Is this a "frivious" lawsuit injury?

[jamesrage]

Boooo Hisssssss!!!! James! 2nd/3rd degree burns on an 80-year-old are serious business. On a diabetic they can be absolutely deadly.

The degree of the burn does not change the fact that the only one responsible for the old lady's burns is the old lady.

If you stab or accidentally cut yourself with a kitchen knife should you be able to sue the knife maker and win half a million dollars?

Nowwwww, McDonald's serves its coffee at 140 degrees.

And if the coffee was at 140 degrees before 1994 she still would have filed a lawsuit because she was retarded enough to put a cup of hot liquid in between her legs.


Hot Water Burn & Consumer Safety: Chart - Accurate Building Inspectors ® | 1-800-640-8285 |
Burns will also occur with a six-second exposure to 140 degree water

AND they'll put in cream/sugar for you. They never used to do that. Guess that $480K slap on the hand had an effect. And that's what lawsuits are supposed to do...

This only amounts to putting warning contains peanuts on a jar of peanut butter.Its to protect themselves from more frivolous lawsuits and nothing more.

 

[Ockham]

And her putting a cup of coffee between her legs does not diminish that it was stupid to serve coffee at that temperature. A reasonable person would assume that putting hot coffee between their legs may lead to spilling and burns, but not third degree burns.

So they only expect 2nd or 1st degree burns?

It was ridiculously hot. If it had been minor burns from reasonably hot coffee then she would have had no case, but those are not the facts.

That's your opinion - she may still have had a case. And what is "ridiculous" to one person is not to another - that's called subjectivity.

 

[MaggieD]

Seriously?? So your saying that any 80 year old that spills hot coffee on themselves can file suit?? That will put a lot of nursing homes out of business.. Get a clue here!! She took a cup of hot coffee, put it between her legs, took off the lid, and through no fault or control of Mcdonalds spilled it on herself.. The seriousness of the burns and her age are irrelevent.. They do not have laws that only apply to old folks..

There is. no logical or legal reason that this case is anything but a frivolous lawsuit.. She spilled coffee on herself.. Like millions of other people do each year.. Accidents happen.. Now just keep the old lady out of the kitchen and give her plastic silverware.. Especially since being 80 means you can sue someone for your own stupidity.. I hope she doesn't drive.. She might just sue the owner of a parked car because she accidently put it in reverse and not drive..

You simply cannot call a lawsuit frivilous when a JURY awarded her millions of dollars. Call the jury idiots if you wish, but don't call the suit itself frivilous. People are entitled to be served safe products, just as they are entitled to have a safe place to walk.

 

[jamesrage]

Again, nobody said a thing about chugging it. They acknowledged in court that they were aware that it would burn the mouth and throat if used as intended.

A 140 degree coffee will also burn the mouth and throat.

You are ignoring the facts and inserting fairytale nonsesnse that had nothing at all to do with the case.You continue to lie by making up the fact that the coffee would have to be chugged in order to burn the mouth or throat. That is not true and was not the testimony given.

I am not ignoring any facts. The only way someone could burn their throat and mouth with coffee is if they drank it too fast. If you blow and sip on it you are less likely to burn your mouth and throat.

Who cares what some industry group says?

They are experts at making and serving coffee. That is why.

However, McDonald's routinely kept there coffee above those temperatures so what do you think that does for your position?

Wow a whole 5-15 degrees higher. Do you honestly think that if the coffee was at 175- 185 degree Fahrenheit optimal serving temperature according to the NCA and Bunn website that it would have made a difference in the burns she received?

Somebody needed to explain it to McDonalds.

SOmebody needs to explain to all the retards out there that you do not put hot coffee between your legs.

The only difference is that you seem to think that McDonald's has no obligation to employ common sense.

McDonalds does not need to account for the retards out there who are stupid enough to burn themselves with coffee due to the negligence of the customer.

There was no need for their coffee to be that hot, they knew it was a danger and 700 complaints

McDonalds just knew there were 700 idiots out there

many of which included 3rd degree burns

3rd degree burns happen at 140 degrees which is what MaggieD claims McDonalds serve their coffee at.

They did not care.

Should razor companies care when a customer cuts themselves due to their own stupidity? Should public works care if someone jumps off a bridge and injures them self? Should a kitchen cutlery company care if a customer cuts themselves with a knife?

It is one thing to be negligent and quite another to be willfully negligent.

The only negligence that occurred was on the part of the old lady.

The court heard the evidence without preconceptions, which is clearly beyond your ability

.

The ony thing the court did was stick it to McDonalds while ignoring common sense.

McDonald's was at fault

McDonalds was not at fault.

 

[jamesrage]

Actually, it does not.

Yes it does. Do you know why it does. Because hot liquid ****en burns. That is why you do not put a cup of hot liquid between your legs.

And if they didn't put it between their knees, they would be holding it in front of them, which could still result in the coffee spilling in their lap.

Yet somehow the about 99.899999% of other customers did not burn themselves.

No, it means it was at or ABOVE optimal temp for BREWING, not serving which is why other businesses serve their coffee at a lower temp

It was at optimal brewing temperature.
You are missing one key sentence here. It says brewed coffee should be served immanently. Notice it does not say wait several minutes before serving. Nowhere in the English language does "immediately" mean mean later.

How To Brew Coffee - National Coffee Association



Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee. If you are brewing the coffee manually, let the water come to a full boil, but do not overboil. Turn off the heat source and allow the water to rest a minute before pouring it over the grounds.


The amount of time that the water is in contact with the coffee grounds is another important factor affecting the taste of your coffee. In a drip system, the contact time should be approximately 5 minutes. If you are making your coffee using a plunger pot, the contact time should be 2-4 minutes. Espresso, as the name implies, means that the brew time is short -- the coffee is in contact with the water for only 20-30 seconds. If the taste of your coffee is not optimal, it is possible that you are either overextracting (the brew time is too long) or underextracting (the brew time is too short) your coffee. Experiment with the contact time until you can make a cup of coffee that suits your tastes perfectly.


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. It should never be left on an electric burner for longer than 15 minutes because it will begin to develop a burned taste. If the coffee is not to be served immediately after brewing, it should be poured into a warmed, insulated thermos and used within the next 45 minutes.

Never reheat your coffee.

 

[Ikari]

There was no need for their coffee to be that hot, they knew it was a danger and 700 complaints many of which included 3rd degree burns (not just minor burns but burn you to the bone burns). They did not care. It is one thing to be negligent and quite another to be willfully negligent.

The real problem with this stat is that it completely ignores the actual statistics. It was 700 people over a 10 year period, 70 a year. At the time, McDonald's was selling over 1 billion cups of coffee a year. Hence, the probability was 70 in a billion, which is essentially zero.

 

[Black Dog]

By who's standard?? When you order coffee, do you expect it to be hot?? She took the lid off.. It was an accident.. But Mcdonalds is not liable for her mistakes.. What if she was sitting at a restaurant and knocked her cup of coffee into her lap?? Same burns, who is resposible??

I guess being from Seattle, the home of Starbucks.. I am used to coffee being hot.. I guess I fail to see why anyone wouldn't expect their coffee to be hot and take the required precautions when handiling it..

Starbucks does not serve coffee at 190 degrees. After receiving warnings from the government it was to hot.

 

[jamesrage]

They were warned by the Feds a few times the coffee was to hot.

Are the feds coffee experts?

190ºF is to HOT even for the "volatile aromatics."

IF that was true then why would a coffee lovers site say that the brewer should maintain a water temperature of 195-205?

How To Brew Coffee - National Coffee Association
Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction.

"Ideal serving temperature: 155ºF to 175ºF" not 190º.

That is according Bunn. Even going by Bunn's site a 55ºF to 175ºF" coffee will still produce 3rd degree burns. According the NCA coffee should immediately be served after brewing and that is after it is being brewed at 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction.If it can not be served immediately then the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. Regardless of temperature the old lady is the one that is a 100% responsible for her burns.

How To Brew Coffee - National Coffee Association

They had been warned and desired to ignore it.

Should a razor blade company make their blades duller or out of plastic because lots of people cut themselves with razors?

 

[jamesrage]

The real problem with this stat is that it completely ignores the actual statistics. It was 700 people over a 10 year period, 70 a year. At the time, McDonald's was selling over 1 billion cups of coffee a year. Hence, the probability was 70 in a billion, which is essentially zero.

70 out of a billion is 0.000007000000000000001%

 

[Ikari]

You simply cannot call a lawsuit frivilous when a JURY awarded her millions of dollars. Call the jury idiots if you wish, but don't call the suit itself frivilous. People are entitled to be served safe products, just as they are entitled to have a safe place to walk.

I actually do not think this case is frivolous. I think the woman had enough cause to bring forth a lawsuit. I disagree with the jury that McDonald's was at fault, and the initial award was obscene. Even the lowered amount of over 400,000 was too much. She shared part of the blame. The reward in this case should be some fraction of the hospital bills and income lost due to being unable to work. Not 100%, not 0%. What this does highlight is as you said, there is an overall jury problem in our country too. With the McDonald's thing, what they had caught on to was the McDonald's witness claiming that the 700 burned over 10 years was an insignificant number given that McDonald's sells over 1 billion cups of coffee a year. And that is a factual statement. 70 in a billion people burned themselves on McDonald's coffee. It shows that there was not some overall problem with the coffee temp or packaging as 70/1000000000 is essentially a zero number and there is no real necessity to make large corporate changes for a zero. It's true, that's a factual statement. But the jury heard McDonald's say those 700 were zero and went after McDonald's for perceived corporate arrogance. As we continue to dumb down our jury, this problem will be exacerbated.

 

[ender1]

70 out of a billion is 0.000007000000000000001%

The math function for "out of" is the part of. So 70 out of a billion would be 70. Now if you are down south it could mean subtraction which would be 999,999,929. To display the fraction that 70 represents out of a billion would be
.000000007%. Not sure where you got the 1 at the end from.

 

[jamesrage]

The math function for "out of" is the part of. So 70 out of a billion would be 70. Now if you are down south it could mean subtraction which would be 999,999,929.

Nobody likes a grammar fag/nazi.

To display the fraction that 70 represents out of a billion would be
.000000007%.

Wouldn't that be a percentage not a fraction?

Not sure where you got the 1 at the end from.

Percentage Calculator
0.000007000000000000001

 

[DemonMyst]

They were warned by the Feds a few times the coffee was to hot. 190ºF is to HOT even for the "volatile aromatics."

"Ideal serving temperature: 155ºF to 175ºF" not 190º.

They had been warned and desired to ignore it. She won and it was not in my opinion frivolous according to the evidence against McDonald's.

Link it or take a hike!! Warned by the feds!! Seriously?? Get a clue there dude!!

 

[ender1]

Nobody likes a grammar fag/nazi.



Wouldn't that be a percentage not a fraction?


Percentage Calculator
0.000007000000000000001

Its not that I am being a jerk. Your statment was silly.

You can represent a percent as a fraction 75% is 3/4.

I see how you got the extra 1 in your number. That calculator is wrong.

 

[DemonMyst]

I'm very against frivolous lawsuits and for tort law, yet my stance on this lawsuit is divided.
1)She put the coffee between her legs, which shouldn't have happened
2)The coffee was too hot, so McDonald's did have some fault
3)The cup was too flimsy, so McDonald's, again, did have some fault
4)She lifted the cup while the car was moving, so it was her fault.

Can you please explain by what standard the coffee was to hot and by what regulatory body you are making that basis from??

The cup is exactly the same as it was then.. It just has a reminder on the bottom that the coffee is hot.. It is still the same old paper cup..

She put the cup between her knews.. She took the lid off to add condiments.. No two scenerios could have happened.. The driver excelerated and the cup tipped over toward her, since the injuries were on the bottoms of her thighs, that scenenario fits.. The other option is that the cup just fell back in the slant the the passanger seat.. Again spilling in her lap and the seat.. She was wearing cotton pants which soaked up a lot of coffee and held it to her skin..

SHE WAS 80 YEARS OLD AND THE SKIN OF OLDER PEOPLE IS VERY THIN AND FRAGILE COMPARED TO YOUNGER SKIN.. I HAVE SEEN ELDERY BURN THE SKIN OFF THEIR FINGERS WITH A PIECE OF TOAST.. SPEND SOME TIME AT ANY NURSING HOME.. BURNS ARE COMMON FOR THEM BECAUSE THER SKINS ARE SO FRAGILE!!

 

[DemonMyst]

I'm very against frivolous lawsuits and for tort law, yet my stance on this lawsuit is divided.
1)She put the coffee between her legs, which shouldn't have happened
2)The coffee was too hot, so McDonald's did have some fault
3)The cup was too flimsy, so McDonald's, again, did have some fault
4)She lifted the cup while the car was moving, so it was her fault.

OMG!! That is such a lame post!!

The cup is exactly the same and hasn't changed in about 20 years.. Still the same old paper coffee cup it was in the 70's..

Two things could have happened.. First, she put the cup between her knees.. So lets visualize that.. Your in the front seat of a car holding a drink between your knees.. If anyone has ever done that, that is the worst way to hold a drink.. The drink will will go flying with little or no movement.. So The car either moved forwatd in the drive thru and the cup simply tipped over in her direction.. Which fits, looking at that pic, the burns were on the bottom portion of her thighs and not the tops.. So the coffee spilled into the seat and was soaked up by her cotton pants.. The other option is that her knees were simply unable to hold it steady as she stirred the drink or it just fell over on it's own due to her weakness.. Again, the coffee spilled into the the seat and was soaked up by her pants..

There is no doubt this was a frivolous law suit.. This should have never seen the inside of a court room.. It should have been thrown out on sight!!

The burns.. Oh the burns!! How horrible!! Do you morons realize that the skin on the eldery is almost paper thin and very fragile compared to younger skin?? So the fact that the burns were so serious is meaningless.. She could have got the same burns on coffee that was 150 degrees.. The fact is, nobody knows what the temperature was.. How long the coffee had been sitting out and how long ago it had been brewed.. The simple fact that her skin was that of an old person is why she was burned so badly.. Try spending some time at a nursing home.. There is a reason why everything is literally served cold.. Not warm, cold!!

This woman was wrong for putting the coffee between her knees.. She was wrong for taking the lid off, and she was wrong for filing the law suit.. Sadly McDonald's paid for her stupidity..

 

[DemonMyst]

Yes, and what you said would be a lid failure. Right, something happens, the lid loosens and falls off. That's a failure of the lid. Someone trying to take the lid off and in the process spills it upon themselves is not a lid failure for once the lid is no longer securely fastened to the cup, it is no longer a lid.

The lid has to be on the cup for it to be able to fail.. She took it off to add condiments.. Did you read the case or not?? There was no lid.. So it failing is irrelevent..

 

[DemonMyst]

Starbucks does not serve coffee at 190 degrees. After receiving warnings from the government it was to hot.

Where are these warning and yes Starbucks does serve coffee that hot and hotter!! Show me this law or regulation that they were warned about?

Many courts have examined what constitutes the “industry standard” for coffee temperatures. In New York, a court ruled a plaintiff failed to show that coffee served between 180° and 190° F exceeds industry standards. In Indiana, a federal district judge concluded the industry standard for coffee temperature is between 170° and 205° F. In Minnesota, a court ruled coffee brewed at 190° and held at 180° is within industry standards. These judicial determinations are supported by the fact that most home coffee machines hold coffee for serving at temperatures between 170° and 185° F.

There is a federal ruling.. 170-205 degrees is industry standard.. Have a nice day!! Next time you are going to spout off crap, do the rest of us a favor and look it up!!

http://www.daydots.com/article.asp?HKEY=004&strPRODH=001&ArticleCID=32&ArticleID=14

 

[DemonMyst]

You simply cannot call a lawsuit frivilous when a JURY awarded her millions of dollars. Call the jury idiots if you wish, but don't call the suit itself frivilous. People are entitled to be served safe products, just as they are entitled to have a safe place to walk.

I can call it whatever I want and the Jury was wrong.. Just like the SCOTUS was wrong for giving companies the sames rights as people.. Don't think for a minutes that rulings are always correct.. Look at the Anthony case?? Did the Jury make a mistake there?? To many it did.. So what the Jury awarded her is irrelevent..

The Judge was a moron for even letting it see a jury.. The product was safe, it was never meant to have the lid removed and then placed between the knees of an 80 year old wearing sweat pants.. She should have done what most other folks do.. Order her coffee with cream and surgar already in it, or found a safe place to sit and add her condiments safely.. This is all her fault and she has nobody to blame but herself..

Are you the kind of person that is going to say that we need safe products when someone blows their hair dry while sitting in a tub full of water?? Get a clue here Maggie.. There is nothing wrong with McDonald's cup.. None of them are designed to be held between a person's knees while sitting in a car.. That is what cup holders are for.. Yes they had them back then.. She took the lid off, so it has a real hard time working while it is off.. Why so many of you have issues understanding that one is beyond me.. Are you going to be one of those peeps that bitch when someone is killed while not wearing their bullet proof vest??

This was a frivolous law suit.. There is no other way to describe it.. The fact that she won shows how disfunctional our legal system really is..

 

[lovetosing4678]

http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_graph.html

I don't understand why no one is even looking at this link which has been brought up SEVERAL times that even water at 140 degrees Fahrenheit will burn you in 5 seconds. Don't spill coffee or hot tea or anything on you. I once got a 2nd degree burn from being out in the sun too long. Poll people, see how many think that is possible when going outside. Should I sue the sun? It didn't warn me I was going to get anymore than red for a few days. No where was there a warning I was going to have my skin bubbling up and then peeling away. This is ridiculous. Hot water is going to burn you. She was negligent and it is unfortunate but people need to start using their brains!

 

[sangha]

4)She lifted the cup while the car was moving, so it was her fault.

All in all, she did have some reason to sue, yet those circumstances were created because of her, so it's a gray area in whether the lawsuit was frivolous or not. Yet I tend to lean towards the "frivolous" crowd because it was of her stupidity that the accident happened. You don't have a cup of open, hot coffee between your legs in a car

The car wasn't moving and the court found that she was partially responsible, and they reduced the award commensurately

 

[sangha]

If a lid easily loosens from the cup, it's not a good lid. It can pop off and nearly any time. A lid to be a lid must be securely fastened to the cup. Else it's not much of a lid. It's not wise to try to loosen a securely fastened lid with the cup between your legs. You have less stability in that situation and are well more prone to failure. Operator error.

Lids can be stiff enough to stay on and pop off with one firm push. In fact, thats how McD's current coffee cups work.

And if you're sitting in a car, how do you remove the lid so that there's no possibility of the coffee spilling on you? Even if you put it on the dash, you're gonna lean forward, and the coffees' going to spill on your legs. Granted, that's better than what happened to this woman, but that's why the court found her partially responsible.

 

[sangha]

Can you please explain by what standard the coffee was to hot

Human health and safety standards

She put the cup between her knews.. She took the lid off to add condiments.. No two scenerios could have happened.. The driver excelerated and the cup tipped over toward her, since the injuries were on the bottoms of her thighs, that scenenario fits.. The other option is that the cup just fell back in the slant the the passanger seat.. Again spilling in her lap and the seat.. She was wearing cotton pants which soaked up a lot of coffee and held it to her skin..

The car wasn't moving

SHE WAS 80 YEARS OLD AND THE SKIN OF OLDER PEOPLE IS VERY THIN AND FRAGILE COMPARED TO YOUNGER SKIN.. I HAVE SEEN ELDERY BURN THE SKIN OFF THEIR FINGERS WITH A PIECE OF TOAST.. SPEND SOME TIME AT ANY NURSING HOME.. BURNS ARE COMMON FOR THEM BECAUSE THER SKINS ARE SO FRAGILE!!

Which is why they shouldn't have sold it so hot

 

[sangha]

OMG!! That is such a lame post!!

The cup is exactly the same and hasn't changed in about 20 years.. Still the same old paper coffee cup it was in the 70's..

But it's a different, safer lid.

Two things could have happened.. First, she put the cup between her knees.. So lets visualize that.. Your in the front seat of a car holding a drink between your knees.. If anyone has ever done that, that is the worst way to hold a drink.. The drink will will go flying with little or no movement.. So The car either moved forwatd in the drive thru and the cup simply tipped over in her direction.. Which fits, looking at that pic, the burns were on the bottom portion of her thighs and not the tops.. So the coffee spilled into the seat and was soaked up by her cotton pants.. The other option is that her knees were simply unable to hold it steady as she stirred the drink or it just fell over on it's own due to her weakness.. Again, the coffee spilled into the the seat and was soaked up by her pants..

Neither of those are what happened. The car wasn't moving, and the spill occurred while she was removing the flimsy lid.

Funny how most (all?) of the people posting that it was a frivolous lawsuit are getting some of the most basic facts about what happened wrong.

 

[sangha]

The lid has to be on the cup for it to be able to fail.. She took it off to add condiments.. Did you read the case or not?? There was no lid.. So it failing is irrelevent..

No, the lid wasn't off when the spill occurred.

It seems like you didn't read the case, since you think there are two possible scenarios, both of which involve events (the car was moving, the lid was off) that did not occur