• 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

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,528
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,528
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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..

Umm, you can say whatever you want. Doesn't make it true

And they did park the car to add the condiments. And the court determined that the coffee "was not fit for human consumption". Doesn't sound "safe" to me.

And the lid wasn't off. You pretty much got all the facts wrong
 

DemonMyst

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
727
Reaction score
299
Location
Seattle WA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Umm, you can say whatever you want. Doesn't make it true

And they did park the car to add the condiments. And the court determined that the coffee "was not fit for human consumption". Doesn't sound "safe" to me.

And the lid wasn't off. You pretty much got all the facts wrong

Prove it wrong then.. I already cited federal rulings.. That is more than you have.. So?? Put up or shut up!!

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her nephew Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[10] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[11] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[12] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[13] Two years of medical treatment followed.

There a number of different accounts of this.. Here is one where she was in the process of removing it.. Are you a big enough idiot to actually want to argue the issue?? Nobody really knows what happened in that car and in her lap.. I doubt the legal accounts are accurate.. They are most likely doctored by her attornies to shift blame..

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But in either case.. You make yourself look like a complete idiot when you don't research the case or don't provide any sources to back your claims.. There was nothing wrong with the product.. It is was hot coffee.. She was an elderly woman with elderly skin.. Paper thin and very easily damaged.. Nobody seems to take into account that the fact she was 79 at the time of the incident, isn't the fault of McDanald's.. McDonald's doesn't age people.. She spilled her coffee, her clothes soaked it up and held it to her skin, she was old and burned far worse than someone in their 30's or 40's.. It was an accident.. There is nothing else to call it.. There are most likely thousands of people nationwide that spill their hot coffee in their laps in the car.. I have certianly worn my fair share of Mocha's from StarBucks.. Not to mention some of their drips.. Which is why I paid the bucks for one of their metal no spill coffee mugs..

Her injuries were unfortunate, but not the fault of McDonalds.. And it isn't so because I say so.. It is so because the facts say so.. You might try to remember that..
 
Last edited:

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,528
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Prove it wrong then.. I already cited federal rulings.. That is more than you have.. So?? Put up or shut up!!

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

And you didn't cite any federal ruling. You linked to a website run by lawyers who defend restaurants from lawsuits for burning people with hot coffee

http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/V11N1/Coffee.pdf

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I admit that I did get one detail wrong. It wasn't the court who said the coffee wasn't fit for human consumption; It was McDonalds quality assurance mgr

McDonald’s own quality assurance manager
testified that McDonald’s enforced a policy requirement that
all coffee be served at 185 degrees, give or take five degrees.38
He also admitted that its coffee was not “fit for consumption”
because it would cause scalding injuries to the mouth and
throat if drunk by the consumer.39
Q: [Y]ou know, as a matter of fact, that coffee is a
hazard, selling it at 180 to 190 degrees, don’t you?
A: I have testified before, the fact that this coffee
can cause burns.
Q: It is hazardous at this temperature?
A: At that high temperature the coffee is a hazard.
. . .
Q: If customers attempt to swallow that coffee, isn’t
it a fact that it will scald their throat or esophagus?
A: Yes, under those conditions, if they could get
the coffee in their throat, that could happen, yes. .
. . 40
The same McDonald’s quality assurance manager
continued to testify, illustrating McDonald’s culpability:
Q: So. . . when somebody buys a cup of coffee
and it’s sold to them at McDonald’s and they go to
sit down and drink it in less than five minutes, it’s
not fit for consumption to drink, if consumption
means to drink? . . .
A: It’s perfectly fit to open the top and add cream
and sugar and really dilute the product as far as
temperature goes and it probably would be very fit
for consumption . . . .
Q: If you don’t mind getting burned it’s fit for
consumption. My question is, is it fit to be drunk,
actually fluid going down your esophagus?
A: I think I already answered that.
Q: And the answer is no, it’s not, isn’t it?
A: Yes, we answered that.41
 
Last edited:

DemonMyst

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
727
Reaction score
299
Location
Seattle WA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, the court found that the industry standard was much lower.

Link it or it isn't so.. I post it a link.. Where is yours?? Your just talking out of your butt at the moment.. No court has made any ruling finding the industry standard to be lower.. I have looked.. Either source your claims or don't talk to me about facts because you have none..
 

DemonMyst

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
727
Reaction score
299
Location
Seattle WA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

And you didn't cite any federal ruling. You linked to a website run by lawyers who defend restaurants from lawsuits for burning people with hot coffee

http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/V11N1/Coffee.pdf

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is what I thought.. You don't have nothing.. I have seen all those.. None of them give rulings on the temperature of coffee or the industry standard.. Thanks for playing..
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,528
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That is what I thought.. You don't have nothing.. I have seen all those.. None of them give rulings on the temperature of coffee or the industry standard.. Thanks for playing..

Sure they do. They also prove that the McD QA Mgr said that the coffee was not fit for human consumption, the car was not moving when the coffee spilled, and that the lid was not off the cup. I have trouble believing you read all those and still got all the facts wrong.
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,536
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Originally I noted that I couldn't tell if this was frivolous based on the picture, and that is still true. But after reading the rest of the thread, and the links provided here, I can now say that I do not think it was a frivolous lawsuit. While the injured party appeared to have some culpability (which apparently lead ot teh reduction in her award by the court), so did McDonald's.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
8,380
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Are the feds coffee experts?

I think the FDA knows more than you do yes.

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.

That is extraction, not drinking. :roll:

I am certain you know the difference. How many people do you see drinking coffee directly from the pot???

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics 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.

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

Since when is Bunn or the NCA experts on human physiology, burns or physics??? :doh

It also does not make it a frivolous. 190 degrees will cause burns fast and cool slower than the 170 or whatever you mentioned. This is a fact.

McDonald's was warned and they reaped the benefits of their stupidity.

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

No. That is not even comparable, a ridicules fallacy argument. People drinking coffee do not expect 3rd degree burns in 7 seconds. People using razors understand they are sharp and can cause injury.
 
Last edited:

BayToBay

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
230
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.

Will you make up your mind? First you said it was a billion then you claimed that was typo and that you meant a million now you are back to a billion.
 

BayToBay

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
230
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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 was not moving.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,160
Reaction score
17,559
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I think the FDA knows more than you do yes.

THe FDA are not coffee experts and do you actually have a link? Besides that this article says different.



Food Safety and the Law - Defending and Preventing a Coffee Burn Lawsuit

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.

That is extraction, not drinking. :roll:
If notice in bold black letters it says brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately. I could be wrong but nowhere on this planet does "immediately" mean at a later time.


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



I am certain you know the difference. How many people do you see drinking coffee directly from the pot???

How many people let the pot sit for several minutes before pouring themselves a cup of coffee?

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics 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.


No it wouldn't have. She was exposed to hot coffee for 90 seconds and that most certianly would have been enough time for a 155 degree coffee to give her 3rd degree burns.
Hot Water Burn & Consumer Safety: Chart - Accurate Building Inspectors ® | 1-800-640-8285 |
Most adults will suffer third-degree burns if exposed to 150 degree water for two seconds.

Since when is Bunn or the NCA experts on human physiology, burns or physics??? :doh

They are experts on coffee.

It also does not make it a frivolous.

Did McDonalds pour coffee of her?

Did McDonalds shove her while she was opening her coffee?

Does McDonalfs have a how-to poster at the drive through depicting customers sticking a cup of hot liquid in between their legs and proceeding to open the lid?

Did McDonalds lie to her and tell her it was safe to put a cup of coffee in between her legs?

Did McDonalds hold a gun to her head and force her to put a cup of hot coffee in between her legs?

Did McDonalds employees come out the store and shake her car while she was putting a cup of hot coffee in between her legs thus causing her to burn herself?


190 degrees will cause burns fast and cool slower than the 170 or whatever you mentioned. This is a fact.
At a 170 degrees exposed to her skin for 90 seconds would have caused severe 3rd degree burns.


McDonald's was warned and they reaped the benefits of their stupidity.

The only stupidity there was is on the part of the idiots who burned themselves with coffee.

No. That is not even comparable, a ridicules fallacy argument.

It is exactly comparable. It order to injure yourself with these products you have to be pretty careless.

People drinking coffee do not expect 3rd degree burns in 7 seconds. .

In order for 3rd degree burns to happen in 7 seconds the coffee would have to been at 140 degrees. These burns happened around a few seconds since the coffee was served at or near optimal temperature.




People using razors understand they are sharp and can cause injury
People drinking coffee understand that it is a hot liquid and therefore are careful handling it. This regardless if it 130,140,150,160 degrees and so on.
 

BayToBay

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
230
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A 140 degree coffee will also burn the mouth and throat.

Source?

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.

Not according to McDonalds.

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

And in getting sued for burns.

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?

Based on the testimony presented 5-15 degrees would make a difference.

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

Go for it.


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.

They do not need to account for those that are stupid enough to drink the coffee?


McDonalds just knew there were 700 idiots out there

The number of injuries were higher than 700 and McDonald's knew that too. 700 is the number of people that bothered to file some sort of complaint.

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

140 degrees is not what McDonald's testified to.


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?

Those are not the intended uses of those products. McDonalds testified that their product was not safe for use as intended.
 

DemonMyst

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
727
Reaction score
299
Location
Seattle WA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The car was not moving.

You know this how exactly?? Where you hiding in the trunk or something?? In either case it makes no difference..

It is not desputed that she put the coffee betweem her legs..

It is not desputed that she either removed the lid or was in the process off when the spill occured..

It is well known that she was attempting to add condiments, cream and or surgar to her coffee while sitting in the car..

She could have ordered her coffee with cream and sugar already in it.. Millions of people do it everyday..

It is rather stupid and pointless to discuss the lid and how far on or off it was.. The simple fact was that it was being removed..

She should have never put the coffee between her legs to begin with..

This entire case is fivolous because nobody has yet to offer a logical or legal reason as to what makes McDonald's responsible??

You all can bitch about the temperature of the coffee.. All you are doing is showing your ignorance and stupidity... Coffee is hot.. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know this.. The design of the lid is irrelevent because she had either taken it off or was in the process off..

The car moving is irrelevent because she was an idiot for putting the hot cup of coffee between her legs to begin with.. I doubt there isn't a single person here that hasn't been in a car, put a drink between their legs and spilled it.. It is a pretty common thing to do.. In all cases, be it a bottle of coke or a hot cup of coffee, it is her fault for putting the cup where it was and not in a cup holder..

The severity of her burns is irrelevent and doesn't show fault.. She was 79 years old.. If anyone knows anything about the elderly is that their skin is very thin and fragile.. So the fact that she burned as bad as she did is simply an indication of her age.. It is doubtful that if a 30 or 40 something person spilled their coffee, they would have been burned as badly.. Even if the coffee is the same temperature.. This would be a common sense statistic as I am sure countless people have done just that.. Spilled hot coffee in their lap.. Probably just got a mild 1st or possible even a 2nd degree burn.. Nothing major.. Just some redness and irratation..

It isn't McDonald's fault she was as old as she was.. The simple fact here remains.. There is nothing about this case that makes McDonald's even the slightest bit liable..

McDonald's didn't put the coffee between here legs..

McDonald's didn't attemp to remove the lid in the car while holding the cup between her legs..

McDonald's didn't make the cup spill between her legs..

McDonald's didn't throw a magic spell and make her an old woman with thin fragile skin..

McDonald's didn't force her to wear cotton so that it would absorb the hot coffee and hold it to her skin longer..

I am sure the coffee was the same temperature that every other coffee machine stores it's coffee.. Somewhere between 170 to 190 degrees.. This is the same everywhere.. Even the coffee maker in your house!!

If she is going to be dumb enough to attemp to put cream or sugar into her coffee will sitting in the front seat of a car, moving or not, then she diserves being burned for being stupid.. As I said above.. She could have ordered it with her cream and surgar.. She could have asked her son or whom ever it was for assistance in holding the cup.. There is a lot of things she could have done.. But again.. None of this is the fault of McDonald's..
 
Last edited:

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,528
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
THe FDA are not coffee experts and do you actually have a link? Besides that this article says different.



Food Safety and the Law - Defending and Preventing a Coffee Burn Lawsuit

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.


If notice in bold black letters it says brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately. I could be wrong but nowhere on this planet does "immediately" mean at a later time.


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





How many people let the pot sit for several minutes before pouring themselves a cup of coffee?




No it wouldn't have. She was exposed to hot coffee for 90 seconds and that most certianly would have been enough time for a 155 degree coffee to give her 3rd degree burns.
Hot Water Burn & Consumer Safety: Chart - Accurate Building Inspectors ® | 1-800-640-8285 |
Most adults will suffer third-degree burns if exposed to 150 degree water for two seconds.



They are experts on coffee.



Did McDonalds pour coffee of her?

Did McDonalds shove her while she was opening her coffee?

Does McDonalfs have a how-to poster at the drive through depicting customers sticking a cup of hot liquid in between their legs and proceeding to open the lid?

Did McDonalds lie to her and tell her it was safe to put a cup of coffee in between her legs?

Did McDonalds hold a gun to her head and force her to put a cup of hot coffee in between her legs?

Did McDonalds employees come out the store and shake her car while she was putting a cup of hot coffee in between her legs thus causing her to burn herself?



At a 170 degrees exposed to her skin for 90 seconds would have caused severe 3rd degree burns.




The only stupidity there was is on the part of the idiots who burned themselves with coffee.



It is exactly comparable. It order to injure yourself with these products you have to be pretty careless.



In order for 3rd degree burns to happen in 7 seconds the coffee would have to been at 140 degrees. These burns happened around a few seconds since the coffee was served at or near optimal temperature.





People drinking coffee understand that it is a hot liquid and therefore are careful handling it. This regardless if it 130,140,150,160 degrees and so on.

You can post as much as you like from coffee shills and lawyers, but even McD's Quality Assurance Mgr admitted, in court, that their coffee was not safe to drink.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,528
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You know this how exactly?? Where you hiding in the trunk or something?? In either case it makes no difference..

It is not desputed that she put the coffee betweem her legs..

It is not desputed that she either removed the lid or was in the process off when the spill occured..

It is well known that she was attempting to add condiments, cream and or surgar to her coffee while sitting in the car..

She could have ordered her coffee with cream and sugar already in it.. Millions of people do it everyday..

It is rather stupid and pointless to discuss the lid and how far on or off it was.. The simple fact was that it was being removed..

She should have never put the coffee between her legs to begin with..

This entire case is fivolous because nobody has yet to offer a logical or legal reason as to what makes McDonald's responsible??

You all can bitch about the temperature of the coffee.. All you are doing is showing your ignorance and stupidity... Coffee is hot.. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know this.. The design of the lid is irrelevent because she had either taken it off or was in the process off..

The car moving is irrelevent because she was an idiot for putting the hot cup of coffee between her legs to begin with.. I doubt there isn't a single person here that hasn't been in a car, put a drink between their legs and spilled it.. It is a pretty common thing to do.. In all cases, be it a bottle of coke or a hot cup of coffee, it is her fault for putting the cup where it was and not in a cup holder..

The severity of her burns is irrelevent and doesn't show fault.. She was 79 years old.. If anyone knows anything about the elderly is that their skin is very thin and fragile.. So the fact that she burned as bad as she did is simply an indication of her age.. It is doubtful that if a 30 or 40 something person spilled their coffee, they would have been burned as badly.. Even if the coffee is the same temperature.. This would be a common sense statistic as I am sure countless people have done just that.. Spilled hot coffee in their lap.. Probably just got a mild 1st or possible even a 2nd degree burn.. Nothing major.. Just some redness and irratation..

It isn't McDonald's fault she was as old as she was.. The simple fact here remains.. There is nothing about this case that makes McDonald's even the slightest bit liable..

McDonald's didn't put the coffee between here legs..

McDonald's didn't attemp to remove the lid in the car while holding the cup between her legs..

McDonald's didn't make the cup spill between her legs..

McDonald's didn't throw a magic spell and make her an old woman with thin fragile skin..

McDonald's didn't force her to wear cotton so that it would absorb the hot coffee and hold it to her skin longer..

I am sure the coffee was the same temperature that every other coffee machine stores it's coffee.. Somewhere between 170 to 190 degrees.. This is the same everywhere.. Even the coffee maker in your house!!

If she is going to be dumb enough to attemp to put cream or sugar into her coffee will sitting in the front seat of a car, moving or not, then she diserves being burned for being stupid.. As I said above.. She could have ordered it with her cream and surgar.. She could have asked her son or whom ever it was for assistance in holding the cup.. There is a lot of things she could have done.. But again.. None of this is the fault of McDonald's..

You know what?

The more you post, the more it becomes obvious that you haven't read any of the links I posted. Your posts contain numerous mistatements of fact.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
86,983
Reaction score
57,155
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
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?

I don't remove the lid of my coffee while I am in the car. If I did, even the cup holder is a better place than you suggestions. It's far enough away in the center counsel that it will most likely be avoidable. Still, you can make quite the mess and I wouldn't suggest it.
 

DemonMyst

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
727
Reaction score
299
Location
Seattle WA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You know what?

The more you post, the more it becomes obvious that you haven't read any of the links I posted. Your posts contain numerous mistatements of fact.

Well.. Start naming the mistatements of fact.. Otherwise you are just making yourself look like a fool..

I did read the links you put.. I read them before you posted them and also posted the wikipedia one before you did.. Guess you weren't paying attention..

Still the fact remains.. You haven't said or done anything that can show a logical or viable reason as to why Mcdonald's is responsible.. Not that you can..
 

DemonMyst

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
727
Reaction score
299
Location
Seattle WA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You can post as much as you like from coffee shills and lawyers, but even McD's Quality Assurance Mgr admitted, in court, that their coffee was not safe to drink.

Link or it didn't happen.. What part of that do you not understand??
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
8,380
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
THe FDA are not coffee experts and do you actually have a link? Besides that this article says different.

Food Safety and the Law - Defending and Preventing a Coffee Burn Lawsuit

I will take the governments opinion over some org that's sole purpose it defending company's from coffee burn lawsuits.

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.


If notice in bold black letters it says brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately. I could be wrong but nowhere on this planet does "immediately" mean at a later time.


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

They are talking about coffee served and left hot for the aroma, not drinking. Nice try. That's why people let coffee cool before drinking.

How many people let the pot sit for several minutes before pouring themselves a cup of coffee?

Most don't. They let it cool in the cup while adding cream and sugar.

No it wouldn't have. She was exposed to hot coffee for 90 seconds and that most certianly would have been enough time for a 155 degree coffee to give her 3rd degree burns.
Hot Water Burn & Consumer Safety: Chart - Accurate Building Inspectors ® | 1-800-640-8285 |
Most adults will suffer third-degree burns if exposed to 150 degree water for two seconds.

They are experts on coffee.

She was NOT exposed to 190 degree coffee for a a minute and a half. The laws of physics disagree with that ridicules statement. So no 150 does not do the same damage as the expert pointed out.

Did McDonalds pour coffee of her?

Did McDonalds shove her while she was opening her coffee?

Does McDonalfs have a how-to poster at the drive through depicting customers sticking a cup of hot liquid in between their legs and proceeding to open the lid?

Did McDonalds lie to her and tell her it was safe to put a cup of coffee in between her legs?

Did McDonalds hold a gun to her head and force her to put a cup of hot coffee in between her legs?

Did McDonalds employees come out the store and shake her car while she was putting a cup of hot coffee in between her legs thus causing her to burn herself?

At a 170 degrees exposed to her skin for 90 seconds would have caused severe 3rd degree burns.

She was not exposed for a minute and a half. It would have started cooling almost immediately and been room temperature within 10 sec. A lower temperature would have caused far less damage.

The only stupidity there was is on the part of the idiots who burned themselves with coffee.

Yea because a 70 year old still has cat like reflexes, we all know that. :roll:

It is exactly comparable. It order to injure yourself with these products you have to be pretty careless.

That is a matter of opinion, and finds you thankfully in the minority on this issue.

In order for 3rd degree burns to happen in 7 seconds the coffee would have to been at 140 degrees. These burns happened around a few seconds since the coffee was served at or near optimal temperature.

Again you are not taking into account the rapid cooling after a spill. You are basically trying to say water heated to 140 degrees after a spill would stay at exactly 140 degrees for 7 seconds. That is ridicules.

People drinking coffee understand that it is a hot liquid and therefore are careful handling it. This regardless if it 130,140,150,160 degrees and so on.

No, McDonald's knew exactly what they were doing...

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager 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 a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics 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.

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

McDonalds 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 thirddegree 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.


According to the experts in the case and the laws of physics, not some internet web site, you are completely wrong.
 
Last edited:

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
8,380
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well.. Start naming the mistatements of fact.. Otherwise you are just making yourself look like a fool..

I did read the links you put.. I read them before you posted them and also posted the wikipedia one before you did.. Guess you weren't paying attention..

Still the fact remains.. You haven't said or done anything that can show a logical or viable reason as to why Mcdonald's is responsible.. Not that you can..

You need a link to show the courts found McDonald's 80% responsible? LMAO!
 

BayToBay

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
230
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You know this how exactly?? Where you hiding in the trunk or something?? In either case it makes no difference..

By reading about the facts presented in the case. If it makes no difference then why are you disputing it?

It is not desputed that she put the coffee betweem her legs..

It is not desputed that she either removed the lid or was in the process off when the spill occured..

It is well known that she was attempting to add condiments, cream and or surgar to her coffee while sitting in the car..

She could have ordered her coffee with cream and sugar already in it.. Millions of people do it everyday..

Now. That is relatively new method which has become common because of lawsuits. It was not common in 92.

It is rather stupid and pointless to discuss the lid and how far on or off it was.. The simple fact was that it was being removed..

Yes, but part of the problem was that the cups back then relied on the lid to be stable, i.e., without the lid the walls of the cup would move inward with the slightest pressure. You claimed previously that they are using the same cups, not true.

She should have never put the coffee between her legs to begin with..

I agree. But that does not mean that the coffee should not have been served at 190 degrees to begin with either.

This entire case is fivolous because nobody has yet to offer a logical or legal reason as to what makes McDonald's responsible??

Yes they have. It was the testimony of McDonalds employees that established that. They KNEW that their product was unsafe if used as INTENDED. That is willful negligence.

You all can bitch about the temperature of the coffee.. All you are doing is showing your ignorance and stupidity... Coffee is hot.. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know this.. The design of the lid is irrelevent because she had either taken it off or was in the process off..

A reasonable person does not expect to be scalded by drinking their coffee. A reasonable person would not expect to suffer 3rd degree burns from a spill.

The car moving is irrelevent because she was an idiot for putting the hot cup of coffee between her legs to begin with.. I doubt there isn't a single person here that hasn't been in a car, put a drink between their legs and spilled it.. It is a pretty common thing to do.. In all cases, be it a bottle of coke or a hot cup of coffee, it is her fault for putting the cup where it was and not in a cup holder..

You are the one that brought up the misnformation that the car was moving. If it is not relevant then why did you bring it up?

Yes, it is very common to put coffee between your legs and spill it. I have done it. I did not get third degree burns or even 2nd. I got some minor skin irrtiation.

The severity of her burns is irrelevent and doesn't show fault.. She was 79 years old.. If anyone knows anything about the elderly is that their skin is very thin and fragile.. So the fact that she burned as bad as she did is simply an indication of her age.. It is doubtful that if a 30 or 40 something person spilled their coffee, they would have been burned as badly.. Even if the coffee is the same temperature.. This would be a common sense statistic as I am sure countless people have done just that.. Spilled hot coffee in their lap.. Probably just got a mild 1st or possible even a 2nd degree burn.. Nothing major.. Just some redness and irratation..

The severity is definitely relevant because it was the willful negligence of McDonald's that contributed to the severity. If it had been served at a reasonable temperature her damage would have been minor, she probably would not have bothered to sue and there would be little basis for her to sue.

The testimony given indicated that at the temperature it was served the coffee would cause third degree burns in a very short period regardless of age.

Most people who spill coffee in their laps have not spilled 180-190 degree coffee in their laps.

It isn't McDonald's fault she was as old as she was.. The simple fact here remains.. There is nothing about this case that makes McDonald's even the slightest bit liable..

McDonald's didn't put the coffee between here legs..

McDonald's didn't attemp to remove the lid in the car while holding the cup between her legs..

McDonald's didn't make the cup spill between her legs..

McDonald's didn't throw a magic spell and make her an old woman with thin fragile skin..

McDonald's didn't force her to wear cotton so that it would absorb the hot coffee and hold it to her skin longer..

McDonald's served a product that it knew was unsafe to use as intended.

I am sure the coffee was the same temperature that every other coffee machine stores it's coffee.. Somewhere between 170 to 190 degrees.. This is the same everywhere.. Even the coffee maker in your house!!

Nope. They tested the temperatures of coffee served from other establishments and found that none came closer than 20 degrees below that served by McDonalds.

If she is going to be dumb enough to attemp to put cream or sugar into her coffee will sitting in the front seat of a car, moving or not, then she diserves being burned for being stupid.. As I said above.. She could have ordered it with her cream and surgar.. She could have asked her son or whom ever it was for assistance in holding the cup.. There is a lot of things she could have done.. But again.. None of this is the fault of McDonald's..

And McDonald's could have served it's coffee at a reasonable temperature. That was their fault. Yes, she was partially to blame. That does not absolve McDonald's.
 

BayToBay

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
230
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
By the way, I have also had coffee spilled on me after putting it in the cup holder. That does not guarantee safety and it does not change the fact that I was responsible for the spill. If the coffee is ridiculously hot it is still going to burn badly.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,528
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't remove the lid of my coffee while I am in the car. If I did, even the cup holder is a better place than you suggestions. It's far enough away in the center counsel that it will most likely be avoidable. Still, you can make quite the mess and I wouldn't suggest it.

Good point!

Which I guess is why she was help partially responsible. I think part of the difference of opinion is that some have trouble with the idea of partial responsibility. Some seem to think it's the fault of one or the other.
 
Top Bottom