for a lawsuit but that's not what happened,it was an accident and 185deg.F isn't scalding to me.
I understood and respect adams argument but I felt the lawsuit was frivilous.
Let's just agree to disagree.

[adam]

i also know that i have burned my self on mc donalds coffee. it goes sometihng like this *Read label saying "warning! contents hot!" think "duh" open lid, gently sip, burn my tongue, think "i'll drink that after i've eaten my burger" eat my burger, my coffee is -now- perfect drinking temperature. And anyway, coffee at 85C isn't -that- hot.

And if you had done that with the coffee in question you would have recieved at least 1st degree burns and probably required surgery. And you are saying that this is reasonable since everyone should know coffee is served hot? 85C appartantly IS that hot, because it can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds.

Slipping on water, choking on a hamburger...None of these things involve an inherantly dangerous product. The reason for the injuries in these hypotheticals is purely the negligence or mere misfortune of the victim. The coffee in this case was so hot that a person would be injured by drinking it....every time. A produt that is so inherantly dangerous that it cannot be used for its intended purpose is clearly a products liability violation and I find it hard to believe that other people think that by serving scalding coffee, the risk of burn becomes solely the responsibility of the consumer.

Yes, certain products have certain qualities that all people are aware of. We all know coffee is hot, that water contains certain amounts of chemicals, and that bacteria live in hamburger meat. When we consume these we acknowledge that we will be exposed to these things because it is implied that the amount of exposure is harmless. It is when vendors allow these properties to be unreasonably high in regards to these certain qualities that the products become dangerous. Extremely hot coffee is just as dangerous as water contaminated with lead, or hamburger meat improperly prepaired with enough bacteria to kill a small child. Scalding coffee cannot be drunk without causing injury. How can someone possibly sell a product which cannot be used for its intended purpose without causing serious injury? Despite what some people say, the law says you can't.

"TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS!"

How in the world does this not apply to McDonalds? They knew that their coffee was so hot that anyone who drank it ran the risk of recieving serious bodily injury. Several people did in fact recieve serious injuries just from drinking the coffee. They were repeatedly warned by safety inspectors that they were creating a public risk and they continued to scald the stale coffee so that they could recycle it and save money. They knew with absolute certainty that they were putting the public at risk but continued anyway because they knew that they would save more money in coffee costs than they would spend in litigation.

[adam]

185deg.F isn't scalding to me.

This is not a matter of opinion. By definition something is scalding if it has the capability to burn you. At 185 F, 3rd degree burns result after 2-7 seconds of contact, and in the this case the woman did in fact recieve severe burns from coming into contact with the coffee. The coffee was scalding and McDonalds knew it.

The fact that the woman spilled the coffee in her lap makes no difference because the spilling was not the proximate cause of her injury, the extreme temperature of the coffee was. She would probably have been injured even worse if she had just drunk the coffee.

Who in the hell is putting boric acid in an orange anyway?And if they are that is a criminal offense,we were discussing civil lawsuits.

I realize most people don't really know the finer points of law. I would probably think the same way if I weren't in law school. All criminal actions have the potential to create civil liability. Putting boric acid in orange juice, which resulted in someone's injury, would definitely result in a civil trial, but may or may not even raise criminal issues.

Here's another analogy:what if I buy a pizza at Round Table Pizza and it's so hot I burn my mouth on the tomato sauce,should I call my attorney right there or should I have waited a few minutes to let it cool?

How do you know that the pizza is hot enough to cause serious burning until you taste it? After determing that it is in fact too hot for consumption, its too late, you have already been seriously burned and must now be rushed to the hospital. What if the pizza had poison in it? Is it your fault for not running tests on it before eating? Is it really unreasonable to assume that when you buy an item of food, sold for immediate consumption, that its safe to eat then and there?

If it weren't for cases like this, then there would be no guarantee whatsoever that the food you eat is safe for consumption.

[MOVIEGEEK]

adam,
I would hope you're considering becoming a D.A. but from the sound of your arguments I would say you're leaning towards civil law.
As to proper food handling,I would rather have the temperatures too high(to kill any bacteria)than too low and get food poisoning but that's why we have the USDA,FDA and state food inspectors.Either way I would hire you to represent me.
Good luck in law school and taking the bar.

[jarvis1781]

*thanks Adam and pats him on the back*

or as MOVIEGEEK might say "kisses his a$$"

but i'm glad MOVIEGEEK finally did his homework and saw the meaning behind Adam's point

[jarvis1781]

as you can see I just like to stir up a little bit of trouble now and then to spice things up

Jarvis1781

LOL! I too can see the humor in being wrong now and then

[arealgijoe]

Here is one for you;

DISNEY is/was pushing for extension of copyright duration time (years).

What makes this interesting is DISNEY makes mosst of its movies using material wehre any copyrights have expired.

Kinda hipocritical it seems.

JD

[pcgod]

To all,

What an education one can get from reading posts!!! Who needs law school?

To get back on topic, are DVD companies compensating us for being bombarded to see THEIR ads on a commercially produced product? I paid for a specific movie that the outer label states. If they are allowed to place ads for ME to see, then the ads should pay for the DVD and should just be handed out to whoever wants it.

To get back off topic , I usually wait a while before I take my first sip of coffee in the morning, even when I'm home. I'm not going to be that ignorant to sue "Mr Coffee" for a product that is designed to keep hot liquid at an optimum temp of 60 degrees C (140 deg F). Just common sense to me...

[adam]

Thanks moviegeek and jarvis, lets just hope that none of us ever need representation. I can certainly understand why the average person thinks this suit is frivilous. McDonalds spends a heck of alot more money on PR than the American Bar Association.

[adam]

To get back on topic, are DVD companies compensating us for being bombarded to see THEIR ads on a commercially produced product?

Yes they are. The typical viewpoint, and the one that courts apply, is that revenue from advertising filters back to the consumer through decreased prices. If there were no ads in DVDs, then perhaps manufactures would sell 5% fewer movies, and their profits would thus be 5% lower, and to offset this they would have to charge 5% more per movie.

[vitualis]

What a great thread!

Just some aside issues:

85 degrees Celsius (water) is actually VERY hot. In fact, water above about 45 degrees can cause burns (i.e., damage to body tissues) depending on the time of exposure. I can guarantee that few of you can keep your hand in a pool of water at 45 degrees for more than about 10-15 seconds without experiencing extreme pain/discomfort (assuming you have normal sensation of course).

Regards.

[Karate Media]

What hath I wrought?

A simple, snide aside about coffee and the courtroom turned into such a great, non-"DVD to DVDR" discussion! Still, an interesting read...

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go discuss dwarf bowling over in Advanced Conversion...

[Gastrian]

back on dvds. I thought when you purchased a DVD you were buying the right to view the content and not buying any rights of the content. So in practical terms you can make a back-up of anything that YOU OWN, but because you don't actually own the content you cannot legally back-up the content without the approval of the copyright holder.

[adam]

The argument for allowing backups is just a common sense one. When you purchase a product it becomes your own, and you should have the right to do whatever you want with it, as long as it doesn't violate any copyrights or laws.

So the first issue is the copyright. The production studios say you cannot reproduce without express permission, but the federally imposed Fair Use exception states that it does not infringe upon copyrights if you make "fair use" of a copy protected medium. A clear example of Fair Use's application would be for educational purposes. If you were a teacher and you needed to make multiple copies of a DVD which contains material relevant to your lesson, you would be allowed to do so even though the copyright forbids it. The legislature and the courts have been very clear about carving this out as "fair use" of a medium such as DVD. Fair Use's application to backing up a DVD, solely for the insurance of the purchaser, has yet to be tested so as of yet, no one really knows. If Fair Use is ruled to apply to dvd backups for personal use, then it does not violate the DVD's copyright to do so.

Now the second issue is that of existing laws. Under the DMCA you cannot bypass CSS protection at all. However, if Fair Use truly does allow you to backup a DVD without violating its copyright, then DMCA and Fair Use conflict so it is either up to the Courts or to the Legislature to amend one or the other, either in practice or in its language.

[txpharoah]

== In response to adam and KarateMedia, I'm here, but this is another long-winded post. Work is kinda busy through the end of the month, not much time for this hobby. ==

But adam is entirely correct on the McDonalds case. It was a case of product liability and McD deserved the punch in the wallet.

And both adam and Karate have most of the Fair Use down pretty good, and I also commend adam on a good Lexis/Nexis search. And you are both correct on the situation being not-so-clearcut. It's not.

And as of right now, court cases and law interpretations have suggested that safeguarding data on a backup is a fair use. You must ALWAYS remember to differentiate between "backup" and making an "extra copy."

And when it comes to law, I hate Disney. (For any of you guessing who I work for or what I do, there's one to cross off your list.) They go overboard, and press even when morals would say otherwise. I've seen them sue a fraternity before for merely using a picture of Donald Duck on an ad for a impromptu party at a campus some years back. It cost those poor kids $1K. I like Mickey Mouse and all, but the corporation that owns him can go to hell. So, I guess my point here was to never use Disney as a case study on media law, except on completed court trials.

[gmatov]

Adam, et al,
This is such an interesting thread, I hate to intrude.
True, 120*F is almost unbearable and can cause 2nd degree burns, at least on children, and most adults cannot stand it for long. We,at least some of us, cook a roast to 140 or so for "rare" beef. 161 F for , I think, 15 seconds, is the temp to pasteurize milk. ( I have gotten into making cheese as a hobby).
In a steel mill, I have worked high up on cranes at 137*F. I take a digital thermometer with me. It is not fun, and there are limits to the time up, time down. The OSHA charts only go to 95*F, 15 min up, 45 min down. Industrial Hygeine, i.e., safety people, say, well, jeez, the chart only goes up to 95*F, we don't know what to do now.
This is not to get off the subject too far. This is to answer Moviegeek who says "That's why we have the USDA, the FDA and state food inspectors."
If you think they are on your side, to protect you, you are sadly mistaken. They are paid through fees paid to the respective departments. When a processor can put out 25 million pounds of contaminated ground beef, kill a few people, ala Jack-in-the-Box hamburgers, recall all the contaminated beef, recycle it to the school food programs, as cooked product,someone is not on your side. You DO NOT contribute to their re-election campains.
You DO NOT rate in "Their" eyes. If they do make a law with whichyou agree to the point that you call your rep and say "Good job", the regulators write up what they think the law really should be, and that is what you really go afoul of.
Adam,
Were you aware of the stipulation, in the EULA that came with, I'm pretty sure it was e-books, the electronic reader, with subject matter that has been in the public domain( for those who don't understand, Alice in Wonderland, and other mateial that has lost its copyright; old stuff) anyhow, the EULA specifically said you were not permitted to READ THE MATERIAL ALOUD, if anyone could hear you?
Keep accessing the law books. We can use some more or less authorative viewpoints
I don't LIKE lawyers, per se, we have entirely too many of them, particularly in the legislative bodies. Since they are all lawyers, they seem to make more things criminal practices, so that there is enough work to go around for all the new ones who enter the field each year. Do you know, we have more people in jails than any other country in the world?
Nuffa that. I'm glad we're, I hope we're off topic.

[gmatov]

Adam,
As an addendum, we give PRIVATE corporations contracts to set up prisons?.
Profits to be made from incarcerating people? Jesus Christ, if there was ever a reason to revolt, can you think of a better? And the ******** who say, well if they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't be afraid of this, that or the other.
They should do a search for a nice, totalitarian government and move to that little dictatorship. The law is not for your protection. Get that through your heads The Supremes have ruled such on numerous occasions.

[txpharoah]

I hate to be rude, but gmatov, that was the biggest load of crap I've read concerning law in a long time. The government is here to hurt us? Are you kidding me? Selling contaminated foods to schools? LOL. I don't think so, hoss. I'd be entertained to see the facts on that. I think that heat at the steel mill has been getting to you. And are you one of those people that believed that Simpsons episode where MLB was spying on the world? (I saw a write-up on that once.) Talk about too much X-Files and conspiracy theory gone overboard.

Anyway, this post concerns video and related topics, as do these forums. Please don't change the subject. Especially when what you say is nonsense.

As many here can probably tell you, I get pretty pissy when somebody starts spouting off legal nonsense or when newbies spout off when pros try to help them. I'm done, my 2 cents, and I won't bother to reply to anything else unrelated to video in this thread.

[adam]

Adam,
As an addendum, we give PRIVATE corporations contracts to set up prisons?.
Profits to be made from incarcerating people? Jesus Christ, if there was ever a reason to revolt, can you think of a better? And the ******** who say, well if they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't be afraid of this, that or the other.
They should do a search for a nice, totalitarian government and move to that little dictatorship. The law is not for your protection. Get that through your heads The Supremes have ruled such on numerous occasions.

I realize this thread has strayed from its original topic but I honestly have no idea where you are going with this one. What does this have to do with this thread?

[vitualis]

Adam, et al,
In a steel mill, I have worked high up on cranes at 137*F. ...

That's the tempearature of the AIR. That's a completely different kettle of fish to temperature of WATER. The heat conductance of AIR is much lower than that of water not to mention that air contains a lot less heat energy than water.

If I remember correctly from the Guiness Book of Records (and old version), the highest ambient temperature people have been exposed to is over 200 degrees Celsius (for about 2 minutes or something) in tests conducted by the US military. (note: it would be good if someone would check this as my memory could be completely wrong... ).

Regards.

[Gabriel]

On the subject of copyright laws, this comes up periodically on a lot of forums and nobody ever points out that until the 1800s there was no such thing as a copyright law or 'intellectual property'.

Composers, authors and others who created 'intellectual property' earned a living by performing their works. Shakespeare received no royalties, nor did Mozart, Beethoven, etc., etc. The original intent of copyright laws was to ensure that the creator of a work received the right to REASONABLE compensation (something like 25 years originally with one right to renew) AND to ensure that the works were available to the public. The intent was NOT to allow people to perform a work one time and then retire on the royalties.

The perversions that have crept into copyright laws in the US are the result of large corporations with the ability to finance large donations to legislators to extend the copyright laws past the reasonable into something bordering on eternal. Even with this protection, corporations no longer have to make their work available,e.g., Lucasfilms and the original Star Wars, Indiana Jones, etc. that they refuse to release on DVD.
All of this leads to the situation where normally law-abiding citizens are fed up and find ways to copy the uncopiable.

Back to the original point, are dvd companies infringing our rights? I think they are when viewed in the context of the laws, but, of course, they are not when viewed from a strict reading of the laws as they stand today.

And, forgive me, I can't resist. The woman who sued McDonalds set the cup of coffee BETWEEN HER LEGS in a moving vehicle. She was thereby contributorily negligent; that's why the original judgment was thrown out. While the general rule in tort law is that you take your plaintiff as you find him, stupidity on the part of the plaintiff (victim) is a defense.

[txpharoah]

Brought up something I tend to forget: the original intentions of the law from the pre-1900s. I may look into that again, it's been some time. But let's also not forget about progress, which the laws have somewhat done: progressed.

And adam is still correct on the McDonalds thing. It's product liability, no matter how stupid the lady may have been - and that's not disputed - the coffee was still too hot for reasonable measures. Remember that two wrongs don't make a right, and while they may be both wrong, McDonalds is still at fault, and food should be issued at acceptable temperatures so as not to scald a victim.

[adam]

Gabriel: Contributory negligence is DEAD! It is an antiquated common law doctrine and almost every single jurisidiction in America has abolished it. We use comparative negligence now. If the jury could determine that she was 50% negligent and McDonalds was negligent for the other 50% than McDonalds would have to pay for half of her injuries, and she would have to pay for half of McDonalds injuries...if they had had any.

Now this is really irrellavent though, and I should have been more clear in my previous posts. Products liability holds the manufacturer of the product STRICTLY liable. That means that if it is determined that the product is too dangerous for its intended use, than they will be liable for any and all damages it causes regardless of how negligent the plaintiff is. This is so even in those few jurisdictions which still use contributory negligence. She could have taken a bath in it if she wanted to. Products liability is meant to protect the particular consumer, as well as all consumers. It doesn't matter how negligent this little old lady was, the product itself still puts society at large in danger.

In any case, the fact that its a products liability case just makes McDonalds negligence that much obvious. Even if it they weren't held strickly liable, she still should have been able to hold McDonalds liable because the spilling of the coffee was NOT an intervening superceding event which severed the link between McDonalds negligence and her injury. Like I said before, she could have drunk the coffee and still recieved her injuries.

It is McDonalds negligence which is the proximate cause of her injury. Just because the plaintiff is negligent during the time before her accident that does not mean her right to collect damages is diminished as long as the proximate cause of the injury is still the negligence of the defendant.

For instance, say she was not wearing her seatbelt while driving, in violation of a city ordinance, and say she had drunk the coffee instead of spilling it. She would be negligent, but her negligence had nothing to do with causing her injury so it is irrellavent.

[JasonK]

As ridiculous as the McDonalds ruling is, what's even worse is the whole Tobacco industry ruling which made a lot of lawers and a selected percentage of ordinary people fat cats while many of the smokers that helped build this wealth for the tobocco companies are already dead whose families receive nothing. I'm an anti-smoker, but am against these "get rich by sueing" schemes. It appears the next thing on the list is sueing McDonalds and the rest of the franchises because people are eating too many Big Macs, Whoppers, fries, and other unhealthy fast food items. As John Stossel said, "Give me a break." And then there are the outrageous malpractice lawsuits. The whole system needs some serious restructuring.

Anyway, when will these threads covering this same topic ever end....?

[adam]

Some families already did try to sue McDonalds for serving food that was too unhealthy. It was a class action suit alleging that McDonalds essentially did not disclose how unhealthy their food was and that they all got fat as a result. Of course the case was thrown out immediately. This happened only a couple months ago.

I don't see how that hypothetical even remotely resembles the coffee case, but I realize that the average person just doesn't understand the result of that case. To me, it could not be clearer, but I have had the benefit of reading many other products liability cases. I think its imporant to realize that the media was very vocal about the initial ~million dollar verdict, but never mentioned that it was later reduced to under half a mil. I'm sure that barely covered her medical costs. Whatever you think of the case I assure you she was not out to just make a quick buck off of McDonalds. She was seriously injured.

I agree medical malpractice suits are out of hand. That is one of the reasons why medical costs are so high, because doctors are forced to pay an arm and a leg for insurance. But what can you do?