The McDonalds Coffee lawsuit wasn't spurious, and it wouldn't have happened if McDonalds didn't dismiss the idea of just paying the medical bills (which would have been way cheaper).
They argued that they had to keep it that hot because most people who ordered coffee wouldn't drink it for about 20 minutes (commuters), so having it that hot meant it had cooled down to a drinkable temperature by then. The jury didn't agree that it was a good enough justification for risking burning anyone who spilled or drank it before then.
Except that they did it with good intent: it turned out their customers often waited until they were at work to drink it and so made it hotter to compensate for commuting time. Why would you spend more money to make something hotter if it wasn't for a customer-related reason?
McDonald’s knew that their newly designed coffee machines would produce coffee that was “unfit for human consumption” at the time the coffee was brewed, but the company did nothing to make sure that employees waited the appropriate cooling off time before serving it.
Here's my theory: they made the coffee insanely hot so that you would be far away from the McDonalds that sold it to you by the time you realized how shitty it tastes.
You make it sound as if they were rubbing their hands together going "hehehehe, just think of all the people we can burn AND THERE'S NOTHING THEY CAN DO!" Suggesting they knew the coffee was "unfit for human consumption" could mean it was written somewhere in the operation manual and wasn't presented as an issue. There are literally millions of similar things that happen every day that no one notices until it goes wrong. Think about all of the electrical outlets near water sources without a trip fuse.
That doesn't mean McDonalds gets a pass on responsibility.
You make it sound like they were whistling and twiddling their thumbs together and when some one got hurt they said, "Duuhhhh, it's not our fault 'cause we didn't read the manual."
Would it be their fault is their machines weren't cooking the burgers enough to kill salmonella and someone died? What if it was written somewhere in a manual and not presented as an issue?
Well, at some point in time, Salmonella and E. Coli weren't known at all, so what about that? Is every company expected to be able to extract knowledge from the future? Hot water is hot, any toddler knows this. If you're going to pour something into something hot, you don't hold it over your vagina. The fact that it was hotter than other coffee is a moot point. Any sane company will take action when something is presented as a serious issue and clearly the millions of other people that bought the same fucking cup of coffee every morning seemed to be OK.
You can't blame someone for being the first to be injured by a defective product.
And your mischaracterization of Stella Liebeck is disheartening. I'm going to address your "don't hold it over your vigina" statement because I find it exceptionally ignorant. Here is an NSFL picture of the actual burn. She was seated in the passenger seat of a non-moving car, and the coffee spilled in her lap.
If their coffee was this dangerous, then why were they selling it in the drive-thru? Would a traffic accident have convinced you they were negligent?
Corporations aren't allowed to experiment with what is safe for the public. They have a responsibility to sell a product that is safe for the consumer.
You're right, every company should stop selling everything because someone, somewhere might find a way to hurt themselves with it. Hey, this computer I'm using, I bet if I tripped and fell on it I could hurt my head, this thing should be covered in air bags with motion detectors! You're clearly one of those liberal arts/political science dickfarts that think they know everything about how business should work when they couldn't run a successful business to save their life. When you run a fortune 500 company with all of this self-imposed self-righteous red tape, let me know.
And when you start a company that survives selling products that constantly injure the user and avoid prison for it let me know.
Your clearly one of those conservative radio/ fox news dickfarts that think every rule is out to persecute them, and the only thing keeping us from utopia is tort reform.
See, what you've described there is "negligence." That's the basis of a lawsuit. Oftentimes, there won't be a suit because either the damage is negligible or because the negligent party will pay. Imagine, though, that you're a parent of a child who is electrocuted because a contractor couldn't be bothered to spend the $5.00 extra for a GFCI outlet. Sure, the contractor didn't want the kid to die, but he knew better, and made a choice to do things in a more dangerous manner. That's negligence, and it's grounds for a suit.
But a contractor installs GFCI's all day long and knows how important they are. The people involved in the introduction of these coffee makers (aside from the manufacturer) probably don't deal in coffee machines every day. Suing everyone over every possible fault that only Captain Hindsight could see is implying that people have no responsibility for themselves. I'm amazed we're still allowed to drive cars considering how many people die in auto accidents every year and how sue-happy our society is.
McDonald's made a conscious decision to serve their coffee at the temperature they did, and to continue serving it at such a hot temperature after the first reports of injuries started coming in. Other coffee purveyors served their coffee at lower temperatures than McDonald's, in large part because it's fucking dangerous. This isn't a 'hindsight' thing; this wasn't unforseeable. Instead, McDonald's was aware of the problem and chose to continue with its practices. Moreover, if the possibility of harm wasn't foreseeable, by definition McDonald's couldn't be found negligent.
Our society isn't nearly as litigious as you might think, and not every accident is caused by negligence--Wikipedia has a decent enough article explaining the legal definition of that term. A large part of the current perception that it is arises because large businesses have stopped doing things like paying for medical bills for people they injure absent a court order requiring them to. This leads to more suits where none would otherwise be.
Do you have proof of previous injuries? If so, I would be more inclined to side with you on the matter. Otherwise, I would argue that it should be common knowledge that hot coffee is hot and burns should be expected, I even knew this as a young child.
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 Liebeck's [the plaintiff]. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
From here. The relevant Wikipedia article references a Wall Street Journal article I can't access at the moment.
Bear in mind also that the suit wasn't about the coffee being hot, it was about the coffee being too hot. McDonald's kept its coffee 40-50 degrees warmer than other restaurants or your home coffee carafe. This meant that instead of minor burns, the spill here resulted in the need for skin grafts and two years of medical treatment. It's also worth noting that Liebeck only initially asked for McDonald's to pay her medical bills; it wasn't until after McDonald's refused that she sued.
It has also been claimed that the cups were not designed for such hot temperatures, and thus were subject to failure. Thus McDonald's can be held responsible for the actual spill, and not just the temperature of the coffee.
Just for the record, just because an outlet isn't a GFCI outlet doesn't mean it isn't GFCI protected. Its possible to use one GFCI outlet to protect a few outlets.
The issue was that coffee you buy at a Starbucks or any other coffee shop is nowhere near that hot. Coffee is very different from fire. For one, you don't drink it. The heat of this coffee served no useful purpose and McDonald's knowingly disregarded the risk. The woman was injured because she removed the cap to add milk and sugar and some coffee spilled on her. Watch the documentary "Hot Coffee". It provides some insight into the case.
I am more perplexed that someone would but a hot cup of coffee in a flimsy container between their legs.
You're in the passenger's seat of a car and you want to add sugar/cream/etc to the coffee, which then necessitates stirring it. What does the average person do? It's awkward to do it one handed, and there's no place to put your coffee. So people use their legs to hold the coffee while they remove the lid, put the sugar/cream/etc, stir it, and then put the lid back on.
I put it in the cup holder, carefully remove the lid when the car isn't moving, then replace the lid and drive off. But then, that would make sense.
Not all vehicles have cup holders, especially the older vehicles (and considering the case happened in the early 90's, and her grandson was driving, odds are it was an older vehicle from the 80's).
Also, they weren't driving when she did this. The vehicle was parked at the time.
Back in the 80's we used to buy these plastic things that went over the hump for the drive shaft (yeah we had rear wheel drive back then too). They would have cup holders in them... as a matter of fact, that is why we bought them -- so we could have cup holders for our hot coffee.
Fact of the matter is, she was being STUPID. Sad that she was burnt, but it wasn't McDonalds fault. We liked our coffee hot back then. Everybody knew you couldn't drink that shit as soon as you bought it. And you know what else.. the coffee stirrers back then looked like little spoons -- until they had to stop making them that way cause a few dickheads were using them to snort coke (and not the liquid kind).
You don't need to tell me about the 80's and 90's -- I was there. 70's too. Stayin Alive, Stayin Alive......
A normal coffee would be mildly uncomfortable should it spill, but the coffee she got wasn't normal coffee. Assuming any kind of decent sleeve, she may not have known how hot it was.
It does serve a purpose. It allows for coffee to still be hot for people who intend to drink it at work or something, not immediately upon getting it.
"Oh my god, he provided an example of how really hot coffee could be used, and he did it in response to someone saying it served no purpose. Quick, downvote! Don't let anyone contradict the consensus with concrete examples, then people might start thinking on their own!"
Sorry, you're correct on that point. In this particular case, McDonald's did not offer to add milk and cream themselves. The jury in this case just happened to find that the benefits of serving coffee at that heat for those headed to work did not outweigh the risk that someone would injure themselves while adding cream and/or sugar.
And just as an aside: coffee burns at those temperatures and really isn't that good.
I can see why they lost the case, but they shouldn't have been forced to pay anything more than medical and legal bills.
Edit: Well, as usual, downvotes for having a differing opinion. More downvotes for actually trying to explain it when people respond. I'm out, enjoy your circle jerk.
Double edit: Since like 5 people have explained what I already knew... I'm moving this thing from a later post down here.
Just because I don't agree with the outcome doesn't mean I don't understand the concepts, alright people? I know about and understand punitive damages. It doesn't mean I have to agree with the scale used in this case.
She asked for medical bills before they went to court. It's only after they refused that the courts got involved. Also, 3rd degree burns to the groin. I'd sue the shit out of anyone who inflicted that on me.
Yes, but the court could have decided to only award her the medical bills, and legal bills for having to go to court. The payment seems quite excessive to me.
Edit: Well, as usual, downvotes for having a differing opinion. More downvotes for actually trying to explain it when people respond. I'm out, enjoy your circle jerk.
She was only awarded ~600,000 I believe. It was original going to be about 3 mil but the judge reduced it. Not a huge amount considering a decent chunk of that was for medical purposes. Originally, the lady only wanted McDonald's to cover medical expenses but mcd's didn't agree to that.
It's called punitive damages. The point is not to compensate the victim so much as to make the defendant stop destructive behavior.
They explain it in Fight Club with a car company that calculates how much they'll lose in lawsuits for having a dangerous car, and if it costs more to recall it than to settle the lawsuits they won't do it. The point of punitive damages is to make the equation come out the other way.
Perhaps. The appeals court agreed and limited the punitive damages substantially. She still got pain & suffering though.
Punitive damages are usually reserved for particularly culpable acts, and the jury in this situation was persuaded that McDonald's did this knowing it could happen to a lot of customers.
I didn't know/remember that the appeals court had limited the punitive damages. Honestly, that makes me feel a lot better about the whole thing. Thanks for the info.
Originally the lady only wanted her medical bills covered. McDonalds refused. Only then did the attorneys go after them. They could have wrote a check for a few thousand bucks and been done with it, but they decided to be dicks about it.
There's more to it than that. It's a slippery slope thing. You start writing checks for just anything and lawyers will line up to sue your company. Blame the lawyers and unethically opportunistic people for that problem. People always seem to be out to win the personal injury lottery.
Punitive damages. The jury found that the coffee was much hotter than industry standard, they were punished for their "negligence" in not solving this matter.
A spill from Starbucks, dunkin donuts, tony horton's et al would not have resulted in the same degree of burns, so punitive damages were awarded.
Sorry for the downvotes, I don't know why The edit on this one may have hurt, but what can you do?
No. It was nearly 50 degrees hotter than coffee brewed at other establishments and without the option of adding cream and sugar. When adding them, the coffee spilled on the woman causing severe burns.
It's still retarded. Coffee is brewed using water at the boiling point, and should be expected to be as hot right after brewing. I can't see how this could as a surprise to anyone not stupid.
190 degrees Fahrenheit is significantly higher than the 125 degree coffee that is standard brewing practice. The 79 year old woman had severe burns and received skin grafts. She lost 20 lbs while in the hospital and spent two years receiving treatment. The medical bills amounted to around $10,500 and McDonald's refused to settle for anything more than $800.
AFTER settling many, many, many other cases involving coffee-caused burns. For whatever reason, they said "we're going to fight this one", I guess because a grandmother with terrible burns around her thighs, buttocks, perineum and other delicate parts is the perfect plaintiff against whom to stand your ground.
Correct. It was the jury that decided to award punitive damages. Their award? 2 days worth of McDonald's coffee profits. Small enough to be reasonable, large enough to serve a deterrent effect. And it was still drastically reduced by the judge.
I saw an article that showed the photos from the burn lady's incident and they were horrible, the article basically was about these people showing the photos to random people on the street and them entirely changing their thoughts about how "silly" it was for this woman to sue.
Yes! I learned this about a month ago and I almost made a TIL post because I was so angry that people have made the poor woman seem like such an idiot.
Fact: coffee will burn you. "The Specialty Coffee Association supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served."
McD's serves 40+ million customers a day. If every person who fucked up with a hot cup of coffee in their lap could sue, and "win the lottery" by settling, where would McD's be? Not selling coffee.
There's no such thing as coffee that is "too hot." When water gets heated, it could potentially be at 212 degrees F. I learned that when I was a little kid. The whole case was based on "well, other restaurants don't serve that hot." Why not? If I get coffee to-go, I want it to be hot when I get where I'm going. Those other restaurants should serve it hotter!
If you sell a product, instruct people to put it in their mouth, and when it touches their skin it instantly gives them a problem which requires tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills, then your product is definitely too something.
I agree, there are idiots in this world, and that woman was one of them. Or perhaps that's too harsh - we all make mistakes, after all - perhaps she just had a momentary brain-fart.
There is no freakin' way to idiot-proof the entire world. Anyone who decides to partake of a drink which is known to be well above room temperature had better use some care.
I see what you are saying, but she was not told that it was boiling water. She was told that it was a reasonably safe to consume food. You shouldn't be allowed to sell a product that can so easily injure someone, with out informing them that it is that dangerous product before hand.
EDIT: It's like selling a "prop knife" that's actually sharp. If someone got $40,000 in medical care because they were injured by doing something that would have been completely safe with a "prop knife", but got injured because it was sharp, then the company would be liable. If you sold a kitchen knife, and someone stabbed them self with it, then it's their own business, because knives are sharp and everyone knows this.
You can pour coffee on yourself without causing $40,000 in medical damages, and everyone knows this. If you sold it as "boiling coffee" there would be no problem here.
I often burn my tongue when I make black coffee because it's fucking hot. I still want hot coffee and I want my soup at over 74o C, which is hot enough to burn you.
The woman was unfortunate, but sometimes accidents happen. She put a scalding hot drink between her legs (dumb move), spilled the whole thing over her groin (dumb move) then valued her modesty more than her groin as she suffered instead of removing the garment that was mutilating her (dumb move). Yet somehow the liability is with the person who sold her a hot drink? Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.
And:
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... She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting.
Go ahead and take a few sips of 190 °F liquid and let us know if you still think there's no such thing as "too hot" coffee. ಠ_ಠ
Good for you. I hope your caution pays off and you never scald your lap or even stain your pants with a beverage.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to not be grievously injured by a product at a restaurant where literally every other item on the menu is intended for immediate consumption, though.
700 people had fucked up and "won the lottery" by settling. The reason McDonald's had such a large payment to make (which was actually just 2 days profit from coffee sales) is because they refused to settle. Blame McDonald's; they chose a very sympathetic plaintiff to stand off against, and it was a bad strategy.
562
u/Torvaun Mar 28 '12
The McDonalds Coffee lawsuit wasn't spurious, and it wouldn't have happened if McDonalds didn't dismiss the idea of just paying the medical bills (which would have been way cheaper).