Boooo Hisssssss!!!! James! 2nd/3rd degree burns on an 80-year-old are serious business. On a diabetic they can be absolutely deadly.
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.Nowwwww, McDonald's serves its coffee at 140 degrees.
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...
So they only expect 2nd or 1st degree burns?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.
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.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.
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..
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.
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.
Who cares what some industry group says?
However, McDonald's routinely kept there coffee above those temperatures so what do you think that does for your position?
SOmebody needs to explain to all the retards out there that you do not put hot coffee between your legs.Somebody needed to explain it to McDonalds.
The only difference is that you seem to think that McDonald's has no obligation to employ common sense.
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
They did not care.
It is one thing to be negligent and quite another to be willfully negligent.
.The court heard the evidence without preconceptions, which is clearly beyond your ability
McDonald's was at fault
Actually, it does not.
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.
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
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nobody likes a grammar fag/nazi.
Wouldn't that be a percentage not a fraction?
Percentage Calculator
0.000007000000000000001
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.
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.
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.
Starbucks does not serve coffee at 190 degrees. After receiving warnings from the government it was to hot.
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.
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.
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
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.
Can you please explain by what standard the coffee was to hot
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!!
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..
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..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?