Conservative Populism and the McDonald's Coffee Case

joycem10 said:
Im pretty sure this was a jury award.

Edited to add the following:

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html

It was a jury award. The original jury award was reduced to a little over 600K by the trial judge and then reduced again at the appellate level.
Ahh I see. Sorry, we don't have jury's in Civil hearings. I forgot that the US did.

Am I right in saying that even after this ruling McD's haven't changed their coffee as they believe they will lose more in revenue for doing so than they would lose in litigation?
 
Bootstoots said:
Incidentally, are mouths more heat-resistant than other skin? Given that 185 degree coffee can cause massive third-degree burns if spilled in a lap, but doesn't seem to result in the same complaints from people drinking it, I would wonder about that.

The primary difference is that people sip their hot coffee, bringing large amounts of air over a small quantity of coffee. This cools the small quantity of coffee by many degrees through (primarily) evaporation. The small quantity I'm talking about is the bit at the edge of the cup. Additionally, the quantity of coffee might be comparable to or smaller than the blood flow through the lips and tongue, which would further reduce the overheating of the affected tissues. Not sure about this part, though.

Whereas, when you spill coffee on yourself, you get far less evaporative cooling before the coffee hits. And the momentary quantity tends to be much larger.
 
Nanocyborgasm said:
I find it amusing the opinions of some of the posters. I also have to wonder how judgements like these get made in court. I suspect that it's either that McDonald's had poor representation or that the plaintiff coaxed the jury with their emotions. It can be easy to goad jurors into huge awards by simply appealing to their heart. This is likely what happened in court. Lawyers tend to select jurors who are easily convinced, so that they can win them over.

Fact is that any hot liquid can cause burns. It doesn't matter what the temperature of the coffee was.

It does if industry standards say it should be at 140 but McDonald's had it almost boiling. The standards are there for a reason.
 
Coffee is hot.

Does it really matter if its 120, 140, or 200? All three are hot, and all three are going to hurt when you spill it on yourself.

We do not need to reward people for being dumbasses. Let's put warning lables on pencils because they're pointy, and if i poke myself (even though I know better) I might hurt myself!
 
And don't think the costs don't add up. We covered in business school that 50% of the cost of purchasing a ladder (in the U.S. of course) is the amount of legal costs to the ladder company.
 
JerichoHill said:
Coffee is hot.

Does it really matter if its 120, 140, or 200? All three are hot, and all three are going to hurt when you spill it on yourself.

We do not need to reward people for being dumbasses. Let's put warning lables on pencils because they're pointy, and if i poke myself (even though I know better) I might hurt myself!

140 won't give you third-degree burns, while 180 or 200 will. Plus, courts understand that we humans have common sense, as most recently expressed by the throwing out of the McDonald's case, which didn't even reach trial.

If you still have trouble understanding my position, consider this analogy: If you buy and spill a bottle labled "water" (a nonharmful substance like 140-degree coffee) but that bottle is really hydrochloric acid (a harmful substance, like 200-degree coffee; the person selling you the bottle knew it was acid) and you get burned, whose fault is it that you got burned? Yours, or the person who sold you the acid? Clearly, had the bottle actually been water you would not have been hurt; therefore, the person who put acid into the bottle should take responsibility upon themself for your injuries and not blaim other people for it. Also, notice the difference between "whose fault is it that you got hurt?" and "whose fault is it that you spilled the acid?".
 
Personally my belief on this case is that yes she was dumb for not realising coffee is dangerous but i refuse to subscribe to the beleif that the case should have been thrown out imediately. In fact in many of these frivoulous lawsuits the plaintiff sometimes has a case that should probaly be heard (if it is thrown out before trial then we know it is truly frivolous).

I think she deserved a fair hearing, which is in contrast to my earlier beleive that she shouldn't have gotten a fair hearing
 
Sims. There is a difference in your scenario. In the McD's case, coffee was in a COFFEE cup. In the event of mislabeling (your scenario) it is obviously the seller's responsibity (it was acid, not water).

Coffee is Coffee. Just don't be stupid. Lawsuits cost us tons of money every year, even those of us who are not even involved (just hte products we buy).

McDonalds had to produce coffee cups with "WARNING! COFFEE IS HOT!" on them

Carlos Mencia : DUN DU DUN!
 
JerichoHill said:
Coffee is Coffee. Just don't be stupid. Lawsuits cost us tons of money every year, even those of us who are not even involved (just hte products we buy).

I love the mischaracterization of the woman in this. She wasn't stupid, she had an accident. It just so happens the accident involved a product that was dangerous. She also tried to settle for 20k in medical damages, but Ronald would have no part of that.

McDonald's reaped what they sowed in this one.
 
Sims2789 said:
It does if industry standards say it should be at 140 but McDonald's had it almost boiling. The standards are there for a reason.

"Industry standards" my ass! I'd like to see the coffee consortium show me the evidence that caused them to decide on one temperature over another. I bet you there isn't any.
 
You can't legislate away stupidity. Sueing McD's for coffee burns is as stupid as filing suit against tobacco companies because you got lung cancer from smoking. This tendancy towards promoting a nanny state at the expense of personal responsibility is pathetic beyond words. Coffee is meant to be served HOT! If you can't be trusted to handle hot liquids you should opt for ice coffee or perhaps milk.
 
Excerpt from http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx:

Damaging Testimony

McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

The quality assurance manager further 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 while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as 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.

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

McDonald's 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 third-degree 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.
If this testimony is accurate, then the company knew that it was selling a product that, if used in the way their own research indicated it would, would cause burns.

I remember when I first heard about the case, and thinking it was a frivolous lawsuit. I later changed my mind.
 
JerichoHill said:
Sims. There is a difference in your scenario. In the McD's case, coffee was in a COFFEE cup. In the event of mislabeling (your scenario) it is obviously the seller's responsibity (it was acid, not water).

Coffee is Coffee. Just don't be stupid. Lawsuits cost us tons of money every year, even those of us who are not even involved (just hte products we buy).

McDonalds had to produce coffee cups with "WARNING! COFFEE IS HOT!" on them

Carlos Mencia : DUN DU DUN!

No, but if McDonald's is selling coffee that is so hot that it will cause third-degree burns, there should at least be a lable that says "WARNING: Coffee causes third degree burns." Why don't they take ownership for their neglegence? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? You fail to see the difference between coffee that is hot enough to hurt you and coffee that is not hot enough to hurt you. Common sense tells us that properly-heated (i.e., 140 degree) coffee does not cause third degree burns in two to seven seconds from contact with skin, hence her winning her case. Do you forget the common sense rule that is usually applied in our courtrooms?
 
Nanocyborgasm said:
"Industry standards" my ass! I'd like to see the coffee consortium show me the evidence that caused them to decide on one temperature over another. I bet you there isn't any.

Though I admit to not possessing a link to the industry standards*, McDonald's own research reveals that 180 degree coffee causes burns within seven seconds.

*Fast Food Nation

"http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

Thank you, malclave, for the link.
 
Norlamand said:
You can't legislate away stupidity. Sueing McD's for coffee burns is as stupid as filing suit against tobacco companies because you got lung cancer from smoking. This tendancy towards promoting a nanny state at the expense of personal responsibility is pathetic beyond words. Coffee is meant to be served HOT! If you can't be trusted to handle hot liquids you should opt for ice coffee or perhaps milk.

Is coffee meant to be sold so that it will burn upon contact with human skin? Just imagine what would have occurred had it touched her mouth. Why isn't McDonald's taking personal responsibility for this? Perhaps extensive government subsidies to agriculture has forced them to become independence on the good will of others.
 
Sims2789 said:
Is coffee meant to be sold so that it will burn upon contact with human skin? Just imagine what would have occurred had it touched her mouth. Why isn't McDonald's taking personal responsibility for this? Perhaps extensive government subsidies to agriculture has forced them to become independence on the good will of others.

Are you a lawyer? This thread has gone into particulars and I'm just wondering.
 
Back
Top Bottom