• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this a "frivious" lawsuit injury?

Is this injury and the lawsuit that ensured as a result, frivious?


  • Total voters
    29
YEs it is a frivolous lawsuit injury. The degree of injury she suffered is totally irrelevant.

Say what? The degree of injury one suffers in totally irrelevant? If so, please explain what is relevant. Is it just me, or are some of our conservative friends just from another planet what callouses grow 1 foot thick over the heart?
 
Again, those are two seperate points and you have not made a very good case for the first one.




That definition works fine for me. Many people of apparent normal native intelligence place cups of coffee between their legs. I would assume that they do knowing that they are taking some risk, but not a risk that they are gonna need skin grafts and suffer third degree burns. McDonald's behavior showed a willful disregard of common sense. They KNEW that they were serving coffee that WOULD cause injury if used as INTENDED. They deserved to be sued and to lose.

Exactly. This falls under "Implied Warranty". In other words, when you purchase a product from a retailer - without express written warranty - there is still an implied warranty that the product works as expected and is safe.

One should reasonably expect coffee to be hot. One would NOT have reasonably expected 3rd Degree burns upon the event of a spill. McDonald's KNEW that 3rd Degree burns had occurred and, yet, did not change their temperature or better secure their cups. They also knew that people drank hot coffee in their cars, although they claimed that people took it home or to work to drink it (one of their justifications for extremely high temperatures). Further, McDonald's policies should have been based around the possibility of a spill. One doesn't have to be stupid or klutzy to spill something.

Change this slightly: say the same woman went into McDonald's at this same time. Say she was carrying her coffee to her table on a tray and a small child cut in front of her and the tray prevented her from seeing the child and this scalding hot coffee spilled all over the child. Who is responsible then? For those of you who think of this lawsuit as frivolous, who cares for a child with 3rd Degree burns on his head and shoulders as a result of a no-fault accidental spill in the restaurant?
 
Take a look at this photo (Be warned, it is extremely graphic):

Google Images


This is the injury related to the infamous McDonalds Hot Coffee case.
After viewing the injury do you believe that the injury that occurred and the lawsuit that ensued were frivious?

I'm sure someone else already discussed all I'll say - but in such a long thread maybe it should be repeated.

McDonalds - during the proceedings of this case - was found ot have been at fault for a large number of bodily injuries related to their coffee being *too hot* - and had paid off numerous people in the process. They were fined - and instructed numerous times - to replace their regulators of the units (or the units completely) becaues they were keeping the liquid *too hot*

Time and time again they ignored - preferring to just pay of people - instead of merely replacing the units.

They eventually paid - severely - for it.

Nothing frivolous to it, Corporations which are not afflicted by the pain of continual mediation and numerous payoffs need to be put through the ringer sometimes to just do what they've been told to do. Being gilded with all the monies in the world should NOT make any corporation or busienss EXEMPT from following the law and doing what they're told.

They should have replaced the units *immediately* after the first incident (which was far earlier than this case in OP) . . and never have had to go *this far*

The case went as it did because McD's was (likely still is) operated by a bunch of ****ing baffoons who'll take eveyrone's money - but not really give a **** much more about the safety of their patrons and won't dare raise a finger to correct a simple *single* problem like an ethical and decent company should. They were (probably still are) a classic example of 'major corporate douchery on steroids' and I don't feel like the rulings of that case was *enough* - it wasn't *for her benefit* - it was for their punishment.
 
Last edited:
At the time, any person using McDonald's coffee as intended would have suffered burns to the mouth and throat.

Most people blow on their coffee and sip it.Not chug it.

This is just nonsense. People do it all the time. It may be safer than putting a top heavy cup into many cup holders.

So you placed a cup of hot liquid in between your legs and not only that but also removed the lid while this cup of hot liquid is in between your legs?
 
Sorry...but repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true.....

Isn't that what you are doing?


and voting numerous times in a poll might make the poll outcome look swayed,
I had nothing to do with that.
but when it displays the actual people voting your attempts to alter the outcome are exposed.

I could care less how many side with morons who burn themselves with coffee.
 
Most people blow on their coffee and sip it.Not chug it.

No one said anything about chugging it. They acknowledged in court that they were aware that it would burn the mouth and throat if used as intended. Maybe you should have been there to coach them on lying. But they were so arrogant about it that they apparently did not think it was necessary.

So you placed a cup of hot liquid in between your legs and not only that but also removed the lid while this cup of hot liquid is in between your legs?

Again, two seperate points. She was neglingent in taking off the lid in the way she did and the court ruled that way. That does not absolve McDonald's of all responsibility for their actions. The case showed that they knew full well the danger and did nothing to prevent it, even obstinately refused to do anything about it. Just because the plaintiff is partially to blame does not absolve McD's from liability for exposing their employees and customers to unreasonable risks.
 
Take a look at this photo (Be warned, it is extremely graphic):

Google Images


This is the injury related to the infamous McDonalds Hot Coffee case.
After viewing the injury do you believe that the injury that occurred and the lawsuit that ensued were frivious?

The link doesn't work for me. In any case, the extent of the injury doesn't matter if the injury was caused by her own negligence and not someone else's. I believe that holding a scalding cup of coffee between one's legs while driving an automobile is a reckless and stupid thing to do. Therefore, I believe the lawsuit was frivolous and she should not have been awarded damages.
 
Say what? The degree of injury one suffers in totally irrelevant? If so, please explain what is relevant.

If would have been relevant if McDonalds was the one who caused her injury. McDonalds did no such thing. Just like it is not the fault of the manufacturer who made the razor when someone cuts them self with a razor.



Is it just me, or are some of our conservative friends just from another planet what callouses grow 1 foot thick over the heart?
Is just me our or are some of our liberals come another planet where no one uses common sense or thinks they should be reward for injuring themselves.
 
Is just me our or are some of our liberals come another planet where no one uses common sense or thinks they should be reward for injuring themselves.

It's just the anti-corporate, anti-rich/wealthy contingent. Anything that proffers up the common man against the eeeevvvviiiilllll corporations... even when the common man is wrong is a good cause to some.
 
No one said anything about chugging it. They acknowledged in court that they were aware that it would burn the mouth and throat if used as intended.
Hot coffee is sipped and enjoyed slowly.Not drank fast or chugged.If you blow on your coffee and drink it slowly you will not scald your mouth or lips.

Maybe you should have been there to coach them on lying.

I did not lie. I posted sources from people who are experts when it comes to coffee a coffee enthusiast site and coffee brewer manufacture website that state that the optimal temperature to serve coffee is around 155-185 degrees Fahrenheit.

BUNN Coffee Basics: Holding and Serving Know How
How To Brew Coffee - National Coffee Association





But they were so arrogant about it that they apparently did not think it was necessary.


Before April 18 1994 any company would have been arrogant when sued by a moron who injured themselves due to their own negligence. I am surprised McDonalds did not talk down to her in court like she was a 4 year old with pop up picture book explaining to her how coffee is hot and hot liquids can burn.


Again, two seperate points. She was neglingent in taking off the lid in the way she did and the court ruled that way. That does not absolve McDonald's of all responsibility for their actions. The case showed that they knew full well the danger and did nothing to prevent it, even obstinately refused to do anything about it. Just because the plaintiff is partially to blame does not absolve McD's from liability for exposing their employees and customers to unreasonable risks.

The judge and jury were morons. The idea that McDonalds had any responsibility in this is absurd. Liebeck is a 100% at fault.
 
It's just the anti-corporate, anti-rich/wealthy contingent. Anything that proffers up the common man against the eeeevvvviiiilllll corporations... even when the common man is wrong is a good cause to some.

Thats probably what it is and how such a case was even allowed to happen.
 
McDonald's had been warned before this case the coffee they served was far to hot. Nothing frivolous about 3rd degree burns.

"It was McDonald's policy to "hold" coffee at a temperature of 190°."

What kind of lunatic thinks coffee should be served at 190 freaking degrees????
 
Last edited:
It's just the anti-corporate, anti-rich/wealthy contingent. Anything that proffers up the common man against the eeeevvvviiiilllll corporations... even when the common man is wrong is a good cause to some.

1 - Should McDonald's assume that their coffee is occasionally going to be spilled, regardless of the person's sense of balance, common sense, or the circumstances in which the spill occurs? Is that a reasonable expectation?

2 - If you've paid for a previous 700 injuries to people based on the temperature of your coffee, isn't it good business sense to perhaps lower the temperature of your coffee?

3 - Most people expect coffee to be hot. At least until this case occurred, I knew of no one who would have a reasonable expectation of suffering 3rd degree burns due to a beverage they've ordered, spilled or not.

McDonald's was fully aware that their coffee was causing injury and they made the choice to continue serving it at temperatures that cause 3rd degree burns in a matter of seconds. When they chose not to accept the modest settlement requested by the plaintiff in this case, they made a business decision and suffered the consequences. McDonald's made all of these choices with the knowledge of past injuries, past settlements, and a customer survey that told them that people who order coffee to go will most likely drink it in their vehicle (despite claiming that they expected people to take it home or to the office to consume).

Again, what if someone is walking through the restaurant with a cup of coffee and a child comes around a corner and collides with them and these 3rd degree burns were - instead of on an old woman's crotch and thighs - occurred on a three-year-old's face and shoulders? Who is to blame? The person carrying the dangerously hot coffee? The child? The architect for designing a corner where someone might not see a 3-year-old walking around the corner? Or is it fate, and the family of the three-year-old should simply suffer the consequences of fate.

Or could it be that the coffee shouldn't be so hot as to cause 3rd degree burns within seconds?
 
The link doesn't work for me. In any case, the extent of the injury doesn't matter if the injury was caused by her own negligence and not someone else's. I believe that holding a scalding cup of coffee between one's legs while driving an automobile is a reckless and stupid thing to do. Therefore, I believe the lawsuit was frivolous and she should not have been awarded damages.


She was not driving, she was in the passengers seat. And the car was parked. These are established facts of the case.

That you immediately went to "she was driving with the cup between her legs" only proves that you have believed 20 years of propaganda about this case.
 
The link doesn't work for me. In any case, the extent of the injury doesn't matter if the injury was caused by her own negligence and not someone else's. I believe that holding a scalding cup of coffee between one's legs while driving an automobile is a reckless and stupid thing to do. Therefore, I believe the lawsuit was frivolous and she should not have been awarded damages.

Then you know none of the real facts in the case.
 
Take a look at this photo (Be warned, it is extremely graphic):

Google Images


This is the injury related to the infamous McDonalds Hot Coffee case.
After viewing the injury do you believe that the injury that occurred and the lawsuit that ensued were frivious?

its a close case. there are many far more frivolous

these include

1) a guy suing TORO for lost of fingers when he picked up his lawn mower and tried to use it as a hedgeclipper

2) A woman suing litton industries for PTSD and emotional injuries when she tried to dry her pet in a microwave oven

3) a burglar who sued a shopkeeper when he was seriously injured by breaking through the roof and hitting a live wire

4) the idiots who sue gun makers when a stolen gun is used in a crime

the US Chamber of Commerce has a list of this crap

the only way to stop it is to make losing attorneys/clients pay for the defendant's legal bills and in cases like cities suing gun makers to try to drive them out of business-awarding actual damages against the plaintiffs

in the coffee case-it should have been ruled contributory negligence. at one time that would prevent any recovery (if you were 10% of the fault you still got nothing) but now with a comparative negligence method she would have had any damages significantly discounted because she was clearly negligent as was McDonalds based on the heat
 
1 - Should McDonald's assume that their coffee is occasionally going to be spilled, regardless of the person's sense of balance, common sense, or the circumstances in which the spill occurs?
yes.
Is that a reasonable expectation?
yes it's reasonable.

2 - If you've paid for a previous 700 injuries to people based on the temperature of your coffee, isn't it good business sense to perhaps lower the temperature of your coffee?
If looking at this after the 700 injuries have occurred? The answer is maybe. It depends on the make up of the 700 injuries. As you know it's sometimes cheaper to pay out than to litigate.

3 - Most people expect coffee to be hot. At least until this case occurred, I knew of no one who would have a reasonable expectation of suffering 3rd degree burns due to a beverage they've ordered, spilled or not.
I can't weigh in on what most people's expectation is. I would say it's reasonable to expect to be burned if a hot coffee was spilled on a person - but depending on the temperature of the beverage, the types and quantity of clothing and where the beverage (what part of the body) it was spilled on.

McDonald's was fully aware that their coffee was causing injury and they made the choice to continue serving it at temperatures that cause 3rd degree burns in a matter of seconds.
No one has answered what the manufacturers of the coffee making equipment suggested temperature was. Someone posted 180 - 185 degrees F. (that 82 - 85 degrees celcius).

When they chose not to accept the modest settlement requested by the plaintiff in this case, they made a business decision and suffered the consequences.
In some cases, however that was not the case in all 700 cases. Do not lump in everything and make a claim here.

McDonald's made all of these choices with the knowledge of past injuries, past settlements, and a customer survey that told them that people who order coffee to go will most likely drink it in their vehicle (despite claiming that they expected people to take it home or to the office to consume).
If what you say is true, they must not mind paying out the amount of money if they lose a court case or, they don't mind settling out of court for a specified amount of money. That's a business decision on McDonalds part - I'm not making any moral judgement here.

Or could it be that the coffee shouldn't be so hot as to cause 3rd degree burns within seconds?
Again, it goes back to the manufacturers suggested temperature of the equipment and coffee made through that equipment.
 
Not frivolous in the slightest. Yes, she should have been more careful. But McDonald's should have some kind of notification as to how hot the coffee is. Plus, 70 people? 70 people??? I don't think you alll realize how many 70 people are. 70 people with 3rd degree burns, no matter how many they're out of, is way too many. People shouldn't be statistics- if a single person gets injured as a result of your drink being too hot, that should be a serious thing to consider. 10 people? IMO, that's gross negligence and the store should be temporarily shut down until the FDA can figure out the cause and stop it. If 70 people are injured as a result of a beverage's heat, and I were among that 70, I would be demanding McDonald's locates each of those 70 people, gives them a ridiculous amount of money, and then they shut down until they find a way of guaranteeing this madness stops. I'm sorry- but this is just wrong. If the woman had tried to dump the coffee on herself on purpose, or if McDonald's drinks came with a warning *If this drink spills, it will give you 3rd degree burns in less than 5 seconds*, or they just would put the cream and sugar in themselves, I would be less irritated. But they gave her a 180-200 degree drink without even telling her how hot it is- that's just stupid. I think McDonald's got off really easy, and that if I had been judge there, McDonald's would have been screaming for mercy by the time I was done with them.
 
After viewing the injury do you believe that the injury that occurred and the lawsuit that ensued were frivious?

Viewing an injury alone doesn't provide enough evidence to say whether or not it is a frivolous lawsuit, TBH. Just because it looks horrific doesn't mean that it isn't the injured party's own fault.
 
Not frivolous in the slightest. Yes, she should have been more careful. But McDonald's should have some kind of notification as to how hot the coffee is. Plus, 70 people? 70 people??? I don't think you alll realize how many 70 people are. 70 people with 3rd degree burns, no matter how many they're out of, is way too many. People shouldn't be statistics- if a single person gets injured as a result of your drink being too hot, that should be a serious thing to consider. 10 people? IMO, that's gross negligence and the store should be temporarily shut down until the FDA can figure out the cause and stop it. If 70 people are injured as a result of a beverage's heat, and I were among that 70, I would be demanding McDonald's locates each of those 70 people, gives them a ridiculous amount of money, and then they shut down until they find a way of guaranteeing this madness stops. I'm sorry- but this is just wrong. If the woman had tried to dump the coffee on herself on purpose, or if McDonald's drinks came with a warning *If this drink spills, it will give you 3rd degree burns in less than 5 seconds*, or they just would put the cream and sugar in themselves, I would be less irritated. But they gave her a 180-200 degree drink without even telling her how hot it is- that's just stupid. I think McDonald's got off really easy, and that if I had been judge there, McDonald's would have been screaming for mercy by the time I was done with them.
and if you were a judge you never would have been assigned the case due to clear bias. and your verdict would have been reduced as was the case in this matter (its a jury that decided the verdict not the judge in the McD's case)

Yeah it was too hot-negligence
Yeah it was forseeable it could cause damage-that creates tort liability under the Palsgraff standard established decades ago

was she negligent-absolutely in some states she would lose, in others her award would be diminished
 
Take a look at this photo (Be warned, it is extremely graphic):

Google Images


This is the injury related to the infamous McDonalds Hot Coffee case.
After viewing the injury do you believe that the injury that occurred and the lawsuit that ensued were frivious?

It was a shared tort, were blame could be assigned to both parties involved.
If the coffee were in fact too hot, McD's was at fault for that.

Putting any hot liquid in an sensitive, exposed area of the body is not wise.
She holds the blame for that and bears the risk exposure.
 
If heat coming thru the cup had burned her, it would be MickeyD's fault. This was operator malfunction. Sort of like people who get their mouth moving before their brain.
 
and if you were a judge you never would have been assigned the case due to clear bias. and your verdict would have been reduced as was the case in this matter (its a jury that decided the verdict not the judge in the McD's case)

What's my bias?
 
McDonald's had been warned before this case the coffee they served was far to hot. Nothing frivolous about 3rd degree burns.

"It was McDonald's policy to "hold" coffee at a temperature of 190°."

What kind of lunatic thinks coffee should be served at 190 freaking degrees????

How To Brew Coffee - National Coffee Association
Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!

Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.

BUNN Coffee Basics: Holding and Serving Know How
Ideal serving temperature: 155ºF to 175ºF (70ºC to 80ºC)
Many of the volatile aromatics in coffee have boiling points above 150ºF (65ºC). They simply are not perceived when coffee is served at lower temperatures.
 
She was not driving, she was in the passengers seat. And the car was parked. These are established facts of the case.

That you immediately went to "she was driving with the cup between her legs" only proves that you have believed 20 years of propaganda about this case.

Does it make it any less stupid to place a cup of hot liquid between your legs you are in a parked car, in the office or at home?

Does it make it any less stupid to open that cup of hot liquid that is between your legs?
 
Back
Top Bottom