Is this a "frivious" lawsuit injury?

[Ikari]

You don't know all the facts.

First, yes coffee is hot. But this coffee was scalding. Accidents happen all of the time. When one accidentally spills their coffee, it should not cause burns that need skin grafts.

Second, the lids were somewhat defective. Since then, they are a much safer design.

Third, she was found 25% liable for being stupid.

The lids were not defective, SHE TOOK THE LID OFF!

 

[FilmFestGuy]

To be honest I think it's blatantly obvious. But if there was a caution placed on the cup then that really doesn't leave McDonald's liable for anything. Our society has become overly sue-happy.

Obviously, everyone would expect coffee to be hot. I bet if you did a survey (especially before this case occurred), I doubt you'd find very many people who would think it could cause 3rd Degree burns, though.

And one note that people forget: McDonalds now puts the sugar and cream in for you. Obviously, a much safer option. They did not do so at the time.

Further, McDonald's defense argument rested on the notion that people who buy coffee from a drive-thru usually intend on drinking the coffee when they get to work or home, although their own research indicated differently. They KNEW people were drinking it in their cars, but pretended that they assumed people would drink it at home or at the office.

 

[jamesrage]

What? How does one million turn into one billion? If they sell a million cups a year then they would not get to a billion cups for a thousand years. So 70 in a million would be accurate based on the information provided by McDonald's. 70 in a billion is way off.

70 cups a year out of just a million is 0.006999999999999999%


If McDonalds was selling the same amount of coffee in the 1990s then the percentage of people burned a year would have been %0.000014000000000000001
BlackNews.com - McDonald's Premium Roast Coffee Serves 500 Million Strong
As a major contributor to the food-service industry's role in coffee sales, McDonald's serves more than 500 million cups of coffee each year within its U.S. restaurants.

 

[sangha]

So long as you keep the lid secure while doing so, you are likely going to be OK.

A tautology like that proves nothing.

 

[sangha]

No, that was clearly a typo. Don't be stupid. As of 2006 it was reported that McDonald's sells over 500 million cups of coffee/DAY

Fine then. But don't blame me for YOUR mistake

And since your #'s change, I'd like to see some evidence for that claim

 

[BayToBay]

Learn the facts of the case and quit regurgitating poorly reported bs from 20 years ago.

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

McDonald's actions showed a reckless disregard for the safety of their customers and they should have lost. Was Liebeck partially at fault, absolutely. But McDonald's knew of the danger and their own employees suffered sever burns due to their disregard. They were completely obstinate in insisting that they should be free to continue to expose their employees and customers to very serious danger.

The argument that they had to keep it that hot for quality is betrayed by the fact that their coffee has greatly improved since the case. Their coffee used to be really crappy and now they serve one of the best cups of coffee you can get.

 

[jamesrage]

You don't know all the facts.

First, yes coffee is hot. But this coffee was scalding. Accidents happen all of the time.
When one accidentally spills their coffee, it should not cause burns that need skin grafts.

Seeing how their coffee was served at or near optimal temperature then yes it should burn the **** out of you if you spill it on yourself.

Second, the lids were somewhat defective. Since then, they are a much safer design.

If she took the lid off or was in the process of taking the lid off then how is the lid relevant to her case?

Third, she was found 25% liable for being stupid.

Apparently the judge and jury in that case were a 100% stupid seeing how they did not place all the blame on that idiot.

 

[sangha]

I can tell that reading and reading comprehension is not your forte. But here I will help you

How To Brew Coffee - National Coffee Association

Common sense tells reasonable people that coffee should not be served at a temp that causes thrid degree burns in a few seconds.


And Mcd's kept their coffee at temps up to 190, above the advice your source gives

 

[Ikari]

Fine then. But don't blame me for YOUR mistake

And since your #'s change, I'd like to see some evidence for that claim

My numbers never changed, it's from the court docs.

 

[Middleground]

The lids were not defective, SHE TOOK THE LID OFF!

Yes... you have to when adding cream and sugar. The lids we have today are of a much safer design.

 

[sangha]

Didn't she take the lid off or was in the process of removing the lid when she burned herself? So wouldn't the issue of the lid be irrelevant?

Maybe you should investigate the facts before looking for a reason to absolve McD's of all responsibility

Just a thought

 

[Ikari]

A tautology like that proves nothing.

No, the purpose of a lid is to keep liquid from getting to the outside. If the lid was defective, then it would leak or pop off without being tampered with by the individual. But that was not the case. The case was that she physically removed the lid. Any part the lid should have played is moot once the lid is removed.

 

[sangha]

The lids were not defective, SHE TOOK THE LID OFF!

Wrong. She was in the process of taking the lid off when the spill occurred because the cup and lid were defective

 

[Ikari]

Yes... you have to when adding cream and sugar. The lids we have today are of a much safer design.

Not really. Yeah, she wanted to add cream and sugar, but the lid can hardly be faulted for that for as soon as you remove the lid you cannot reasonable expect the lid to function as a lid. She held it between her legs in a car and removed the lid and spilled the coffee. No matter how well designed a lid is, it's useless once you take it off.

 

[sangha]

Obviously, everyone would expect coffee to be hot. I bet if you did a survey (especially before this case occurred), I doubt you'd find very many people who would think it could cause 3rd Degree burns, though.

And one note that people forget: McDonalds now puts the sugar and cream in for you. Obviously, a much safer option. They did not do so at the time.

Further, McDonald's defense argument rested on the notion that people who buy coffee from a drive-thru usually intend on drinking the coffee when they get to work or home, although their own research indicated differently. They KNEW people were drinking it in their cars, but pretended that they assumed people would drink it at home or at the office.

In other words, McDs LIED

 

[Ikari]

Maybe you should investigate the facts before looking for a reason to absolve McD's of all responsibility

Just a thought

Maybe you should take your own advice.

 

[Middleground]

Seeing how their coffee was served at or near optimal temperature then yes it should burn the **** out of you if you spill it on yourself.

No restaurant... I mean *NO* restaurant serves their coffee at those temperature. It's ****ing nuts to.

If she took the lid off or was in the process of taking the lid off then how is the lid relevant to her case?

Because the design was poor. They are much better and safer today (more dome shaped)

Apparently the judge and jury in that case were a 100% stupid seeing how they did not place all the blame on that idiot.

Yeah people accidentally spilling a drink makes them an automatic idiot. I'm a clutz so I guess that makes me a big time idiot.

 

[BayToBay]

70 cups a year out of just a million is 0.006999999999999999%

That is the percentage of people that were burned severly enough to file a complaint. If 70 people sufffered the half the damage that Liebeck did for fin coffee, then that is way too high. I am sure there were many more. Many of their employees probably suffered and did not complain for fear of retaliation.

If McDonalds was selling the same amount of coffee in the 1990s then the percentage of people burned a year would have been %0.000014000000000000001
BlackNews.com - McDonald's Premium Roast Coffee Serves 500 Million Strong
As a major contributor to the food-service industry's role in coffee sales, McDonald's serves more than 500 million cups of coffee each year within its U.S. restaurants.

How is that at all relevant? If anything it hurts McDonald's case as their sales have increased due to the fact that they no longer rely on keeping crappy coffee at scalding hot temps and actually serve good coffee now. Hell, maybe Liebeck should get a cut of that exponential growth in sales.

 

[sangha]

My numbers never changed, it's from the court docs.

If you read the court docs, then the info contained therein did not stick well in your mind. You made a mistatement of fact when you claimed that she had taken the lid off when she was burned, when the truth is that she had NOT taken the lid off when she got burned

 

[disneydude]

Given the way you stated that, I'd have to say "it's not negligent", however I'll point out that the case has to be made and evidence provided the persons actions (representing the company/franchise) or the company policy identified the beverage's temperature was not reasonably within the standards of the manufacturers recommendations. If it's proven that the company followed the manufacturers recommendations and that those recommendations are reasonable given the market place, the fault lies on the individual for being careless with a hot beverage. Was it proven the individual didn't know it was hot or had no reasonable expectation that the beverage was hot? Of course not... were that the case it may very well be frivolous.

And that's exactly what happened in this case. McDonalds was found to be negligent because they were brewing at a ridiculously high temperature that was higher than reasonable standards....and not only that, they were found to have been "put on notice" that serving at that temperature could result in the level of damages.

 

[sangha]

No, the purpose of a lid is to keep liquid from getting to the outside. If the lid was defective, then it would leak or pop off without being tampered with by the individual. But that was not the case. The case was that she physically removed the lid. Any part the lid should have played is moot once the lid is removed.

No, lids are, or should be, designed to not cause a spill when removed

And she had not removed the lid when she was burned. Mistating the facts does not strengthen your points

 

[sangha]

Not really. Yeah, she wanted to add cream and sugar, but the lid can hardly be faulted for that for as soon as you remove the lid you cannot reasonable expect the lid to function as a lid. She held it between her legs in a car and removed the lid and spilled the coffee. No matter how well designed a lid is, it's useless once you take it off.

The lid had not been removed. Mistating the facts does not strengthen your argument

 

[sangha]

Maybe you should take your own advice.

I haven't mistated any facts. You have

 

[Ikari]

If you read the court docs, then the info contained therein did not stick well in your mind. You made a mistatement of fact when you claimed that she had taken the lid off when she was burned, when the truth is that she had NOT taken the lid off when she got burned

No, the lid did not pop off. The fact was she removed the lid. She was in the process of putting cream and sugar into the coffee. Do you normally do that with the lid on?

 

[disneydude]

McDonalds was not negligent. McDonalds is not responsible for the stupidity of their costumers.

Sorry but repeating it doesn't make it true. McDonald's was found to be negligent becasue their level of conduct did not conform to reasonable industry standards.