McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

[rhegedus]

Something strikes me as painfully obvious here:

Water boils at 100C (212F). If I make myself a coffee by boiling a kettle and pouring the water on the instant granules, the resultant liquid will have a temperature of slightly less than 100C because of whatever specific heat capacity the container has.

When I go into McDonalds to order a coffee with my breakfast, the coffee has never been 'just boiling' or even kept simmering, so we can assume that the temperature of their coffee is less than 100C, and in all probability cooler than the coffee I make at home.

Therefore, there is no case here. I know that in order to make coffee the water needs to have boiled, therefore I treat the resultant coffee accordingly.

This woman and the lawyers who support this absurdity are a bunch of f***ing jokers, no better than ambulance chacers and characterise the mentality of the personal claims brigade: pursue even the most absurd case in the hope that it will be settled out of court to spare bad publicity.



Regards,

Rob

p.s. I recently caught a Jerry Springer or some other trailer park trash program with a couple of 300+ pound mammas who were going to sue the fast food industry because they weren't warned that fast food has a high fat content and shouldn't be eaten regularly i.e. 3x a day........

[gmatov]

http://www.nobull.net/legal/news/ecoliwars.htm
Hey, Tex,
This URL's for you.
Particularly down near the bottom, where this unpatriotic broad is telling us we should get the USDA out of the industry's hands. If you pay to regulate your industry, you regulate your industry. No ifs, ands, or buts. I am forced to sit through many training sessions where we are told that OSHA requires this, that or the other. In reality, OSHA is made up of people like you who have never been in the situation of the moment, and who are responding to a suggestion from the regulated industry that this should be the rule, period.
They may have just gotten out of Industrial Hygeine Class, with a diploma, I might add, and this IS the way it will be done. Industrial Hygeine. Funny name, no? As though we WILL cleanse you of these undesireable methods of doing the job in a manner that we think is not safe. I asked my Industrial Hygenist to come up with me to examine the work site to try to explain the problem and she said "I will not!" She can stand 60 feet below me and tell me what I am doing wrong. Just as you can sit 60 feet behind Home Plate and tell the world what the Astro's pitcher is doing wrong.
Get out on the mound, Bud.
I'm closing in on what they did with all the "tainted" beef. Will keep you posted.

[adam]

gmatov: I'm not necessarily opposed to further discussing this thread, I'm just not sure its going to do any good. I think most people can at least follow the logic regarding the points of law that the court used in its ruling, the problem is they think that they think this logic is just flawed, and that the law shouldn't be that way. I often say the same thing to myself when I read about some crazy rule of construction that a court uses, or some de facto rule that seems to result in injustice for no good reason. Yet when I keep reading other cases on the matter I realize that any other way of dealing with the issue would result in far greater injustice, or would open the floodgates of litigation. Some rules just don't seem to make sense when viewed in the abstract, yet make perfect sense in their application. There's really nothing I can say in a forum to help people see the values in product liability or implied warranties of merchantibility and such. The best way to understand why McDonalds should be held liable is to read very old cases which predate all the modern day warranties and liabilties attached to commercial business. When you read about people who lose everything due to the doctrine of caveat empor, you realize how much better the law works now.

Adam has reiterated that Stella did not consider suing till McD's offered her 800 bucks, instead of the 20 thou she asked for, for her medical bills. (Adam, Was it for her medical expenses, or were they paid by 3rd party insurance, and this was her request for P&S, which was laughed down?)

She had almost exactly $20,000 in medical expenses and this is what she requested McDonalds pay, and supposedly she was willing to settle for $11,000. None of this included any money for pain and suffering.

Also, she ended up recieving even less than the full ~$500,000. As already stated, she was awarded several million dollars in punitive damages, but that was reduced to 480,000 because New Mexico law sets a limit on punitive damages. The judge basically said he had no choice but to lower it. McDonalds appealed and they ended up settling for an undiscolsed amount of money in order to avoid going to trial again. Ms. Liebeck supposedly ended up getting substantially less than the $480,000 awarded at trial.

Adam, Yes, we probably do have too many lawsuits. Yes, we probably do have too many lawyers. But, to say that the occasional "huge" award is the reason that the Insurers are doubling, trebling, malpractice premiums, is inane.

In responding to your remark in this area I wasn't referring to this case at all, I was simply agreeing that litigation in this area is out of hand. Damages awarded in medical malpractice suits are generally pretty uniform as compared to other areas of law. Its not the big "make an example of em" cases that drives the insurance costs up, its the flood of litigation in general in this area which makes the whole medical practice so much more expensive. More than anything, the increase in litigation in the medical field has come, ironically, as a result of the increase in medical technology. Before, if a patient went in for a serious operation and died, there was no knowing whether they died as a result of the surgeon's negligence or if he would have died anyway. With the incredible advances in medicine and medicinal theory, we can determine, with fairly accurate certaintly, that the doctor's negligence decreased his chances of survival by an exact percentage. This has created numerous causes of action in the medical field which were literally non-existent 10 years ago.

BTW: I am from Texas and proud of it.
BTW: You will get no arguments from me regarding Jack in the Box. Since I received food poisoning from them 7 years ago I have vowed never to eat there again. I can honestly say that I cannot think of any one of my friends who hasn't received food poisoning from Jack in the Box at least once.

[gmatov]

Rhegedus,
Actually, no, the water does not have to have been boiling. I know you Brits insist that it should be a rolling boil to make a proper cuppa tea, but, normally, a coffee maker will (that's the machine, not the person) force "boiling" water through the thermosyphoning system to flood the grounds, hence extracting what we consider to be the essence of the grounds. I, personally, use a machine that has a reservoir of "hot" water in reserve. I have never measured the temp of the reservoir, but think(?) it is about 180 F.. One reason I know it is not boiling is that, if it were, and I went to make a pot day after tomorrow, it would naturally be dry, don't you think? However, I may be half a cup short of the amount I poured in of cold water to make a new pot. Actually, I'm surprised that I am omly half a cup short. You would think that at room temp you would have evaporation of approximately that much, in that period of time.
The coffee may be 160 F, but I know, since I can "slurp" it, if not slug it down, it is not excessively hot. Shit, now I have to stick the digital thermometer in it in the AM to not make an ass of myself.

[boss]

After her injury the woman wanted to settle out of court for $20,000. McDonalds only offered her $800. She then tried to mediate, McDonalds refused. She was not out to make a quick buck, she just wanted to be compensated for her injuries.

if she was not after a "quick buck" then why was she looking for $20,000, just for been scolded by some coffee? the whole thing is a joke. i'm no fan of mcdonalds but should'nt they have sued her in return for a gross lack of common sense? i mean as people here have said, is'nt coffee supposed to be hot? it's like those obese people trying to sue the fastfood industry because they ate unhealthy food. those people knew the risks and mcdonalds did'nt force them to eat the food at gunpoint did they? same thing. the coffee case should have been thrown out of court.
lawsuits really are been exploited by people who want to make a fast buck.

[Bob W]

Thanks to that fat slob it's impossible to get a hot cup of coffie at McDonalds.

[adam]

if she was not after a "quick buck" then why was she looking for $20,000, just for been scolded by some coffee?

I'm guessing you didn't read my last few posts. She wanted $20,000 because that was the exact amount of money which she spent in medical bills. Skin grafts and 8 days in the hospital don't come cheap. I think its obvious that she wasn't out for a quick buck because she was willing to pay for almost half of her medical bills up front, claiming she would settle for $11,000, and basically did everything she could to avoid a lawsuit.

If you think that she didn't deserve compensation for "just being scolded" then I guess you have never received third degree burns before. She basically lost most of the skin from her waist down to her upper thigh. That seems to be an important area for most people, if you know what I mean.

[gmatov]

Adam,
Actually, if you want to use "just", she was "just" scAlded, equivalent to, I guess you could say, parboiled. Now, I don't think there are too many on this site (or anywhere else, for that matter), who would care to have their gonads "parboiled". Of course, they are allowed to bitch that they can no longer get a "hot" cup of coffee, but, again, I would bet you, and them, that they cannot drink a "hot" cup of coffee.
BTW, I'm building up a "glossary" of sites, citing the meat packing industry for peddling tainted meat products. They all seem to point to the bed buddy relationship between the USDA and the packers. Who'd a' thunk it?
Far cry from video editing, what?

[bbb]

adam,

Out of curiousity, do you have the case facts of exactly how she spilled the coffee on herself? Was it right after receiving the coffee McD employee or a while afterwards while driving? Was she drinking it while it spilled on her or did the car's motion cause it to spill on to her? Was there a lid on the cup? If so, did she open the lid or did she leave it in the condition the McD employee handed it to her? Also, did she place it in a cupholder at the time?

I realize she won her case based on strict liability but are there any detailed descriptions of the events leading up to her burn injury.

[rhegedus]

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. 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.

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.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

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.
-----
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. ©1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of
California

[rhegedus]

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

Could any lawyers here clear something up for me?

Does the fact that she had the cup between her legs and did not use her hands to hold it mean that the cup was being used inappropriately?

Regards,

Rob

[tweedledee]

I don't know about you lot, but I can drink coffee in comfort that is much too hot to bear on my hand.

[ChrisX]

I don't know about you lot, but I can drink coffee in comfort that is much too hot to bear on my hand.

I drink too much coffee and can I sue the coffee makers for addiction just like the tobacco companies on smoking? Probably not!

[birdygal]

McDonald's Coffee is unreasonably Hot! I know my 6 yr old son got 2nd degree burns on his stomach in Mcdonalds 20 yrs ago when the cup got split over , No one can drink it as hot as it is so why have it so hot. Mcdonalds didn't spill the cup My mother inlaw did and do not blame McDonald's but lets face it but it is a serious hazard , Their coffee doesn't taste anybetter than anyone elses that isn't too hot.

[birdygal]

I know there are way more incidences that people are aware of. Thousands never get reported solely for the reason as stated earlier. They are the ones that spilt it and take the blame.

But if no one ever sues when will the first baby sitting at the table that can't handle severe burns dies from coffee split over.

Who in this forum has never split over liquid

Nothing should be served hot enough to cause severe burns

[bugster]

I drink too much coffee and can I sue the coffee makers for addiction just like the tobacco companies on smoking? Probably not!

In the US you probably could!

[rhegedus]

I don't think there's enough caffeine in US coffee to cause addiction!

"I'll have a large mug of brown placebo, please."

Regards,

Rob

[Jester700]

1) Why are people posting stuff that was answered just a few posts earlier? People, READ before posting. Much of the length of this thread is due to people just wanting to come in and spout their opinion (we all know what *they're* like) without knowing any facts, when many facts are RIGHT HERE.

2) Thank you, Adam, for explaining lots of stuff. I think our society has gotten WAY overlitigious, but that doesn't mean the laws are all poorly written or all lawyers are jerks. I have a couple close pals who're lawyers, and they get frustrated at what the field has sometimes become, at laypeople without a clue, and at the media hype surrounding high profile cases (and the common office small talk that even get the HYPE way wrong).

3) The damn coffee is too hot. For every person glad that it's still hot when they get to the office there is a guy sitting in a McDonald's waiting for his coffee to cool down so he can drink the damn thing.

4) Be very glad for these lawsuits. The other road leads to situations like in the Hackman movie mentioned, which although I suspect happens today (we ARE a capitalist society in the USA), would happen much more without the threat of product liability suits.

[Will Hay]

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle.

Very, very true, but laughable coming from you considering the following post you made earlier.
Will Hay

This woman and the lawyers who support this absurdity are a bunch of f***ing jokers, no better than ambulance chacers and characterise the mentality of the personal claims brigade: pursue even the most absurd case in the hope that it will be settled out of court to spare bad publicity.

[rhegedus]

What's laughable is the fact that you can't tell the difference between a verbatim copy of a web page, which is clearly referenced at the start AND end of the quote, and my personal opinion.



Think before you type next time!

Regards,

Rob

[defense]

@ adam, first, from reading your posts I had a hunch you were either in the legal field or in law school. As far as "stepping on toes" I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't feel that way. This is what a "debate" should entail.

There was a similar situation on a cable post where some Junior Matlocks came out of the woodwork and felt the need to belittle people when it turned out they didn't have the full facts. You have just stated your points.

I will say that I think it is very amusing that people such as gmatov feel the need to say that people do NOT understand the law, when this particular case is a joke compared to others. I understand the law because this particular product liability case is not difficult to understand. It's cut and dry and to the point.

Once again, the problem I have is that this woman won the law suit. I am not sure why that is difficult for people such as gmatov to comprehend. This has ZILCH to do with product liability, strict liability, or horses liability. This has to do with the fact that "I" do NOT believe McDonald's was at fault. People keep saying that McDonald's could of easily paid this and settled early on, and I don't disagree. Of course they could of paid a half mil without a blink. That wasn't the point. The point was that McDonald's didn't honestly feel they were at fault.

As I said, I honestly believe this woman wanted to settle out of court because she didn't realize what she "could" sue for. She sued a year later and during that time her case progressively received more publicity.

I can't understand why noone is even remotely considering the fact that this woman was persuaded by attorneys who convinced her they would work off of contigency if they let them represent her. I am not saying this is 100%fact, but I am very strong on my beliefs that this is what happened.

@ gmatov, I also want to make mention that there is no need to continue to define "product liability" because adam as well as others have already done so. This isn't about the definition of "product liability" it is about whether McDonald's was liable at all. I don't feel they were. People keep using the argument that this poor, elderly woman sustained such severe wounds. Poor thing. I almost want to go tuck granny in bed myself after hearing the sob stories. T

Our attorney's here know that you can't allow your personally emotions to get into the way of a case because it will perplex your judgment and rationale. This woman should NOT of been entitled to ANY money. Let me ask you this.

I'm gonna give one last SOLID example. If I go into the shower right now and ONLY turn on the HOT water and jump in, I can tell you that I would sustain THE WORST 3RD degree burns imaginable. Does that mean that I should rush to the hospital and on the way there call the Hot Water Heater manufacturer and tell them that I received scalding burns because their product produces water at too high a temperature?

They manufacturer a product and their product DOES NOT even say "caution" will BURN YOUR ASS ROYALLY if you don't mix with enough COLD water. I'm sure someone here might just go ahead and try that out. If it works, my cut is a flat 40%, (standard rate) by the way.

Last but not least, I personally "NEVER" said this woman contrived this entire thing. I never said that she staged this. I did mention that countless people do things such as that on a daily basis, but I felt that it was just unfortunate about poor Stella, and even more unfortunate she probably had to sell her grandsons car to pay her medical bills. But all of those bleeding heart facts don't mean she should be compensated for spilling a hot product on herself.

@adam, one last thing about your statement on McDonald's having someone calculate whether it is worth it to settle or fight legally. According to your statement, it almost sounds like you are saying that anytime McDonald's has a suit such as this brought against them, they should just settle.

You basically said that in so many words and I couldn't disagree more. Just because they have the financial stability to pay these kind of suits each and every day doesn't mean that they should have to.

For every legit Stella case, there are probably 10 illegitmate, fraudulent cases. Why should McDonald's just succumb to these dead beat phonies and pay money to them just because they can. If you think of it from a business standpoint, you will see that each and every case should be dealt with. Each case should be considered serious and have proper investigations conducted.

P.S. Not sure why people seem to keep saying McDonald's is serving "warm" coffee, when it has been said that they still serve their coffee BLAZING HOT. As I said, they still serve coffee at or around 180 degrees farenheit.

I guess they really learned from Stella, huh?

Anyway, I decided to go to good ole' Mickey D's today and purhase a cup of you know what...that's right....Coffee! This is interesting because I let the coffee sit for approximate 15 minutes and when I started to drink it, (after adding cream by the way) the coffee was still VERY HOT.

I find that very interesting because I let it sit for 15 minutes! I pulled off that trinagular lid and added cream, stirred the coffee and to my surprise, it was VERY HOT. When I say VERY HOT, I mean hot enough to where you coudn't just GULP the coffee. I had to sip the coffee. One thing that caught my attention was not only did the cup say "caution hot" but the LID also said "WARNING HOT." LOL.....Doesn't look like McDonald's has done ANYTHING to cool the temperatures of their coffee.

They have simply just made the warnings on the cup more noticeable, and also added warnings on the lids. So much for McDonald's being concerned about another coffee "product liability" case, huh? 8)

[dun4cheap]

Just a small comment, the largest argument about backing up your DVD's is its illegal do decrypt it. But doesn't it have to be decrypted to play? So is it illegal to play?

[Will Hay]

What's laughable is the fact that you can't tell the difference between a verbatim copy of a web page, which is clearly referenced at the start AND end of the quote, and my personal opinion.

You might want to read your posts again, as it's far from clear that's there's any distinction between your two quotes, insofar as personal opinion and ignorance.
I'f I've missed your point due to my ignorance I'll happy conceed and apologise
W.

[rhegedus]

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

text body

excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. ©1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of
California

Let's end it here.

Regards,

Rob

[Will Hay]

Okay, I've clicked the link, you're quite right.
Your post wasn't clear, and why you would provide and link and then paste the text is anyones guess, especially when finishing the first sentence with "here's the full story"
What's more concerning is that having first read your posts regarding your personal opinion of this person and her lawyer I thought you then changed your mind.
Clearly you didn't, and your rant is indeed your own personal opinion on a subject you know little about.
You are quite rightly entitled to your own opinion.
W.

[Will Hay]

Let's end it here.

Posted mine before I saw this.
Never intended to start a flame, your video contributions in the past mark you out as a worthy contributor to this site...
...regardless of your ill-informed opinions
No problem, take care
Will

[adam]

Does the fact that she had the cup between her legs and did not use her hands to hold it mean that the cup was being used inappropriately?

You could certainly make that argument, but it probably wouldn't fly. Again, negligence comes down to foreseeability. Many people put cream and sugar in their coffee, which pretty much requires the use of both hands. Since they sell the coffee from a drive through window, obviously its foreseeable that people will drink it while in their car. Many cars do not have drink holders, therefore its foreseeable that someone will hold a cup with whatever they have available while adding their cream and sugar.

There is a similar case where someone was burned when a gasoline drum blew up. They mistakingly thought they were supposed to get the gas out of the bung hole and so tried to unscrew the cap. They were clearly misusing the product but the cap had grooves worn in it from repeated use which were what caused the sparks which ignited the fuel. The Court ruled that even though it was not likely that someone would act in such a manner, it was forseable, and that the risk of injury was thus foreseeable.

[digitalguy1127]

The last time I went to a Jack in the Box, the coffee cup had printed this warning (or something like it):
"Warning -Jack says Hot coffee is Hot!"

Yunz should love this. (I'm from PA, I'm allowed to talk like that.)
Jack in the Box chain bounces back

Company leads way in improving safety of restaurant food

Monday, June 24, 2002

SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

While it may not compete with the rehabilitation of President Nixon, the comeback of fast-food chain Jack in the Box from a deadly outbreak of food poisoning is remarkable nonetheless.

<snip>

But according to company lore, the chain's fortunes began to perk up when it reintroduced "Jack" as its mascot and chief executive officer. Jack, a clown with a white Ping-Pong ball for a head, is the star of the chain's advertising campaigns, including a series of commercials.

"People love Jack," Luscomb said. "Jack has a rather irreverent wit."/quote

[Gazorgan]

Morons all. Coffee can only be so hot. 211 degrees F max (at 212 it's steam). Anything above 130 degrees F will burn you. So by definition hot is between 130 and 211 degrees F. Under 130 would be warm, with cold having ice in it?

Besides, the real issue should be that the cup didn't have a warning sign saying "Do not pour on groin". Stupid biatch. Stand next to the drive through windows at McDonalds...people order coffee all the time with 1,2,3 ice cubes in it. She only cares about her money, not that everyone in america has to pay more because liability insurance is skyrocketing for frivoulous lawsuits.

On a side note, there atre 10x as many accidents in the US as a direct result of eating/drinking (not drunk driving) while driving as opposed to using a cell phone, yet cell phones without a hands free option are outloawed in some states. Soooooooooo, you should outlaw eating and drinking while driving to save 100's a lives a year. Except a lot of fast food places would go out of business without the drive-in action. So, 100's of people are dieing in the US every year because of greed and profit!!!

Get a life, don't pour coffee on your groin!

[rhegedus]

@Adam,

Thanks for the answer and the other example.

I appreciate that the law is there to protect the consumer, but the ramifications of such decisions may have a detrimental effect on prices and choice. For example:

Some people (like the lady in question) add milk to their coffee, which will cool it down. If McDonalds lower the temp of the black coffee to start with, then white coffee drinkers will either have cooler coffee, or McDonalds will have to brew two separate batches of coffee that are kept at different temperatures. Hence more time and effort just to ward off any future claims.

Likewise, any food kept on a hot plate for ‘immediate’ consumption will have to be cooler, thus increasing the likelihood of it spoiling and causing food poisoning.

I think the danger here is that such judgements open up the possibility for 'professional' claimants to seek products or services that may be misused for the purpose of a compensation claim. Who is to say what is 'reasonable use' and where will this line be drawn? Surely common sense must play a part in such decisions.

Regards,

Rob