McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

[adam]

The point was that McDonald's didn't honestly feel they were at fault.

Then how come at trial they lied about how many prior accident claims they had settled? How could they not realize they were putting people at risk when they had been repeatedly warned by health inspectors and the Shriner's Burn Institute that they, McDonalds and no other coffee manufacturer, were putting people at risk specifically because they were serving their coffee too hot. I'm sorry, if you think that sending 700 people to the hospital is not enough of a warning that you are creating a safety risk, then you are naive.

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.

This is ridiculous, the facts of the case have already been presented. She wanted enough money to pay for her medical bills, throughout trial she was willing to settle, and in the end she got her medical bills paid for. This woman was not pursuaded by anyone to go to trial, she had no choice because McDonalds refused to pay her medical bills. NO ONE , not her not her lawyers, even considered for a second that she would recieve a large claim for this, because out of the 700 previous claims against McDonalds the largest one was something like $225,000, again the price of the person's medical bills. This trial received NO public or media attention until AFTER the jury awarded her the huge amount of punitive damages, and then they were reduced the very following day. Regardless of what you think about this case this woman was not out just to make money, she was just out to receive compensation, there is a huge difference.

@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

I have no idea where you are getting this from. I did not say they had someone to decide whether to settle or litigate, I said they have someone who sits down and decides which is cheaper, saving money by producing cheap but unsafe coffee and having to pay out claims when people get hurt, or just producing safe coffee. The only thing I am suggesting is that McDonalds should get their priorities straight. They should not be weighing the cost of safety versus the loss in profits, they should be weighing the cost of safety versus the benefit to society.

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?

YES!!!!!!!!!!! My God, YES!!!!!!!! Are you kidding me? The intended purpose of a residential hot water heater is to heat water to be used for things like washing dishes and taking showers. The water heater, when properly set and maintained, should only produce water reasonably hot enough for these purposes. If you turn your hot water on full and jump in the shower you will NOT receive 3rd degree burns. You will NOT even receive 1st degree burns. It will be painful and uncomfortable, but it will cause no serious or permanent injury. If it does, then it IS negligence on the part of the water heater manufacturer or on the part of anyone else who might have had a duty to maintain the heater, ie: landlord.

If water came out of the tap hot enough that it boiled than why would anyone ever boil water on the stove? Why would anyone buy a tea kettle? The hottest water that ever comes out of your tap is no where near as hot as the coffee that McDonalds served.

[defense]

@ adam, as far as being "naive" I think my statements speak for themselves. You are missing the point and reciting product liability by definition. The hot water heater example was just one of MANY examples I could give. With just about every product I own I could potentially injury myself in a serious manner.

You keep stating that 700 people being burned is a lot. In this case you are definitely wrong. I'll let you do the math. If McDonald's serves several millions of people per day, and they have even 700 burned individuals from coffee EACH DAY, the number you will receive is like a grain of sand on a beach. Now when you take that 700 number and divide it by the TOTAL number of individuals McDonald's serves coffee too annually, the number is so low you need a Hubble Telescope just to see it.

The numbers are ten times that for people who claim to get bugs in their Big Macs. Even with that being said, the 700 number has not been OFFICIALLY confirmed. McDonald's claims that number is much lower and the source of that number is innacurate. Either way, it really doesn't make much of a difference, becase the number is so ridiculously small.

As I said, McDonald's didn't believe they were at fault with Stella and their actions "POST" that 1992 suit have spoken ROARS. They have NOT lowered the temperature of their coffee, and as a result, they are saying to EVERYONE that they will continue to serve coffee at a temperature which THEY deem appropriate. This case may "technically" go under the "product liability" category, but it is really nothing more then a joke. Take a look at ALL fast food restaurants or diners for that matter which serve coffee.

What happens If ANY OR ALL of those restaurants have customers spill coffee on themselves. Should they ALSO be liable for the injuries sustained in their restaurant? According to your beliefs, they should be. But according to the ACTIONS of these restaurants and diners, they could give a crap about that McDonald's law suit because it was frivilous and ridiculous.

As far as the hot water heater example, your arguements don't gel with your prior statements. You are good at pin pointing the facts of a statement which benefit your beliefs, however, you contradict yourself. I'm sure your professors are having you debate both the "pros" and "cons" of an issue, so that doesn't surprise me.

You said earlier if McDonald's sells a product which could potentially be dangerous, then they are liable. Well hot water heater manufacturers sell a product which could POTENTIALLY be dangerous. Are you gonna tell me that it is MORE obvious and EASIER to mix the proper amount of cold water to that of hot water to make it safe, then it is to just know that coffee can be extremely hot and cause serious burns?

I think it is VERY SAFE to assume that MANY more of us have set the HOT water too hot in the shower before quickly adjusting it then have burned themselves with scorching coffee. If you read my statements and examples as opposed to just picking and choosing what you quote then you will see exactly where I am coming from. Your prior statements regarding the entire "potential" risk can also be used for MANY other products, including residential hot water heaters.

Last and certainly not least, unless you can provide a factual piece of information to show that Stella went out and searched for an attorney on her own without being persuaded to sue from attorney's which got wind of her case via the public, then I will agree with your statement that she originally wanted to settle.

As I said, I honestly believe Stella originally wanted to settle but later realized through some clever and persuasive attorney's, that she could potentially have a huge suit on her hands. Of course she jumped on that like white on rice and the rest is history. 8)

[Peter H]

Hi adam
i have read through this whole thread and i must say you put forward a very strong case IMO. i have one question for you. as i am in australia i dont know how your court system works but it it the jury that ultimatly decide the amoutn of the actual payout? it is just that alot of poeple are saying that the lady went out looking to hit the jackpot of this, but if the jury decides the amount then there is no real way of telling how much she would actually get.

Thanks

[adam]

The plaintiff does specify how much money they are seeking in damages, and they attempt to prove why those damages are in order, but ultimately its up to both the judge and the jury to decide. Generally, they first just decide who won the suit. Then the jury worries about how much money to award and after coming to that conclusion, the judge must adjust it when the law requires, and may adjust it further according to his discretion.

For instance in the McDonalds case, the jury awarded punitive damages which far exceed those sought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was asking for $225,000, and the jury, somewhat arbitrarily, picked 2 days worth of coffee sales for McDonalds as the amount that should be paid, which was about 2.9 million dollars. The judge said that he had no choice but to lower the punitive damages because, as a matter of law, the state of New Mexico sets a limit on the amount of punitive damages which may be awarded.

Now contrary to what alot of people in this thread seem to think, you cannot just say I'm hurt so give me lots of money. Any compensatory damages you ask for must be proven with actual evidence. You can only make the defendant pay for what you have actually lost. In regards to punitive damages, there are rules for how much you can ask for. They must be set relative to something else, like 2x the compensatory damages, or some other factor.

Just for those not familiar with the terminology...

Compensatory damages just compensate the plaintiff for whatever they have lost. The goal is to put them in as good a position as they were in before their injury/loss. So in the McDonalds case this would include medical fees, lost wages, physical impairment etc...

Punitive damages seek to both punish the defendant and serve as an incentive to curb such negligent behavior. Punitive damages are only allowed when the def. acted intentionally or out of gross negligence (really bad negligence.) They are usually awarded proportional to some other factor, so for example punitive damages might be compensatory damages x 3, or one day's coffee sales x 2.

[gmatov]

Defense,
You keep contradicting yourself. To wit:

"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."

"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."

"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."

"I" do NOT believe...", "...I honestly believe...", "..."I am very strong in my beliefs...",, and then,"...you can't allow your personal emotions get into the way of a case...".

Your personal emotions are certainly blinding you. I don't know why you are so irate that McDs was found guilty in the case. And I don't know you refuse to accept that a corporation might have a "bean counter" in charge of deciding whether the cost of litigation, as well as any judgements resulting , will be more than outweighed by the profits from continuing the suspect practice.
In this case, punitive damages were set at "2 days coffee sales". That would strike a "bean counter" as a good deal, until the number of potential losing suits approached 183 per year, in which case they would either be forced to change their practice, or stop selling coffee.

Of course people don't understand the law. I don't understand the law. You don't understand the law. Law students don't understand the law. Why in the heck do you think they go to school for about 7 years to be taught the law? They don't. They are taught the concepts of law, the cases discussed in classes, they may have a better understanding of, but they have to study and practice under "veterans" to begin to fully grasp the "law". And then they must read 1000's of pages of briefs when they do get a case to have an understanding of that particular legalism.
Blackstone may have understood the law 2 or 3 centuries ago when the entire work of law could be covered in one (large) book. Today, probably the first 50 grand a lawyer makes goes to paneling his office walls with the "tools of the trade", his law books. I would venture a guess that the number of laws on the books today is in the millions. I interpolate this from the fact that there are over 20,000 laws regarding firearms, alone, and there are thousands of different things for which specific laws are written.
That would be equivalent to saying you understood Swahili because you heard John Wayne say a Swahili word in one of his movies.
Also, the fact that 15 minutes later, your coffee was too hot to drink, wow, glad you didn't try it earlier, and that McDs isn't "concerned about another coffee "product liability" case", indicates that till they LOSE money from this practice, it won't change. The "bean counters" still see a profit from stale coffee that exceeds losses from liability suits.

Adam,
Second degree burns (blistering) are possible from jumping into the shower before regulating the temperature of the water, but most often because, at one time, I don't know if the practice still occurs, dish washer mfgs. advised that you turn up the heater to at least 140 F, for the most effective operation. It's too hot, and I would not be surprised to learn that liability suits encouraged them to change that advice. There have been many cases of small children being scalded in bathtubs, either by playing with the taps while unattended, or, in some cases, from the parents being charged with deliberately turning on the hot water. There have been some well publicised cases in this area over the years.
And, as funny as it may seem, thermostats on heaters have been known to fail, causing the water to reach near boiling temperatures, if the relief valve is operational, or above boiling temp if it is not. In those cases, tanks have been known to blast through the floors above them like a steam powered rocket. A pound of water converts into 960 cubic feet of steam. When a 40 or 50 gallon tank suddenly ruptures, you have one hell of a rocket. When this happens, I do believe the tank, thermostat, pressure relief valve mfg.,have a tendency, after an investigation, to offer a settlement.
BTW,who is it that said "The law, sir, is an ass."?

[adam]

I don't doubt that people have been burned by hot water in the shower, that's what happens when a water heater is negligently manufactured or negligently maintained. Murphy's Law says that people are always going to get hurt by certain products/items, but that doesn't mean those items are inherantly dangerous.

Like I said, if the water heater is properly made and properly maintained then you can turn the faucet up as hot as you like and you will not burn yourself. It has nothing to do with the balance of hot and cold water either, if it did then people would get burned everytime someone else in the house flushed the toilet or ran a load of clothes. A hot water heater should not be set above a certain temperature, because beyond a certain temperature the danger involved outweighs the benfits of having the water that hot. If it is maintained in such a manner as to have the capability of causing tissue damage than it is the result of someone's negligence, possibly your own.

I actually never use any cold water when I take a shower, and never have. I set it to full heat and hop right in. I've lived in probably 10 different apartments and 5 different houses and have never had any problems.

It was Charles Dickens.

[WeedVender]

Defense,

And, as funny as it may seem, thermostats on heaters have been known to fail, causing the water to reach near boiling temperatures, if the relief valve is operational, or above boiling temp if it is not. In those cases, tanks have been known to blast through the floors above them like a steam powered rocket. A pound of water converts into 960 cubic feet of steam. When a 40 or 50 gallon tank suddenly ruptures, you have one hell of a rocket.

This happened to my friend once. Apparently his water heater was failing and he called some people in to replace it. The valve was messed up and so they didn't know it had steam in it. When they grabbed the pilot switch to turn it off, you had to go from low, to medium, to hot on the dial and then OFF. When they did this, the thing exploded. 1 person died and the others had to go to the hospital. The entire basement had to be rebuilt and he was lucky it didnt take down his house. There was a big dent in the brick wall behind the water heater and some shrapnel, excuse me, a chunk of shrapnel was logged between the roof of the basement and the first floor. He had to replace that section of the floor.

These things are kinda dangerous.
Well Adam, what do you speculate?

[adam]

What do I speculate? Everything has a life expectancy. All things will eventually fail. If the thermostat or the heater fails and somone gets hurt, the majority of the time it can be attributed to someone's negligence. Either that part was faulty, or it had exceeded its life expectancy and the occupant did not replace it in due time. If its the occupants fault, then obviously they can't sue the manufacturer or anyone else.

Once again, all I can do is refer back to Murphy's Law. If something can go wrong it probably will. If someone can be decapitated by a tissue box (actual case) than obviously people are going to get burnt by water, through the fault of no one. But that does not grant you a licence to throw caution to the wind and sell coffee at any temperature you want, because it is foreseeable that people will be hurt as a direct result.

[birdygal]

Hot water heaters thermostats do fail which is why they have an added safety measure of pressure relief valves , the setting of the thermostat is set not to seriously burn anyone at the manufacturer if no cold water is added. That is really all the manufacturer can do?

Mcdonald's know people spill their coffee where is their added safety measure? caution hot liquid give me a break! only someone who doesn't drink coffee might not know that! That will not stop spills. Accidents happen everyday

If McDonald's want their coffee hot! they should serve it in spill proof cups and add the extra's themselves or add ice to cool it down before serving it. No one can drink the coffee hot. Their claim is it tastes better hot. Well it is cooled down before anyone drinks it.

Mcdonald's intentionally serves coffee hot enough to do serve bodily harm and $ is more important than peoples welfare. As for all those who love their coffee steaming at the expense of all those who get burned from it. I sure hope your next.

Fast Food is for people who want to eat and drink on the go! you can't drink their coffee on the go! its too hot

[defense]

@gmatov, next time you try and quote someone, try and use the proper quote function so they can see what you are saying. You said I contradicted myself, yet you show nothing to show where I contradicted myself. I was not the one who contradicted themselves.

Also, I am not "irate" that McDonald's lost the case, I do however, sincerely disagree with the ruling and have given accurate facts as to why they could of just as easily won the case had their been a different jury pool.

Why in the heck do you think they go to school for about 7 years to be taught the law?

Although it is true that no matter how great an attorney one is, they still have to research to gather facts and will never know everything about something. I'm not sure where you get Law students go to school for "7" years, because I've NEVER heard of an attorney studying law for 7 years. Law school is usually THREE (3) years and ALMOST always, a person studying law has majored in something OTHER then law.

I mentioned it before and will say it again, I know some Attorney's who work for 1 of the biggest law firms in the "WORLD" and none of them went to law school for more then 3 years. Either way, many attorney's will tell you law school doesn't do shit for working in the real world as an attorney anyway. It is basically just serious discipline.

@adam, once again, you mention how a product such as McDonald's coffee has potential risk for danger, while a hot water heater doesn't. LOL...the example I gave is an excellent one and as I said, there is MORE danger with a hot water heater, then there is with coffee. You mention that you have lived in several apartments and you never used any cold water to mix with the hot water before you took a shower.

That sounds like the hot water heaters in those apartments were real crappy. I would bet anything you could lay on the table that you couldn't last more then 30 seconds with the hot water by itself in my shower. Of course we won't be able to test this, but I can assure you that IF you had enough of a punishment threshold to be able to tolerate the hot water for 30 seconds, your burns would be so severe in just 30 seconds you would need to be rushed to the emergency room. It's safe to say that I'd take your money in a heartbeat.

I'm still waiting for a response on ANYONE'S take on why McDonald's should be different then ANY restaurant that serves coffee. Does ANYONE bring a thermometer with them to dip in the coffee before they drink it? Let's be serious...McDonald's coffee is just as much of a danger as ANY other establishment's coffee and the law suit in 92' which they lost was frivilous.

Mcdonald's know people spill their coffee where is their added safety measure

?

@birdygirl....McDonald's added safety measure was to increase the strength of their lids on the sterophoam cups, as well as the durability of those sterophoam cups. You seem to be quick to attack McDonald's, but please enlighten me on your views of a restaurant who serves coffee with NO LID on the top and a chance for the ENTIRE cup to spill as opposed to just having a chance to have coffee come from the little opening from the top of a McDonald's cup.

McDonald's is NO different then ANY other place that serves coffee and if your local diner was a titanic as McDonald's then we'd be sitting here discussing why your local diner should be liable for accidents occuring from spilled coffee. Let's get real people...this case was a joke from start to finish. Jurors were sniffing the white out on their tables and that's why McDonald's CONTINUES to serve coffee at approximately 180 degrees Farenheit TODAY.

[adam]

Defense in case you could't tell, I never responded to your last post. If you are not willing to listen to others, then I'm not going to bother explaining things over and over again. In regards to all your questions, all I can say is scroll up because they have been answered several times already.

I'm still waiting for a response on ANYONE'S take on why McDonald's should be different then ANY restaurant that serves coffee.

As all of the previous links have already said, McDonalds should be treated differently because they are the ONLY company who does this. Read the frickin links that tell the facts of the case, this is specifically mentioned.

Does ANYONE bring a thermometer with them to dip in the coffee before they drink it? Let's be serious...McDonald's coffee is just as much of a danger as ANY other establishment's coffee and the law suit in 92' which they lost was frivilous.

YES!!! Health inspectors, the Shriner's Burn Institute, the lawyer's in this case, and even someone from McDonalds themself went around during this trial and stuck a thermometer in the coffee of every one of McDonalds competitors. This included fast food places like Burger King, Wendy's ect., as well as coffee shops like StarBucks. Out of all of those, McDonalds coffee was at least 20 degrees hotter than the hottest one.

Health and Safety Inspectors and the Shriners Burn institute tested all of the major commercial coffee vedors, and then issued warnings, several times, specifically to and only to McDonalds. How can you disagree with the ruling in this case, if you haven't even read the facts?

Actually, you are contradicting yourself quite often Defense. First you say that none of us should comment because we don't stick a thermometer in our coffee before drinking it. Then you claim that McDonalds still serves its coffee at 180 degrees. How do you know?

You also say this like its a good thing, like it proves they think its safe, despite the fact that they have received several specific warnings from saftey organizations and have now sent at least 701 people to the hospital as a result. If you still dispute this ~700 number than again, read the facts. This was something that came out at trial. Incidentally, if I go on WestLaw or LexisNexis and do a search on "McDonalds and coffee." I get several thousand returns. Sure, alot of those are cross references to each other, but I scrolled through several pages and quickly found several hundred individual cases filed against McDonalds in regards to their coffee. Many of those occurred after the case in question, which just proves that McDonalds is still willing to risk people's safety to save some money.

[rhegedus]

Adam, I have one more legal question.

Were the damages awarded proportional to the injury sustained or McDonalds ability to pay? If the same injury had occurred by coffee from the guy that sells it from a stall on a street corner or park, would the lady have received the same compensation?

Thanks, as ever, for answers.

Regards,

Rob

[birdygal]

Defense 180 degrees is twice the temperature that is consumable therefore it is a safety hazard,

I have a good reason for a bad opionion of McDonald's and any other company not willing to take the temperature down to levels below severe burning by accident

As stated in an earilier post my son when 6 yrs of age got 2nd degree burns from their coffee, sitting in their store at a table when a cup of their steaming coffee spilt over, We were not driving down the road being careless with it. the coffee had already been sitting on the table for a few mins before it was spilt and still did 2nd degree burns which required daily visits to the doctors office for 2 wks for dressing changes. I have no idea what the temperature was of their coffee 20 years ago but 180 degrees will do severe burning and is a safety hazzard that is unnecessary.

If my sons burns were 3rd degree and he had to have been hospitalized and needed skin graphs I would have filed a lawsuit myself just as the woman who filed the suit and you probably would too. At the time I had excellent health insurance a pediatrician you can't find these days anymore. It did not cost me any money out of pocket just my sons discomfort from the burns and no permanant scarring was done from it.

The spilling is not their fault but serving excessively hot coffee that can do bodily harm when spilt or consumed is their fault. If you have to wait a few minutes or more for it to cool down before you can drink it then it should not be served,

No one complains their food is cold when they eat it 5 minutes later. No one should be complaining their coffee is cold 5 minutes later if they do then they should be drinking it when it's served just like their meals are.

[adam]

Were the damages awarded proportional to the injury sustained or McDonalds ability to pay? If the same injury had occurred by coffee from the guy that sells it from a stall on a street corner or park, would the lady have received the same compensation?

Damages fall into two main categories when talking about Tort Liability, compensatory and punitive.

Compensatory just compensate the plaintiff for their injuries. It doesn't matter if its Bill Gates or a homeless guy who injures/harms you, if found liable then they must pay to compensate you. Unfortunately, when you are injured by the homeless guy you are just out of luck, because he simply can't pay.

Now punitive damages seek to both deter the defendant from further activity, and to punish them. Punitive damages are only allowed when the defendant acted intentionally or with "conscious indifference for the safety and wellbeing of others", which is basically referred to as gross negligence. The amount of punitive damages awarded take into consideration not only the harm done to the specific plaintiff, but the harm done to all others affected, as well as the potential harm that could occur to all others. Finally, they take into consideration just how callous the defendant was in their actions.

So in regards to the punishment factor, no if this had happened with the guy selling coffee on the street corner than he would not be as harshly punished because his coffee has such a small radius of potential damage, so the negligence was therefore not as dangerous even though he might have engaged in activity which was intrinsically the same as McDonalds.

Now in regards to deterrence, it really is proportional to how much you can pay, but it really makes sense if you think about it. As discussed above, a very large corporation may decide that it is actually cheaper to just compensate people when they get hurt, rather than make their product safe. The only way to force them to change their ways is to make the process unprofitable. Even paying out $500,000 worth of accident claims every so many months is not going to affect McDonalds if they are saving several million dollars each month by unsafely recycling the old coffee. But if you tack on large punitive damages to each accident claim, well that hopefully is enough to deter their behavior. So with the guy on the street corner, obviously you don't have to force him to pay as much before his unsafe practices become unfeasible. So two days of coffee sales to McDonalds is probably proportional to two days coffee sales to the street vendor, so the deterrence effect is about the same.

The goal is just to make that particular product or industry safe. When dealing with a billion dollar company, you have to deal in large numbers.

[defense]

@adam, you've gotta be kidding if you are saying that i'm not listening to all of the arguements you and others are making. I have already said several times that I understand them. The problem is that most of everything you have written is all "heresy." The 700 number you have continued to throw out is "heresy." If you say it isn't, then I kindly ask you to "prove" it is NOT heresy.

Please link ANYTHING factual to show the 700 number is accurate. You say that number came out in trial, and I know it did, because I researched it. But coming out in trial and actually PROVING that number is legitimate, are two huge differences. McDonald's has stated that the number lf approximately 700 burn victims from their coffee spilling is NOT accurate. Anyone can say anything at trial, the question is whether it can be proven.

As far as the thermometer goes, you have once again bended my statements to reflect your own position. I never said during "trial" thermometers weren't used as a reference of comparison. Of course during that time investigations were going on and it makes perfect sense that temperatures would be compared. What I said though is whether anyone actually brings a thermometer with them to a restaurant or McDonald's for that matter and actually put a thermometer in coffee before they consume it? I thought it was very obvious that is what I meant.

Also, you say that McDonald's is the "ONLY" company that does this. How do you know? Did you OR any "investigators" go to ALL the restaurants in the WORLD? Let's be real here, NOONE knows who serves the hottest coffee on the planet, but most of us know that when we get coffee it is going to potentially be scorching hot.

It goes back to the point of what is obvious and what isn't. You learn what is safe and what isn't just from life experiences, which by the way "STELLA" had plenty of at 69 years of age. She knew coffee was hot or even scorching hot and she chose to place the cup between her knees and as a result she caused serious injuries to herself. That is her fault and noone elses.

Actually, you are contradicting yourself quite often Defense. First you say that none of us should comment because we don't stick a thermometer in our coffee before drinking it. Then you claim that McDonalds still serves its coffee at 180 degrees. How do you know?

I haven't contradicted myself on anything i've said, and this quote is no different. The reason I stated that McDonald's still serves their coffee at 180 degrees farenheit is because I read three articles from McDonald's representatives who have said exactly that. If you research it, you will find the same, and if you would like an actual link to an article, I will be glad to find one of the three I read and post it.

I can say that I know McDonald's certainly serves coffee scorching hot because as I said, yesterday I purchased a cup and let it sit for 15 minutes before drinking it. I had to still sip the coffee slowly because it was still very hot.




@birdygal, can you honestly tell me that you and your 6 year old son could've gone to another restaruant and purchased a cup of coffee where, when it spilled on your son, the burns would NOT be as significant? Can you honestly say that you would be willing to go into 10 restaurants of my choosing and proceed to order a cup of coffee where you then spill it on yourself to see if it causes these burns as severe as the 2nd degree burns your son maintained? I think the answer you will give is "NO.!" No way in hell you would go into your local diner and order a cup of coffee and spill it on yourself. You know why? Because coffee is served HOT and sometimes SCORCHING HOT and you know this.

Defense 180 degrees is twice the temperature that is consumable therefore it is a safety hazard,

LMAO..a safety Hazard....that's funny.....so my hot water heater then can produce hot water at 180 degrees or higher is ALSO a safety hazard, correct?

[rhegedus]

Adam,

Thanks for the answer.

Regards,

Rob

[txpharoah]

Adam, good job. You've covered almost everything, nothing I can even add. You know your stuff. I hope many will read it.

It's such a shame that so many users have no clue about law. It's really a statement about our world in general. In an age of so much information, you'd think ignorance would be less. Even worse, many cannot read or shut up long enough to look over the information that has been presented to them. They just continue on. I sometimes wonder how they even learned to speak. (And I commend you for ignoring that one special idiot that likes to speak nonsense on all this board's legal posts. We all know who that is. I've begun to ignore him too. He should really be doing his high school homework right about now, and leave law and video to the professionals and mature audiences that use this forum.)

Again, good job Adam. Good luck on the bar and in finishing law school. It's a pain.

[rhegedus]

Also, you say that McDonald's is the "ONLY" company that does this. How do you know? Did you OR any "investigators" go to ALL the restaurants in the WORLD? Let's be real here, NOONE knows who serves the hottest coffee on the planet, but most of us know that when we get coffee it is going to potentially be scorching hot.

You don't have to go into every restaurant in the world to predict the temperature range. I think statisticians use at least 30 samples in order to get a measure of a total population (ie 30 coffee shops would give results very accurate and representative of all the coffee shops).

By using some fancy maths they can predict the range of temperatures that 99.999% (or whatever) of the population of coffee shops serve, and also the likelyhood of an establishment serving hotter coffee than the maximum temperature they've sampled.

Regards,

Rob

[gmatov]

Defence,

"I" do NOT believe...", "...I honestly believe...", "..."I am very strong in my beliefs...",

"...you can't allow your personal emotions get into the way of a case...".

The second line is where you are contradictory. After all your other comments, you say the really BIG law firm, the WORLD'S BIGGEST, gave you that advice. You don't consider your vehemence in this matter to be a little emotional? Too bad you weren't McDs lawyer. I'm sure your emotions would have swayed those white-out sniffing jurors to the true way.
Normally, you know, you remove the lid to add cream and sugar. You don't try to pur it through the "little opening from the top of a McDonald's cup" Well, maybe you do. Maybe you even try to pour your motor oil into the dipstick hole. Takes forever, doesn't it?
And to still serve it at 180F+ shows that they can absorb the litigation, as well as to not admit to the world that they may have been in the wrong by making it safer after these occurences.

Adam,
Your hot water may very well be hotter than 120 or so, but the fact of using it in the showeris cooling it enough to not do harm, simply by finely dividing the stream with a near needle shower. The mention earlier about cooling towers works on that principle; finely divided water droplets have more surface area to give up their heat , so by the time it reaches you, it is bearable, maybe even your preferred temp.

Out of curiosity ( my neighbor's son is an attorney, who put 7 , maybe even 8 years in school, and I know he had no uncertainty what he wanted to be, so did not get a degree in basket weaving till he decided on law) just how long is the course of study, not for an LLB on top of a BA, but going to school with no other goal than a law degree?
I know the going gag is to ask a parent what their kid is going to be when he gets out of school; "Oh, about 45."

BTW, if you have Dunkin' Donuts where all of you are from, try their coffee. It is very good, but I would guess it is also very damn near McDs in temp. I know I can't drink it for 15 mins or so, and the cup is too hot to hold without discomfort.

[gmatov]

Adam,
I didn't know you were an heretic. Why didn't you tell us?

[rhegedus]

If I could just move slightly off the beaten trail........

During my fly-drive trips aroound the US, I've noticed that the coffee that is generally served tends to be weaker than what I'm used to here in the UK (so much so that I've been adding a spoon of instant to the cup of takeout!). But, Starbucks coffee is about the same strength (good) in the US as it is here. Do you therefore consider Starbucks coffee to be stronger than average?

Regards,

Rob

self-confessed coffee addict

[defense]

@paralegalPharoah...lol...I get a good laugh out of your posts, especially the ones where you "claim" to know anything about law. I get more amusement out of your attempts to help others with DVD Backups. I would bet a lot of money that each of your wrists are a good 20-25 pounds a piece and you probably type that 75 words per minute with your toes because both hands are digging deep in the Dunkin' Doughnuts Box. As far as your comments, all anyone has to do is read that "cable" post and realize you have trouble reading, which is no surprise, because your comments on society are correct.

@gmatov, why don't you put the rest of my statement with those quotes. All of my statements are my beliefs on "THE CASE" not sympathy or empathy due to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, in this case, Stella. Statements were made about how unfortunate it was for Stella to have gotten burned. Again, take all of those quotes and place them with my information. Either you do a poor job skimming, or there's something else there i'm missing.

After all your other comments, you say the really BIG law firm, the WORLD'S BIGGEST, gave you that advice.

Again, please read my post. I said "ONE OF" the World's biggest law firms, and that would be true. I also NEVER said a thing about asking any of the attorney's ANY information about this joke of a case. So where you got that from is beyond me. I wouldn't waste any of their time with this ridiculousness off a forum. Although it would be fun too see them break the law down for the ones who really think they have a clue. At 800/hr. I don't think it's worth it for them.

Some people are just hard-headed and it's damn sure not me. I have said over and over how I can see others views and to actually continue to say that what i'm saying sounds like a foreign language, is just hilarious.

@rhegedus, thanks for the crash course in Statisitics. It wasn't necessary because none of what you said helps here. Noone ever said they didn't know what a "sample" is. I am very familiar with samples, and just like all statistics, samples are not always accurate. When dealing with Fast Food chains you have franchises and corporate, and you can have coffee being served at a huge temperature differential from 1 Burger King or McDonald's alone. Also, coffee can be 20 degrees hotter on one day then it can be on another day. Defining product liability and strict liability and samples do diddly for the facts of this case.

Judy Judy Scheindlin wrote a book called "Keep It Simple, Stupid." I highly reccomend it. There is no reason to quote excerpts from this source and that source, because the BOTTOM LINE is COFFEE is served HOT, and sometimes BLAZING HOT. Just like turning on the Hot water by itself in a shower can cause 3rd degree burns, spilling coffee can do the same. If the cup was held properly and took more precautions, then this wouldn't of happened.

It's tough to continue to "type" this stuff because this is something that would be great in a debate where you can show emphasis. I am finished with my input on this case because it is obvious that it is useless and there are too many closed-minded individuals who continue to reverberate themselves with definitions and jibberish which mean absolutely jack and prove absolutely nothing.

BTW, if you have Dunkin' Donuts where all of you are from, try their coffee. It is very good, but I would guess it is also very damn near McDs in temp. I know I can't drink it for 15 mins or so, and the cup is too hot to hold without discomfort.

very good gmatov, that just strenghthens my points and goes to show that McDonald's is certainly not the "ONLY" company who serves scorching hot coffee.

[MOVIEGEEK]

If I could just move slightly off the beaten trail........

During my fly-drive trips aroound the US, I've noticed that the coffee that is generally served tends to be weaker than what I'm used to here in the UK (so much so that I've been adding a spoon of instant to the cup of takeout!). But, Starbucks coffee is about the same strength (good) in the US as it is here. Do you therefore consider Starbucks coffee to be stronger than average?

Regards,

Rob

self-confessed coffee addict

Personally,I prefer coffee how I like my women.....strong and bitter.
BTW..I make my own coffee as resturants' coffee is too weak and cold.

[rhegedus]

@rhegedus, thanks for the crash course in Statisitics. It wasn't necessary because none of what you said helps here. Noone ever said they didn't know what a "sample" is. I am very familiar with samples, and just like all statistics, samples are not always accurate. When dealing with Fast Food chains you have franchises and corporate, and you can have coffee being serves at a huge temperature differential from 1 Burger King or McDonald's alone. Also, coffee can be 20 degrees hotter on one day then it can be on another day. Defining product liability and strict liability and samples do diddly for the facts of this case.

1) It shows that you don't have to go into all the coffe establishments in the world in order to see that McDonalds coffee is on the upper end of the temperature range.
2) The individual temperature samples would have to be accurate in order to stand up in a court of law, otherwise the defence lawyers coould have the case thrown out. As for the accuracy of the sample size and statistics, the maths behind it was worked out by mathematicians many years ago and has yet to be bettered.
3) If you think that the coffee has a 20 degrees range given the fact that the ambient (room) temperature os relatively constant, then it doesn't reflect too well on your opinion of McDonald's equipment.

Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the verdict - I'm as flabbergasted by the result and the award as you are. However, it was decided in a court of law, and that is something we must respect (no matter how much we disagree with it).

Regards,

Rob

[rhegedus]

Personally,I prefer coffee how I like my women.....strong and bitter.
BTW..I make my own coffee as resturants' coffee is too weak and cold.

Do you make your own women too? Can I have the recipe?

Regards,

Rob

[Nelson37]

What disturbs me about this case is that much was made about McD's increasing the coffee temp in order to increase profits, as though this were an inherently evil thing. We all balance profit versus safety, every day. I could sell everything I own and hire 6 bodyguards to watch my child 24 hours a day, or we could drive cars with 2-ton bumpers and side rails. In fact such cars have been made but not manufactured as no one would buy them. To make profit is not evil, it the essence of the most productive societal mechanism yet devised.

I have had coffee straight from the pot poured onto unprotected skin, though not my genital area, and it produced great pain and visible burn marks, though not blistering. Was it considered that coffee is often consumed for a significant time after purchase, and that the hot temp is actually a benefit to customers? I am still drinking my morning coffee well after noon. BTW, I find the temp right out of my Mr. Coffee too hot for immediate consumption, however because of the delayed usage I consider this to be a BENEFIT. Just exactly how hot is too hot, when "normally" hot is enough to cause injury if misused?

As for the water heater, I have a solar panel which will produce tap water that is actually smoking, and SFAIK there is no regulation mechanism for these type of units. Should I sue GOD for making the sun shine too much?

Hot coffee, like a sharp knife, is inherently dangerous, I agree. As soon as the cup hits your hand, it is obvious that the contents are hot, and that some care should be excercised in its use.

I do not like my options being forcibly limited just to allow for someone else's stupidity. Many products are now priced out of reasonably attainable range purely because the manufacturers must be prepared to pay for incredibly ignorant misuse.

[gmatov]

Nelson,
I would think most people do not drink a cup of coffee for a long period of time. Certainly not your morning coffee well after noon, unless you don't like coffee or buy your AM coffee at 11:55.

Funny you should mention your Mr. Coffee, because in the course of this thread, I just had to check my own coffee maker, a Mr. Coffee with the hot water reservoir, instant brew type, lika a Bunn. The warming plate holds mine at 158F, as taken with a digital thermometer. It can be sipped, but definitely not gulped.

As to your solar heater, I'd just about bet that there is some sort of relief valve in the loop. And, if you actually do get "steaming" ( I take it you meant that, rather than smoking) water from your taps, you should definitely contact a good plumber to install a "tempering valve", which will blend the hot with cold to achieve a temperature that is safe to use, at your desired setting, and which has a response rapid enough to keep it within a few degrees. They are not that uncommon, nor expensive.

Profit is not inherently evil. No one could stay in business if they didn't make a profit. Well, apparently the airlines can, but that's a whole 'nother story. But to say, "If we make X profit, and we only have to pay out Y in reimbursement claims for injuries caused, we are Z ahead." is not corporate resposiibility. It is money grubbing, pure and simple.

And companies do weigh the gains vs the losses. That is what started this whole thing. They make more than they have to pay out, so, the scales, to them, tip their way.

But we, you and I, don't balance profit and safety this way. If you were as rich as Croesus, would you let your kid do dangerous stunts on his skateboard because "Well, I'm rich as Croesus, so if he breaks his neck, I'll just buy him a new neck bone. It's just chump change to me." Probably not. To McDs (business) that's about the whole thing. One thing no one ever seems to think of, is that no one ever goes to jail over this kind of stuff. It's a corporation, a non thing, "We're only the overseers. We didn't do anything wrong. The corp did it. So, OK, we'll let the corp pay out a few bucks, what, a penny a share?"

Defense keeps on about a lousy 700 burn victims. As sand on a beach! Statistically meaningless! They sell BILLIONS. That means BILLIONS DON'T get scalded. MADD says if everyone quit drinking, and it saves ONE life, isn't it worth it. Brady Bunch (anti firearms), Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in. If it saves ONE life, turn in all your 200 million firearms! Yet, 700+ (and, I'm sure, counting) severe scaldings,and you are being inconvenienced because you like to buy your AM coffee and drink it in the afternoon. Hey, you don't by chance have your thermos filled in the AM, do you?

And, actually, a dull knife is more dangerous than a sharp one. You force a dull one. Just as an after thought, I have heard that more lacerations are suffered by people slicing their AM bagel than any other cause. I think we have a case there.

Adam,
I think your equation of the corner coffee vendor and McDs is slightly flawed. The same penalty would be more onerous to the coffee vendor, as it would be his entire sales for 2 days. It would not only be his profit (read livelihood ) but his costs, also, meaning that he would be out of pocket, whereas, McDs coffee sales are a small percentage of their total daily take, and their profit, although, by not selling "fresh" coffee, naturally their costs are lower, hence the gross profit, on coffee, larger. They don't throw away 22 cents worth of perfectly sellable coffee, they are 22 cents ahead.

I will have to buy a cup of Dunkin' Donuts coffee and measure the temp tomorrow. I certainly didn't mean to give defense any ammunition. "See, McDs isn't the only one." , to paraphrase.

Hey, since you are a Texican, also, with gun carry rights (not privilege, rights, as per 2nd Amendment), are you still not permitted to enter an establishmentr, duly permitted, with your concealed weapon of choice?
This is in re: the Luby's Restaurant massacre in which a CCW permitted young lady was required to leave her pistol in her car while a nut killed one or both of her parents plus a bunch of other people.
And all those western movies we've all grown up on. Were they all shot in Kansas? I think I've read that in The Lone Star State, you are not permitted to drink standing at the bar. You are served and carry your drink to your table before you sip at it. Am I wrong?
Geez, maybe I should have asked you directly. I don't know where the hell this might lead to.
And for the guy with the 20-25 pound wrists, geez, Pharoah, you could call that ham fisted, couldn't you? I'm kiddin'. I think that was the dorkiest thing the kid has said, and he's said a bunch.
And I'm still up on you a couple months, so no more newbies, OK?

[gmatov]

It did not cost me any money out of pocket just my sons discomfort from the burns and no permanant scarring was done from it.

Birdygal,
I think that's the wrong modifier, "just my son's discomfort". I would have been jumping all over some ones ass if one of my kids, or especially one of my grandkids, was the victim. Of course when I was daddy to young kids, they couldn't reach such high temperatures, so they didn't get parboiled. ; - )

[adam]

gmatov I wasn't trying to come up with a perfectly balanced set of punitive damages, I was simply pointing out the logic behind penalizing a big company more than a small one, even though they are doing the same thing. In my mind I actually pictured a magazine, cigarette, coffee etc... stand. I don't think I've ever just seen a lone coffee stand on the street, but that may just be how it is in Texas. Punitive damages are almost always dealt out relative to something else, so while it might not be exactly 2 days worth of profits for each company, it might be x days profit for one and y days profit for another. Punitive damages can be quite large relative to the company's income. If a corner coffee stand engaged in very dangerous activity and knew about it, they could easily be penalized several weeks worth of profits, or even much more. When your conduct is extremely callous the courts may grant punitive damages more out of punishment than out of deterrence. Also people can face criminal charges for commercial practices, just look at Enron. But I completely realize what you are saying. There is far less accountability when you are dealing with a faceless corporation.

I'm not familiar with gun laws in Texas.

You can drink your liquor while at the bar, I do it all the time.

[gmatov]

Nelson,
I hate to post after post after post like this, I've gotten a reprimand from some one for it once before, but I jusr reread a line from one of your earlier ones. The costs are becoming unreasonable because of the requirements from dummies misusing simple things.
This is in re: Toro lawnmowers. Once upon a time, the CPSC had tried to make a requirement that all lawn mowers must have a "blade brake" on them. Toro fought tooth and nail, saying it would cost over 100 dollars to install a blade brake. This on a 4- 500 dollar lawn mower. Well, as luck would have it, my trimming mower went kaput, and I had to buy a cheap machine to get around the window wells, under the deck, etc. So, I went and bought a 100 buck mower. B&S engine, 20 inch, etc. While I was assembling it, I thought maybe I should try to see if it would spin, before I did a complete assembly.
Damn rope would not turn the motor. Great, I thought, I just bought a piece of crap. Then I thought to RTFM, and found that the piece I hadn't installed yet was the release for the blade brake. I bought a WHOLE mower, with blade brake for what Toro said the blade brake alone would cost. Now, do you think they might just be screwing you by telling you "We have to raise the price that much. The guvmint made us."?