McDonald's and Hot Coffee

[LurkerDan]

This is for you sfsdfd; I know everytime this subject comes up you always have to correct people's ideas about this case.

Anyway, I was curious and did some research about this "famous" case (which has no published opinions). Here are a few facts:

The woman had 3rd degree burns on a significant part of her body. Do you think spilled coffee should give you third degree burns?

Evidence showed that McDonald's kept their coffee about 20 degrees hotter than other restaurants, (which is *more* than 20 degrees hotter than your average home coffeee maker). Furthermore, risk of serious burns goes up dramatically as the temperature goes up. They knew this because they had been subject to similiar suits before (see below).

The woman, a lifelong Republican, tried, unsuccessfully, for almost 2 years to settle with McDonald's for a paltry sum. In fact, she didn't want a lawyer and had never sued anyone in her 79 years. She just wanted medical expenses, nothing else. She hired the lawyer only after McDonald's offered $800 with nary an apology or assurance that they would lower the temp (medical expenses were over *$20k*, and she spent 7 days in the hospital and had to undergo some very painful skin grafts).

The most damning part was that McDonald's had fielded over 700 complaints about coffee being too hot prior to this woman's injury. In fact, they had already been subject to similar suits that they had settled (why they wouldn't settle this one is beyond me). They knew of the medical risks, knew that people had been harmed, yet chose to do nothing.

When you read some of the real stuff about this case, it seems as legit as many others. But, unfortunately, it was latched onto as the poster child for the lack of personal responsibility in our society, and the liberal media ;) misportrayed the facts to feed into that.

[Porno Star]

So did she win the lawsuit...and how much was she awarded?

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by Porno Star
So did she win the lawsuit...and how much was she awarded?

Oh, sorry, I assumed it was common knowledge. Guess I shouldn't assume. :) She was awarded almos $3million, which is got everybody pissed off. Most of it was punitive damages, as the jury was trying to penalize McD's for their wilfull disregard for the danger.

The trial judge reduced the award to $480k, and they settled for about $600k.

[Groucho]

The bottom line is this: the woman spilled the coffee due to her own negligence (she was riding around in a car with the cup between her legs...come on!) How is that McDonald's fault? Had she been more careful, this never would have happened.

I bet the 700 complaints they received about the "too hot" coffee would dwarf the number of complaints they would received if it was 20 degrees cooler. I also wouldn't be surprised if the burned woman was one of the one's complaining. If my coffee is too hot, I can wait for it to cool. If it's too cold, there's nothing I can do unless I have a microwave handy.

[thejammy]

that is amazing

[Myster X]

Only in America.....

[beavismom]

Actually, she was a passenger, not the driver. Another common misconception about this.

[huzefa]

So out of the millions of people who drink Mcdonald's coffee, 700 felt that it was too hot. Big deal. I don't know about these 700 people, but when I sip the coffee and it's too hot, I let it cool down a bit; I don't just jump in and burn myself. I don't see a danger here; the woman should have been more careful.

[huzefa]

Originally posted by beavismom
Actually, she was a passenger, not the driver. Another common misconception about this.

So why didn't she sue the driver?

[namja]

Originally posted by LurkerDan
The most damning part was that McDonald's had fielded over 700 complaints about coffee being too hot prior to this woman's injury. In fact, they had already been subject to similar suits that they had settled (why they wouldn't settle this one is beyond me). They knew of the medical risks, knew that people had been harmed, yet chose to do nothing.
McDonald's was negligent because using the Hand Rule:

If C < p x D, then it is negligence

C = cost of preventing the harm
p = probability of harm occuring
D = amount of damage if harm occurs

McDonald's realized this, but they were (according to their internal research) going to make MILLIONS more by making the coffee hotter. So they were willing to take the risk of causing more harm so they can make money. This is what really pissed off the jury.

[beavismom]

Originally posted by huzefa


So why didn't she sue the driver?

Because the driver wasn't negligent. I am as much against frivolous lawsuits as the next person, but I think McDonalds was wrong here. If I remember correctly, McDonalds had been told to turn down the temperature on their coffee, but hadn't done it. Not only that, I think the lid didn't fit properly or something to that effect.

[General Zod]

I agree with Groucho. I don't care if she never sued anyone before in her life, or if McDonalds served their coffee 20 degrees hotter than they were supposed to. When you purchase a coffee you expect it to be piping hot, and you expect that if you spill it on yourself that you will get burned. So you be careful. If your not careful - then its your fault.

If the coffee was so hot that it ate through the cup or something then I would see how McDonalds would be at fault.. but in this case I see someone who did something stupid and just simply blamed someone else. Sort of the trend these days...

[huzefa]

Originally posted by beavismom


Because the driver wasn't negligent. I am as much against frivolous lawsuits as the next person, but I think McDonalds was wrong here. If I remember correctly, McDonalds had been told to turn down the temperature on their coffee, but hadn't done it. Not only that, I think the lid didn't fit properly or something to that effect.

If the driver wasn't negligent (and didn't brake too hard or something), then we're back to the woman. She held it between her legs, no? Could she have possibly squeezed her legs together too much causing the lid to fall off and the coffee to burn herself?

[benedict]

I accept the negligently/wilfully over-heating point - and recollect that some blame attached to the woman concerned and reduced the award because of the stupid way she placed the hot drink in a moving vehicle - however....

.... perhaps they should just stop selling hot drinks to "take out" customers: I really dislike being served tepid drinks way below the temperature of those that I make for myself. In a restaurant I can make a drink cooler either by time, blowing or adding more milk <b>but I cannot make it hotter</b> :(

[huzefa]

Originally posted by benedict

.... perhaps they should just stop selling hot drinks to "take out" customers: I really dislike being served tepid drinks way below the temperature of those that I make for myself. In a restaurant I can make a drink cooler either by time, blowing or adding more milk <b>but I cannot make it hotter</b> :(

Because of a few people they should change the way people drink their beverages? Nobody's gonna buy room-temperature coffee from McDonald's; that makes no sense.

[beavismom]

Do you realize how hot something has to be to cause 3rd degree burns? I understand that people like to have their beverages hot, but that is an unreasonable temperature. Let me give you an idea how hot that had to be...

When I was about 10 I was getting ready to eat a chicken pot pie and not paying attention to what I was doing. I dumped said chicken pot pie into the bowl but missed and hit my lap instead. The oven hot, sludgelike gravy instantly molded to my inner thighs. I won't go into any more detail, but this only caused 2nd degree burns, so in my mind that coffee was way too hot.

edited to add- no we didn't sue.

[benedict]

<b>huzefa</b>, I am served with tepid beverages at various eateries.

I suspect that this is because of lawsuits such as the one being discussed as I don't recall this always having been the case.

I, too, think it is ridiculous that my drink is served below my preferred temperature and so my (only half-serious) suggestion that they stop selling "hot" drinks to "mobile" customers was made in that spirit.

(Of course we still have to contend with all the klutzes who will spill their drinks over themselves while seated at a restaurant and seek to blame someone else for their carelessness).

[LurkerDan]

She never denied being responsible. SHe admitted as such to McD's long before suing. She didn't sue the driver of the car because he had nothing to do with the injury (I don't even think they were moving at the time).

BTW, the jury did find her 20% negligent, and the award was reduced accordingly. They did decide that she was partly at fault for spilling the coffee.

Huzefa and Grouch and others: It's not just that their coffee was too hot. If you are always given coffee that is 140 degrees, you have a *reasonable expectation* that coffee is always around that temperature, and that if spilled on you it will burn you. If you are then given coffee that is 165 degrees, and the burns that one would receive from spilling THAT coffee are exponentially more severe, that is a valid claim. She didn't just get burned. She admitted that that would be expected. She got very severe and extensive 3rd degree burns, that required a week of hospitalization! Do you seriously believe that the coffee that you drink every day would do that to you if you spilled it? I expect my coffee to be piping hot

The 700 complaints weren't just "ooh your coffee's too hot", it was "hey, your coffee is dangerously hot, and people are getting seriously injured out there". As I noted, there had even been similar lawsuits where the danger was acknowledged, yet McD's chose to do nothing.

Look at it this way. Let's say you buy a gun. Guns can kill, and loaded guns almost inherently pose some danger to those around them. Lets say your gun is loaded, and when you shoot it the bullet goes 30 degrees off target, hitting your friend (who should not have been standing there anyways). You determine that the gun is defective because it fires in the worng direction, and you discover the manufacturer has fielded numerous complaints and suits to this effect, yet has done nothing despite the fact that people are being injured. It's a gun, it shoots bullets, and when you shoot a loaded gun you expect that people in front of the gun will get hit? But your friend, although he shouldn't have been standing where he was, had a reasonable expectation that a gun pointed 30 degrees away would not hit him regardless of whether he should have been standing there. And furthermore, when it becomes apparent that the manufacturer had repeated warnings about the defect, and did nothing, I'd say they should pay...

That is exactly analogous to this, and BTW, if you haven't figured it out, her claim wasn't negligence, it was a products liability suit...

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by benedict
I really dislike being served tepid drinks way below the temperature of those that I make for myself. In a restaurant I can make a drink cooler either by time, blowing or adding more milk <b>but I cannot make it hotter</b> :(

She was served a drink that was more than 20 degrees hotter than that served by other restaurants (and remember, this was pre-this lawsuit, so the coffee at those other places wasn't likely lukewarm because of fear of liability). Also, the coffee she was served was over 20 degrees hotter than the typical home coffee maker. 140 degree liquid is not tepid or lukewarm (typical coffee), yet she was served liquid kept at 180 degrees...

[General Zod]

Originally posted by LurkerDan
BTW, the jury did find her 20% negligent, and the award was reduced accordingly. They did decide that she was partly at fault for spilling the coffee.
Who was 80% negligent and also at fault for spilling the coffee? I'm just wondering..

Also, the coffee wasn't "defective" - it was just too hot. In the example you gave you fired the gun and used it properly, and didn't do some bonehead thing with it that caused the problem. This lady did a bonehead thing - she spilled it all over herself!. The cup wasn't defective.. I don't think the analogy was good at all.

[Red Dog]

Originally posted by LurkerDan
BTW, the jury did find her 20% negligent, and the award was reduced accordingly. They did decide that she was partly at fault for spilling the coffee.




That was the part I never knew about this case since I didn't know what state she sued in. I figured that there was no way that she could be suing in a contributory negligence state (such as MD - where I am licensed) because I assumed that a court would find her at least partially responsible. I was also curious to know what % of fault was attributed to her under comparative negligence. I probably would have guessed 1/4 to 1/3.

[Caoimhin]

I'm a firm believer that if you hold a cup of anything between your legs, you deserve to have it in your lap. Hot beverages, cold beverages, caustic/acidic beverages, you take your chances.

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by beavismom
Do you realize how hot something has to be to cause 3rd degree burns? I understand that people like to have their beverages hot, but that is an unreasonable temperature.

No they obviously don't realize :), but that's the evidence that was presented at trial...

BTW, most of the jurors admitted that they were very skeptical of her claims going into the trial, but were convinced by the evidence. Also, a judge who served as a mediator at a pre-trial settlement conference advised McD's to settle for $225k, so it's not as if it was a frivolous claim...

[Groucho]

Originally posted by LurkerDan
BTW, the jury did find her 20% negligent, and the award was reduced accordingly. They did decide that she was partly at fault for spilling the coffee.I agree that McDonald's was partially responsible...the coffee was in fact too hot. However the jury decided the wrong way...they should have only received 20% responsibility and the woman 80%. None of this would have happened if she hadn't behaved like a total dumbass. What is this country coming too when you are rewarded for your own stupidity?

[Red Dog]

Originally posted by LurkerDan

That is exactly analogous to this, and BTW, if you haven't figured it out, her claim wasn't negligence, it was a products liability suit...


...and that definitely makes a huge difference in assigning blame to a defendant.

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by General Zod
Also, the coffee wasn't "defective" - it was just too hot. In the example you gave you fired the gun and used it properly, and didn't do some bonehead thing with it that caused the problem. This lady did a bonehead thing - she spilled it all over herself!. The cup wasn't defective.. I don't think the analogy was good at all.

I did do something boneheaded with the gun, I fired it with someone standing in front of me, even if not directly in front of me. That's a no-no in gun land, I'm quite sure.

And, how is "too hot" not a potential defect? Every product has characteristics. For food products, temperature is a characteristic just as much as how a gun sights/aims is a characteristic for guns. Any characteristic of a product that causes injury could be a defect and lead to a products liability suit.

[namja]

Hey, McDonald's KNEW it caused a lot of problems, but they determined that the hotter coffee would make them MILLIONS more after they paid out the settlements. I'm glad she sued McDonald's.

[Red Dog]

Originally posted by LurkerDan

And, how is "too hot" not a potential defect? Every product has characteristics. For food products, temperature is a characteristic just as much as how a gun sights/aims is a characteristic for guns. Any characteristic of a product that causes injury could be a defect and lead to a products liability suit.


Correct. Had this one particular McD's been serving their coffee 20 degrees hotter, then you might have negligence. The fact that this was a company-wide suggestion/policy pushes it into the product liability area.

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by Groucho
I agree that McDonald's was partially responsible...the coffee was in fact too hot. However the jury decided the wrong way...they should have only received 20% responsibility and the woman 80%. None of this would have happened if she hadn't behaved like a total dumbass. What is this country coming too when you are rewarded for your own stupidity?

I sorta agree with you, but look at what would have happened if the coffee was the correct temp (i.e. she was 100% responsible). She would have had minor burns that would have stung for a few hours, maybe. McDonald's 20% responsibility, if we accept your view, leads to enormous damage that would not have occurred but for their error. That seems to weigh in favor of a percentage greater than 20%. And yes, I realize you could change things around in my hypo and say what would have been her injury if she hadn't of spilled. However, consider the fact that McD's surely knew that *some* people would spill (i.e. probability of harm was very high), yet still did nothing. That weighs strongly against McD's.

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by Red Dog
Correct. Had this one particular McD's been serving their coffee 20 degrees hotter, then you might have negligence. The fact that this was a company-wide suggestion/policy pushes it into the product liability area.

Exactly, it was a company policy. And that's why I pointed out that it was a products liability suit, not a simple negligence tort... :)

[General Zod]

Originally posted by LurkerDan
I did do something boneheaded with the gun, I fired it with someone standing in front of me, even if not directly in front of me. That's a no-no in gun land, I'm quite sure.

And, how is "too hot" not a potential defect? Every product has characteristics. For food products, temperature is a characteristic just as much as how a gun sights/aims is a characteristic for guns. Any characteristic of a product that causes injury could be a defect and lead to a products liability suit.
All i'm trying to say is when you fired the gun you had no way of knowing it would hit your friend. But, when you spill hot coffee on your lap - you should expect to get burned. I think your point is that she shouldn't have expected to get burned as badly as she did or she probably would have been more careful?

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by General Zod
All i'm trying to say is when you fired the gun you had no way of knowing it would hit your friend. But, when you spill hot coffee on your lap - you should expect to get burned. I think your point is that she shouldn't have expected to get burned as badly as she did or she probably would have been more careful?

When I fire the gun, I should know that what I am doing is ill-advised, but will almost certainly lead to no damage. When she spilled hot coffee, she knew that doing so is ill-advised, but will almost certainly lead to only minimal damage. The 2 are exactly analogous. The actor has done something dumb that typically does little (coffee) or no (gun) damage, but for the defect of the product, which becomes the primary reason that the damages are significant.

[YellowLedbetter]

Isn't it true that the award the jury gave was based on the amount of coffee sales that McDonald's makes in 1 or 2 days??

And that the company policy to keep the coffee so close to BOILING was so that customers wouldn't take advantage of the free refills policy?

Why doesn't anyone worry about McDonald's taking responsibility for its greed?

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by YellowLedbetter
Isn't it true that the award the jury gave was based on the amount of coffee sales that McDonald's makes in 1 or 2 days??

And that the company policy to keep the coffee so close to BOILING was so that customers wouldn't take advantage of the free refills policy?

Your first point is exactly true. Evidence was presented that McD's makes $1.35 mil every day on coffee, and the punitive damages award was based, acoording to the jury, on 2 days of coffee profits. Some jurors apparently wanted to go for a week of coffee! :eek:

As for your 2nd point, I had heard that as well. However, I did not come across that as a reason in the research I did, although it may still be the case.

[logrus9]

Following the logic of product liability - every auto make in the world should be waiting to get sued. They continue to produce cars that exceed the speed limit, and studies show that death and injury increase exponentially as speed increases above 55 mph. So if I'm doing 70 and slam into a tree, my family can sue GM because they made a car that is capable of going 70 mph. Now if I happen to drive a Corvette, and slam into a tree at 130 mph, they can sue for 10X as much because they blatantly built a performance car to make money and ignored the potential danger.

:hscratch:

[Red Dog]

Originally posted by logrus9
Following the logic of product liability - every auto make in the world should be waiting to get sued. They continue to produce cars that exceed the speed limit, and studies show that death and injury increase exponentially as speed increases above 55 mph. So if I'm doing 70 and slam into a tree, my family can sue GM because they made a car that is capable of going 70 mph. Now if I happen to drive a Corvette, and slam into a tree at 130 mph, they can sue for 10X as much because they blatantly built a performance car to make money and ignored the potential danger.

:hscratch:


Yes but the purchaser knows that the car can exceed the speed limit. They choose to speed. The purchaser of McD's coffee has absolutely no warning or expectation that McD's serves their coffee at temperatures that far exceed typical coffee.

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by logrus9
Following the logic of product liability - every auto make in the world should be waiting to get sued. They continue to produce cars that exceed the speed limit, and studies show that death and injury increase exponentially as speed increases above 55 mph. So if I'm doing 70 and slam into a tree, my family can sue GM because they made a car that is capable of going 70 mph. Now if I happen to drive a Corvette, and slam into a tree at 130 mph, they can sue for 10X as much because they blatantly built a performance car to make money and ignored the potential danger.:hscratch:

Poor analogy. It has to do with what one's reasonable expectations are about the product, and whether the product in question meets them. My reaonable expectation is that my car can go 70mph. Plus, my reasonable expectation is that if my car slams into a tree at 70mph (or 130mph -eek-), I will be hurt. However, if I am on the highway, going 70, and step on the brakes and they barely work, and I can't hold the curve and slam into a tree, then I might have a suit, because my reaonable expectation is that the car can go 70, but also that the brakes will perform and I will be able to stop in a reasonable distance.

[logrus9]

Originally posted by LurkerDan


Poor analogy. It has to do with what one's reasonable expectations are about the product, and whether the product in question meets them. My reaonable expectation is that my car can go 70mph. Plus, my reasonable expectation is that if my car slams into a tree at 70mph (or 130mph -eek-), I will be hurt. However, if I am on the highway, going 70, and step on the brakes and they barely work, and I can't hold the curve and slam into a tree, then I might have a suit, because my reaonable expectation is that the car can go 70, but also that the brakes will perform and I will be able to stop in a reasonable distance.

Not really, McDonalds coffee has always been hot, as shown by the previous lawsuits. Since their equipment is standardized, it seems safe to assume that it is true nationwide. Was this the womans' first time ever buying McDonalds coffee?

As for cars, my reasonable asumption is that if the car can do 130 the manufacturer has made it safe to do so.

It was said that McDonalds was negligent because they ignored the danger of serving extremely hot coffee because it meant greater sales. Therefore, GM is negligent because they build a car that is capable of 130 because it means increased sales and they ignore they danger.

When McDonalds sells coffee they don't intend for the buyer to spill it on themselves. They put a lid on the coffee to try and prevent this from happening.
When GM sells me a Corvette they don't intend for me to lose control. They put brakes on the car to allow me to stop it.

However, because McDonalds makes their coffee hotter, and GM makes their car faster they are at fault (to a degree)

[Dead]

She bought the coffee, she knew it was very hot, she spilled the coffee, she should have been responsible.

[beavismom]

Originally posted by logrus9


Not really, McDonalds coffee has always been hot, as shown by the previous lawsuits. Since their equipment is standardized, it seems safe to assume that it is true nationwide. Was this the womans' first time ever buying McDonalds coffee?

As for cars, my reasonable asumption is that if the car can do 130 the manufacturer has made it safe to do so.

It was said that McDonalds was negligent because they ignored the danger of serving extremely hot coffee because it meant greater sales. Therefore, GM is negligent because they build a car that is capable of 130 because it means increased sales and they ignore they danger.

When McDonalds sells coffee they don't intend for the buyer to spill it on themselves. They put a lid on the coffee to try and prevent this from happening.
When GM sells me a Corvette they don't intend for me to lose control. They put brakes on the car to allow me to stop it.

However, because McDonalds makes their coffee hotter, and GM makes their car faster they are at fault (to a degree)


You have a choice about how fast you drive your car. She didn't have a choice about how hot the coffee was served. Following your logic McDonalds could serve boiling coffee which I hope you would agree is not safe.

Once again, I have to point out that this coffee wasn't just hot, it caused 3rd degree burns. This isn't just getting the roof of your mouth burned by a slice of pizza. As the jury decided, yes, she shared some of the blame, but McDonalds continued to serve the coffee even though they knew it was hot enough to cause someone serious injury if it spilled (which was very likely to occur some of the time).

Also, since the issue of her having it between her legs in the car came up for debate. Would it be any less worse if she were dining in and it got knocked into her lap by accident there?

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by logrus9
Not really, McDonalds coffee has always been hot, as shown by the previous lawsuits. Since their equipment is standardized, it seems safe to assume that it is true nationwide. Was this the womans' first time ever buying McDonalds coffee?


I don't know that, and maybe that would be a valid defense, i.e. yes our coffee is unreasonably hot, but this person knew that. However, she can't be expected to know the *precise* medical danger posed by the temp (and they did), plus products liability suits are strict liability, IIRC, so such a defense might not work...

Originally posted by logrus9
As for cars, my reasonable asumption is that if the car can do 130 the manufacturer has made it safe to do so.


Your assumption would be, I think, that the manufacturer has made it as safe as is reasonable, not perfectly safe. Of course, the fact that driving 130 is against the law might play a role, since the law is a safety law. Nevertheless, it wouldn't give them license to skimp on the brakes. You expect the car to stop in a reasonable distance, to handle in a manner reasonable for that speed, etc. You don't expect the car to be perfectly safe at that speed, just as safe as is reasonable given the conditions.

Originally posted by logrus9
When McDonalds sells coffee they don't intend for the buyer to spill it on themselves. They put a lid on the coffee to try and prevent this from happening.
When GM sells me a Corvette they don't intend for me to lose control. They put brakes on the car to allow me to stop it.

However, because McDonalds makes their coffee hotter, and GM makes their car faster they are at fault (to a degree)

Again, I think you are ignoring what the reasonable expectations of the consumer are. First off, anyone driving 130 is in total violation of the law, so contributory negligence will almost surely bar any recovery. Drinking coffee is not a violation. :) The expectations of the coffee drinker are vastly different than the speedster. That is one clear difference. Furthermore, it's all about expectations. What do you expect when you buy coffee? What do you expect if you accidently spill it on yourself? I expect it to be hot, and expect to be mildly burned when I spill it. I don't expect 3rd degree burns. What do you expect when you buy a car, say a sports car? You expect that it can go fast, sure, but you also expect that if you go fast your risk of accident will also go up. You expect that its brakes will work reasonably well at that speed, and it will handle as well as can be expected at that speed. What you don't expect is that the brakes will fail, or some other defect, not connected to normal driving, will force you to lose control.

Reasonable expectations about the performance or failure of a product are what differentiate your example from the coffee...

[RandyC]

Is is about expectations. I drive with coffee between my legs very often. Damn_MR2s do not have cup holders. And I have spilled coffee on myself, and I expect some pain. I can right now pour the coffee from my office coffee pot on my skin and expect it to get red and slightly burned. Stupid me for doing so.

But nobody expects the coffee to take your skin off. That was much hotter than it was supposed to be.

And if you get tepid coffee now, it has nothing to do with this. That is just someone messed up. I get very hot coffee to go all the time. Starbucks for example does not serve tepid coffee.

We keep having this thread, and the last time I linked to some articles about the case and the graphic description of her injuries.

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by Dead
She bought the coffee, she knew it was very hot, she spilled the coffee, she should have been responsible.

Glad you're wrestling with the legal arguments... ;) How would you respond to my gun hypo above? Is that different to you? How do you address the fact that she knew it was very hot, but didn't know exactly how hot, as compared to other coffee people drink, and didn't know the tremendous medical difference such a difference in temp posed? Especially in light of the fact that McD's knew exactly how much hotter it was, and knew exactly what the medical consequences of that were?

[neale]

She received THIRD DEGREE burns? Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but can't you only get third degree burns from a chemical?

(Seriously, except for the "Have you ever tasted McDonald's coffee?" chemical jokes, can anybody confirm this?)

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally posted by beavismom
Actually, she was a passenger, not the driver. Another common misconception about this.
And the car was still at the time of the accident. Here's a post I made in another thread about this, when people brought up the case:

The 79 year old woman had 3rd degree burns on 6% of her body, including her genitals, groin, and buttocks.

The coffee wasn't merely 'hot'; it was scalding, to the point where it could instantly destroy muscle and flesh

She wasn't driving the car; she was in the passenger seat, trying to take the lid off when it spilled

She tried to settle with them while in the hospital for $20,000. McDonald's refused,

They showed that in a ten year period, they'd had 700 more similar injuries at McDonalds, and McDonalds was aware of it.

McDonalds admitted that its coffee wasn't fit for consumption at the temperature they sold it... 180 degrees

The jury awarded her punitive damages of $2.7 million as well as compensatory damages of $200,000. The damages were reduced later on, so she ended up getting $160,000 compensatory and $480,000 punitive.

The $2.7 million punitive damages award was 2 days worth of coffee sales for McDonalds, so the $480,000 is like a third of a day's worth of coffee sales.

If the coffee had been regular temperature, of course it would have been ridiculous to award her damages. But they were selling coffee, for consumption, at a temperature WAY too high for consumption. That's where they screwed up. If she'd tried to drink it at that temperature, it would have done damage too.

If anything, the punitive damages were too low.

Here's a recap of the case, for those who've only heard about it through the grapevine: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally posted by neale
She received THIRD DEGREE burns? Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but can't you only get third degree burns from a chemical?

You can get them from just about anything, I believe. I think it only means that all the layers of skin are destroyed. One of the med students or actual doctors could undoubtedly answer in more accurate detail.

"Usually third degree burns are caused by contact with hot liquid, flame and electricity."- From http://www.shands.org/find/service/burn/third.htm

[Dead]

Originally posted by LurkerDan
Glad you're wrestling with the legal arguments... ;) How would you respond to my gun hypo above? Is that different to you?

Guns are expected to shoot straight. Coffee is expected to be hot. She got what she ordered, you didn't.

How do you address the fact that she knew it was very hot, but didn't know exactly how hot, as compared to other coffee people drink, and didn't know the tremendous medical difference such a difference in temp posed?

Her stupidity is no more the fault of McDonalds than her carelessness.


Especially in light of the fact that McD's knew exactly how much hotter it was, and knew exactly what the medical consequences of that were?

So, if someone makes a whisky that's stronger than most others, they are to blame for the person who kills themselves, or someone else, because they drank too much? I think not.

She screwed up and she wanted someone else to pay for it. McDonalds screwed up by playing corporate lawyer hard ball with her both in the court and in the eye of the public. Thankfully the courts later reduced the laughable original award to something, that while still more than reasonable, wasn't the gross miscarriage of justice that the original decision awarded.

[Red Dog]

Originally posted by Dead

So, if someone makes a whisky that's stronger than most others, they are to blame for the person who kills themselves, or someone else, because they drank too much? I think not.



Again - that analogy does not work either. The alcohol % of the liquor is on the bottle. That is sufficient warning. If McD's had a sign posted a the drive-thru that said our coffee is brewed at 160 degrees then that would be sufficient warning.

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by Dead
Guns are expected to shoot straight. Coffee is expected to be hot. She got what she ordered, you didn't.


Guns are supposed to shoot straight, and coffee is supposed to be hot. Not very helpful. How straight is straight? What is "hot"? What if I aimed 2 feet to the right of my friend and the gun fired 2 feet to the left. Thus, the gun is defective, it didn't fire straight, but at some point you would have to say that it is my fault and not the gun manufacturers. And the converse, that at some point it is the manufacturers fault for making a gun that fires off target.

So, Yes, coffee is supposed to be hot. But how hot is hot? Can McD's serve boiling coffee to their customers, with no possibility of liability, even though my Mr. Coffee at home prepares coffee about 80 degrees cooler? If you think they can serve boiling coffee, then our argument is over. But if you don't, then you have to decide at what point the coffee passes from "hot" to too hot.

In other words, "straightness" and "temperature" are characteristsics of the 2 products, respectively. Each of these characteristics has a range of acceptable values, and when the characteristics of a single one of these products falls outside that range, then liability should follow. So, how hot is hot, and how straight is straight? Simply throwing out those adjectives without definition doesn't advance the argument.

Originally posted by Dead
So, if someone makes a whisky that's stronger than most others, they are to blame for the person who kills themselves, or someone else, because they drank too much? I think not.

Bad example. Yes, they would be to blame if their whiskey did not indicate it's strength clearly on the bottle. Let's assume that regulations about alcohol didn't exist. If every brewery, and every can of beer, is about 5% alcohol, and one brewery serves beer that is 15% alcohol (I know, beer isn't beer at 15% :)) without informing folks, then someone who went in and drank three beers thinking it was OK, and in reality it was the equivalent of 9 beers that they and everyone else were used to drinking, yes, the brewer would be to blame.

[Dead]

Originally posted by LurkerDan
If every brewery, and every can of beer, is about 5% alcohol, and one brewery serves beer that is 15% alcohol (I know, beer isn't beer at 15% :)) without informing folks, then someone who went in and drank three beers thinking it was OK, and in reality it was the equivalent of 9 beers that they and everyone else were used to drinking, yes, the brewer would be to blame.


Eh, remember, this isn't a first time drinker here. She knew the coffee was very hot. So, it's not the case where the proof has been changed without her knowledge. :)

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally posted by Dead
Her stupidity is no more the fault of McDonalds than her carelessness.
No. It's not. And McDonald's didn't pay a cent for "her stupidity." (Although I would call it clumsiness at worst, not stupidity). The fact of the matter is that, whatever you choose to believe, over what the actual facts are, a jury found her only a fifth at fault as a matter of fact. McDonalds didn't have to pay anything for that fifth of guilt.

What McDonalds did have to pay for was serving a product at a temperature way, WAY over what any reasonable person should expect the temperature to be. Even if she hadn't been clumsy, and merely sipped the coffee (as the product was intended), she would have been burned. McDonalds doesn't get the right to do that. That's why they had to pay compensatory damages. And they had to pay the punitive damages because they knew exactly what sort of risk they were taking with people, and they still kept doing it.

You seem to be saying "if you expect it to be any hot, you shouldn't be able to hold somebody else responsible, no matter how hot it is." That's crazy. If I'm dealing with regular tap water, you know what? I'm not all that careful. Because I know what my risk would be if I spilled it. Same thing if I pay somebody for tap water. If the water is a little bit warmer, I'll reasonably be a little bit more careful. Same for hot. But it's completely unfair to expect a woman to treat a liquid she should be able drink if bought from anywhere else, in reality, with the same amount of care she should treat boiling water.

The only miscarriage of justice was that the punitive damages were reduced. Those are meant to hurt McDonalds and make them change their practices. And I don't think they were enough.

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by Dead
Eh, remember, this isn't a first time drinker here. She knew the coffee was very hot. So, it's not the case where the proof has been changed without her knowledge. :)

I'm not talking about a change of a product that she had consumed before. I'm talking about a rogue brewery (not *the* Rogue Brewery, which makes some fine beer) that doesn't serve the same beer as other places.

Also, do we know if she has had their coffee before? I have never seen that she did (or didn't). Did she have any reason to think their coffee was significantly different than the coffee of other places? Can a reasonable person be expected to know the medical implications of spilling coffee that is 140 degrees versus coffee at 170 degrees? Yes, both will burn, but can a reasonable person detect the difference in temp, and can a reasonable person be expected to know that one will just cause a minor burn, while the other can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds?

[Arden]

Coffee should not be 160-180 degrees F. it should not take ALL the layers of you skin off and land you in the hospital for a week.

What if a 5 year old kid reached up and pulled a boiling cup of coffee off the counter and it hit her in the face blinding her for life. When you purchase food and drink you have a reasonable expectation that It will not maim you! If I spill hot Starbucks on myself I exepect a little pain for a few hours but It should not land me in the hospital! and rack up $20K in medical bills.

I think McDonalds should have had to pay the full amount awarded by the Jury.

[OldDude]

Originally posted by Red Dog



Yes but the purchaser knows that the car can exceed the speed limit. They choose to speed. The purchaser of McD's coffee has absolutely no warning or expectation that McD's serves their coffee at temperatures that far exceed typical coffee.

Nearly every consumer of coffee makes coffee at home. Now, how does a coffee pot work - it boils the water to get it to the top and lets it drip down on the coffee. Granted it cools off a little bit, but if coffee is made by boiling water, guess what temperature it is at just after being made - almost boiling -duh!

If she wanted iced coffee should should have ordered it.

I really think this is more like your car analogy. I think any reasonable person expects coffee to be hot due to the process of making it, and is more likely to complain if it has been allowed to cool too much, especially after considering people who like to add cream and sugar which cools it further.

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by OldDude
Nearly every consumer of coffee makes coffee at home. Now, how does a coffee pot work - it boils the water to get it to the top and lets it drip down on the coffee. Granted it cools off a little bit, but if coffee is made by boiling water, guess what temperature it is at just after being made - almost boiling -duh!

But that's not how it happens. First of all, automatic coffee makers don't boil the water, they just heat it up. Second, when I get a cup of coffee from my Mr. Coffee, it is about 140 degrees, not 212. It never was 212, not even right after brewing.

[RandyC]

Right. As I already posted, if I pour a cup of coffee from my Braun on myself, it will hurt and I will regret it, but it will not take off skin. I have done this. More than once. I am quite the klutz.

My son was severely burned by a cup of coffee once. It put him in the emergency room when he was 4 years old for burns all over his head. It was an accident. But if that coffee was hot enough to take off the skin, and I could demonstrate that the temperature and it's effects were known by the vendor, I too would have sued.

As it was, the coffee was hot, but not out of my reasonable expectation.

[OldDude]

Originally posted by LurkerDan


But that's not how it happens. First of all, automatic coffee makers don't boil the water, they just heat it up. Second, when I get a cup of coffee from my Mr. Coffee, it is about 140 degrees, not 212. It never was 212, not even right after brewing.

Technically, I both agree and disagree. Automatic drip pots propel the water up the tube by heating it to just over 212 F, to get over 1 atm of pressure and propel it up the tube, otherwise the water couldn't move (process is called 'percolating', drip machines do it with the water, percolaters do it with the brewing coffee). It steams a lot and cools some as soon as it comes out of the tube. It cools further while trickle through the coffee, and radiates heat from the (insulated) plastic basket.

It has certainly cooled below 212 by the time it collects in the glass bottom. My drip machine claims to keep it at 160. Now I pour it in a ceramic cup, and the thermal mass probably cools it further. It is certainly too high to drink for a while.

All who think this suit has merit: Please do not come to my house for tea. The proper way to make tea is:
1) Boil lots of water.
2) Pour in teapot to pre-heat (3 minutes), empty teapot into cups to pre-heat them.
3) Put tea leaves in pot and pour new boiling water. Cover in tea cozy and brew five minutes. Due to pre-heating and tea cozy, pot will not cool down much.
4) Dump the hot water from cups and pour hot tea. When it cools enough to drink (your temp. may vary) enjoy.

[RandyC]

Actually oldone, I might expect that with homemade tea. I will also boil the water.

Again it falls under reasonable expectations. And it's not reasonable to be concerned about coffee from a fast food place sloughing off your skin if it gets on you.

[johnglass]

I wonder if the effects from the coffee would have been less if this were a younger person. I assume her old skin was much more delicate than a man of say 30 or so.

[FalconH10]

here's an analogy for you.

Say I drive around in a Jeep Cherokee whose engine runs much hotter than a Geo Metro. If I slip while checking my oil and burn my hand am I entitled to money? Just because the Geo Metro wouldn't have burned me in that situation doesn't mean that Jeep has made a defective product. Sure I expected it to be hot, but maybe I didn't expect to get burned because I had owned a Metro and touching the engine resulted in no burns. This lady assumed all coffees should be the same temperature.

Point being no matter how hot the coffee was she should be old enough to know how hot a substance is that she has recieved. If it appears to hot for her liking send it back, if she accepts the product and then spills this "defective" (as if there are standards as to how hot coffee should be) cup of coffee on herself, it is now her problem.

here's a more simple analogy

If I buy a set of knives, trip fall and cut off my finger should the company be responsible? The last set of knives I owned wasn't sharp enough to cut a finger off. The company should have warned me that these knives were much sharper than ordinary knives. People would then yell don't run with knives.

If this had happened to a man in his 40's who was an ******* about it, nothing would have happened.

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally posted by FalconH10
Say I drive around in a Jeep Cherokee whose engine runs much hotter than a Geo Metro. If I slip while checking my oil and burn my hand am I entitled to money? Just because the Geo Metro wouldn't have burned me in that situation doesn't mean that Jeep has made a defective product. Sure I expected it to be hot, but maybe I didn't expect to get burned because I had owned a Metro and touching the engine resulted in no burns. This lady assumed all coffees should be the same temperature. She assumed all coffees made for consumption should all be fit for consumption, not necessarily all the same temperature. Again, what RandyC said about reasonable expectations holds. If no other car made by the industry would have caused the burn, and if the company that made the Jeep knew their product had already caused numerous injuries (yet chose to do nothing about it), then I wouldn't have a problem saying the company was liable for not, at least, putting a warning sticker there. But if your expectations are based solely on what has happened with one other car, those expectations are not necessarily reasonable, and a much better argument could be made against recovery.

Point being no matter how hot the coffee was she should be old enough to know how hot a substance is that she has recieved. If it appears to hot for her liking send it back, if she accepts the product and then spills this "defective" (as if there are standards as to how hot coffee should be) cup of coffee on herself, it is now her problem.And how exactly do you think she should have determined that this coffee was too hot, in order to send it back? She was taking the lid off of the cup to add cream and sugar when it spilled. Who's in a better place to prevent the harm? The company that KNOWS what temperature the coffee is, and that's on notice that the temperature caused injuries, or the woman who's just been handed an insulated cup and is in the process of removing the lid?

If I buy a set of knives, trip fall and cut off my finger should the company be responsible? The last set of knives I owned wasn't sharp enough to cut a finger off. The company should have warned me that these knives were much sharper than ordinary knives. People would then yell don't run with knives. Again, you're using "expectations", not "reasonable expectations." If the last set of knives you owned indeed wasn't sharp enough to cut off fingers, that's somewhat of an anomaly. A reasonable person's expectations, when using knives, is to be extremely careful, because a mishap could result in anything from no injury up to death. No further warnings are needed. I don't know how many people would reasonably expect to die from drinking coffee, but because of the risk of infection (especially with the elderly), that actually could be a risk from the 3rd degree burns suffered. If I knew I could die, or even be scalded down to the bone from drinking coffee, even if somebody bumped me through no fault of my own, I would never drink coffee.

If this had happened to a man in his 40's who was an ******* about it, nothing would have happened. Then that would be a failure of justice, assuming the injuries were the same. He should recover just as much as the woman did.

[benedict]

In my earlier posts I had acknowledged the fact that McDonalds had contributed by virtue of the temperature settings on their machines which had been the cause of earlier problems. My beef was the apparent effect it had on <i>me</i>. Perhaps I should ask the eateries I patronise why they so often serve me with a lukewarm beverage: before now I have wondered if their machines had been adapted to avoid the risk of a lawsuit.

Sometimes <s><strike>out of laziness</s></strike> through wishing to conserve energy I will boil a single cup of water in the microwave. I'll then add instant coffee and will occasionally drink this without milk. It is hot. FYI I do not nestle this beverage between my legs.

Anyway, enough of this legal chit-chat: I'm off to <b>OldDude</b>'s for a cuppa :)

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by johnglass
I wonder if the effects from the coffee would have been less if this were a younger person. I assume her old skin was much more delicate than a man of say 30 or so.

Actually, that was a point that McD's raised. As you can probably imagine, however, it didn't play well with a jury. "What we did was ok because she's old" Besides, they had notice that the coffee could cause such serious burns, regardless of age...

As a side note, I would just like to point out that a skeptical jury (many of them admitted they were predisposed to dismissing the complaint at first) ended up awarding her this much, AND a judge serving as a mediator recommended to McDonald's that they settle for $225k. Why? Because the legal theories support her claim, and I have a feeling that if any of you who think she shouldn't recover did your duty on a jury in this case, I bet you would give her the cash too...

[namja]

McDonald's determined that the hotter coffee would sell a lot more.
McDonald's knew that the hotter coffee would cause more severe injury when spilled.
After implementation of the hotter coffee, there were hundreds of complaints due to the coffee being too hot.
McDonald's decided to ignore the complaints since they figured that they would still make more money, even after settling all the lawsuits.


McDonald's got off too easy. They should have been stuck with all the punitive damages.

[benedict]

Originally posted by namja
McDonald's determined that the hotter coffee would sell a lot more.I should preface this by saying that I am usually against the cynical actions of XYZ Megacorp.... but does that first bullet point mean that people, generally, liked the hotter coffee or does it mean something else?

[namja]

Originally posted by benedict
I should preface this by saying that I am usually against the cynical actions of XYZ Megacorp.... but does that first bullet point mean that people, generally, liked the hotter coffee or does it mean something else?
McDonald's internal marketing research found that they could sell more coffee if they made their coffee 20 degrees hotter than everyone else's. I don't know their research methodology, but this is the reason why they refused to lower the coffee temperature despite the hundreds of complaints.

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally posted by benedict
I should preface this by saying that I am usually against the cynical actions of XYZ Megacorp.... but does that first bullet point mean that people, generally, liked the hotter coffee or does it mean something else?
I think you're dead right; customers tend to like hotter coffee than colder coffee. That doesn't make any difference, does it?

[entitee]

True people like their coffee hotter and more people may have bought the coffee as a result. Because of this the number of complaints and injuries also would rise in proportion. BUT there's a point where you decide that the danger of the coffee outweighs the positive reaction to it.

i initially think this is a silly case, but there was obviously some kind of evidence to suggest otherwise.

[OldDude]

All right, you've heard the cliche about the picture and the kiloword. I'm an engineer and I believe an experiment that produces relevant data is worth pages of pointless, factless arguing, too, so I ran one. I brewed both tea and coffee and measured temperatures with my electronic meat fork theromoeter, which has been previously calibrated in boilijng and ice water, and is accurate. I didn't really brew the coffee, I just ran the water through in a simulation, but i brewed and drank the tea.

Coffee: Ran 10 cups through Mr Coffee. Measured temperature in brewing basket after five cups had run into pot, measured temperature in pot when it finished brewing, poured a cup and measured cup. Results: Basket, 180° F; Pot, 174° F; Cup, 162° F. Guess I'll refuse service to little old ladies.

Tea: Preheated cup and tea-pot per my earlier note. Brewed tea and recorded temperatures, poured in preheated cup and measured initial temperature (too hot to do anything more than slurp) and measured again when it reached the temperature where I could take small sips. In my judgement, I would complain if it were served colder than this.
Results: End of pre-heat, pot 191° F, cup, 162° F.
Brewing in preheated pot, Initial 206° F, at end of 4 min. brew, 194° F.
Poured cup of tea into preheated cup, initial, 183° F, sipping temperature, 155° F (and min. temperature I would expect to be served).

Of course, individual preferences for drinking it may vary. I think the preparation temperatures are typical, and reflective of service temperatures unless it is left to sit around and cool. Service at 140° F would clearly be unacceptable to me, so any restuarant which does it loses my business.

As a stats professor said, "In God We Trust, All Others Bring Data."

God, I'm a tool.

[John Richmond]

Originally posted by benedict


Sometimes <s><strike>out of laziness</s></strike> through wishing to conserve energy I will boil a single cup of water in the microwave.

I hope you don't boil the water in the microwave without something esle in the cup other than the water. There is a good chance of serious injury if you do.

jr

[OldDude]

Originally posted by John Richmond


I hope you don't boil the water in the microwave without something esle in the cup other than the water. There is a good chance of serious injury if you do.

jr

Umm, superheated water. Brews great tea from teabags, but you do have to watch for sudden boilover when you drop it in.

[beavismom]

For those who think McDonald's isn't at fault at all, how about this analogy.

If all those people who drove Ford Pintos weren't careless and ended up in an accident then their cars wouldn't have exploded. Therefore, Ford shouldn't have been liable.

[OldDude]

Originally posted by LurkerDan


But that's not how it happens. First of all, automatic coffee makers don't boil the water, they just heat it up. Second, when I get a cup of coffee from my Mr. Coffee, it is about 140 degrees, not 212. It never was 212, not even right after brewing.

See my experiment. Recommend you measure with reliable thermoter instead of guessing. I believe you will find your coffee much warmer (especially if poured into styrofoam cup with low thermal mass to cool it. My experiment was heavy (room temperature) ceramic cup, and was still much hotter than your assumed 140.

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally posted by OldDude
See my experiment. Recommend you measure with reliable thermoter instead of guessing. I believe you will find your coffee much warmer (especially if poured into styrofoam cup with low thermal mass to cool it. My experiment was heavy (room temperature) ceramic cup, and was still much hotter than your assumed 140.
I wish you'd tried the experiment with actual coffee, instead of just water. I'd imagine the presence of coffee grinds would make a difference in the temperature.

Also, there's a difference between the brewing temperature of coffee and the holding/serving temperature of that coffee. Nobody is claiming that McDonalds should have changed their brewing temperature, but the holding temperature (what the temperature drops to while on the burner) is too high.

In any case, I can't argue with you about the temperature that much. Those are your specific findings of fact, but the court apparently found otherwise. McDonalds had every chance to disprove those factual findings, but it obviously failed to do so.

[RandyC]

Coffee. Krups. 159 degrees in the cup and it's freakin hot.

Just another data point. I have always operated under my the perception that around 145 degrees is where is uncomfortable to put your hand in it. That should be less than a hot beverage and more than a bath.

[johnglass]

Just some more food for thought...

From CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nasd/docs/mo00900.html)

It takes 2 seconds for a child to receive third degree burns from water at 150 degrees. It takes 5 seconds if the water is at 140 degrees, and 30 seconds at 130 degrees

Granted that is for a child, but I would assume that an old person's skin would be just as fragile, if not moreso. Looks like 130 degree coffee is the only safe way to go. :rolleyes:

[namja]

Originally posted by johnglass
Granted that is for a child, but I would assume that an old person's skin would be just as fragile, if not moreso. Looks like 130 degree coffee is the only safe way to go. :rolleyes:
Again, that's not the point. The point is that McDonald's knew the harm and decided to let all the injuries happen just so that they can make more money. They knew people would get burned, they estimated how many would sue, they estimated how much each settlement would be, etc. They did all this prior to setting the coffee temperature.

AND DURING THIS TRIAL:
from http://www.insuranceattorney.com/McDonaldsCoffeeSpill.htm

Further, at the trial of the case, McDonalds' executives testified that they 1. knew of the risks involved with super hot coffee, 2. they had no intention of warning customers of the dangers of the super hot coffee, 3. they knew no one could drink the coffee at temperatures of 180 to 190 degrees, 4. and they did not intend to change its policies in light of the evidence presented at trial.

[johnglass]

Originally posted by namja

Again, that's not the point. The point is that McDonald's knew the harm and decided to let all the injuries happen just so that they can make more money. They knew people would get burned, they estimated how many would sue, they estimated how much each settlement would be, etc. They did all this prior to setting the coffee temperature.

AND DURING THIS TRIAL:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from http://www.insuranceattorney.com/Mc...CoffeeSpill.htm

Further, at the trial of the case, McDonalds' executives testified that they 1. knew of the risks involved with super hot coffee, 2. they had no intention of warning customers of the dangers of the super hot coffee, 3. they knew no one could drink the coffee at temperatures of 180 to 190 degrees, 4. and they did not intend to change its policies in light of the evidence presented at trial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Of course they are in it to make money- they are a business! Do you think a company that makes $2+ million in two days worth of coffee sales doesn't know what it's customers want? Obviously people want coffee hot, or else they wouldn't buy it.
And forgive me for being skeptical about how the lawyers came up with the "facts" that McDonalds knew the risks and "let all the injuries happen".

Lawyer: "Mr McDonald, do you know that hot coffee can burn"
Ronald McDonald: "Yes, I would think it would!"
Point 1 established- They knew the risks involved with super-hot coffee

Lawyer: "Mr McDonald, do you think people are smart enough to know coffee that they can't even sip would burn if they bathed in it?"
Ronald McDonald: "Sure, no need to tell them the obvious"
Point 2 established: They refused to warn people of the apocalyptic dangers of SUPER-HOT coffee!"

Lawyer: "Mr McDonald, do you know people can't drink coffee that hot?"
Ronald McDonald: "Yes, but most of our customers bring their coffee home or to work, or sit down with the paper to enjoy breakfast"
Point 3 established: The esophagus-scalding SUPER-HOT coffee could not be consumed!

Lawyer: "Mr McDonald, in light of the evidence before you, do you repent and promise to change your evil ways"
Ronald McDonald: "Umm... no"
Point 4 established: They will continue to serve the SUPER-HOT, ESOPHAGUS-SCALDING, ACID-RAIN TAINTED coffee the same way!

[CaptainMarvel]

Hmm. Interesting post, but you might want to throw a little hyperbole in there to spice it up.

Originally posted by johnglass
Of course they are in it to make money- they are a business! Do you think a company that makes $2+ million in two days worth of coffee sales doesn't know what it's customers want? Obviously people want coffee hot, or else they wouldn't buy it.The damning point isn't that they wanted to make money. Nobody should fault them for that. The damning point is that the way they made that money was a method that they both should and DID know could cause injuries. And, even if it WAS relevant, I would question your assumption that "because McDonald's did it, it was what consumer's wanted." The industry practice was serving coffee a lot cooler than McDonald's did; I'd be willing to wager that all the other industry participants combined sold more coffee than McDonald's did, so maybe McDonald's was right that "hot is good", but maybe they were wrong about the extent.

<i>-snipping through most of your rant-</i>


Ronald McDonald: "Yes, but most of our customers bring their coffee home or to work, or sit down with the paper to enjoy breakfast"
If you read the accounts, McDonalds actually did try to make the claim that they overheated their coffee for transport. Unfortunately for them, their own research, uncovered in discovery, showed that to be false, so it caught them in a misrepresentation, at best.

<i>-more snipped, imaginary ranting-</i>

Your entire imaginary diatribe completely hinges on a total inability to understand the difference between a liquid that is "hot" and a liquid that is hot enough to melt your skin and muscles in a few seconds. McDonalds could have fixed the situation easily in one of two ways: warnings about the heat, or lowering the temperature of the coffee. They refused to do either, and people were injured very severely because of it. Even the judge, who was generally in favor of tort reform, didn't think the jury was wrong in this case.

You might want to try coming up with something a little more constructive than a fake lawyer-witness dialogue. I could come up with a nifty one where an Atticus Finch-like lawyer finally nails the evil, shifty corporate exec, who wears a monocle while twisting his handlebar mustache shiftily. What good does that do?

[johnglass]

-snipped through obnoxious attorney double-speak-
Originally posted by CaptainMarvel
McDonalds could have fixed the situation easily in one of two ways: warnings about the heat, or lowering the temperature of the coffee. They refused to do either, and people were injured very severely because of it. Even the judge, who was generally in favor of tort reform, didn't think the jury was wrong in this case.

So that's your "easy" solution, counselor? Perhaps a warning just as you described on each cup of coffee: "Warning: SUPER-HOT coffee in use that may melt your skin and muscles if you're stupid enough to dump it in your lap"? How about a waiver that each customer must sign before being allowed to purchase said cup of joe?

I understand your reasons for wanting to defend your fellow lawyers since this type of case gives all of you a bad name. But your blathering rant hinges on the fact that you cannot differentiate between actual facts and the spin the bar association has put on this case in a feeble attempt at public perception damage-control.

G'nite! :D

[namja]

Originally posted by johnglass
So that's your "easy" solution, counselor? Perhaps a warning just as you described on each cup of coffee: "Warning: SUPER-HOT coffee in use that may melt your skin and muscles if you're stupid enough to dump it in your lap"? How about a waiver that each customer must sign before being allowed to purchase said cup of joe?
If McDonald's is going to make their coffee so hot that it will cause third degree burns, then they need to let the public know. Even the McExecs agreed that their coffee could cause third degree burns, and that the public wouldn't and didn't know about this fact.

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally posted by johnglass
So that's your "easy" solution, counselor? Perhaps a warning just as you described on each cup of coffee: "Warning: SUPER-HOT coffee in use that may melt your skin and muscles if you're stupid enough to dump it in your lap"? How about a waiver that each customer must sign before being allowed to purchase said cup of joe? How about a "Warning: Coffee served hotter than normal"; or "Warning: Coffee's Temperature May Cause Serious Burns" or "Warning: Coffee Served At 190 Degrees." You don't even have to put it on every cup. You can put a sign up at every drive through. Just something to give people adequate notice.

Again, how do you figure this lady was stupid? Clumsy, I can understand. But do you honestly think she subjected herself to this on purpose? That she picked up the cup and turned it upside down over her lap so she could read the bottom of it? THAT'S stupid.

I understand your reasons for wanting to defend your fellow lawyers since this type of case gives all of you a bad name. But your blathering rant hinges on the fact that you cannot differentiate between actual facts and the spin the bar association has put on this case in a feeble attempt at public perception- damage control.

Blathering rant. Neat. Never heard that one.

First, I'm not a counselor yet, friend.

Second, I think you may be a little confused. "Facts" don't mean "any possible scenario I can come up with to make the case look ridiculous". We don't have the case record, but as far as I've seen, none of the facts we do have are in dispute. The outcome from those facts is what has been disputed.

With regard to the case "giving all lawyers" a bad name, that's rubbish. I would bet there were more lawyers working FOR McDonald's (apparently, your side) in this case than against. If so, does that instead give lawyers a good name? And a jury of common people decided the case against McDonalds. Does that give regular citizens "a bad name"?

Your vitriol against lawyers also seems misguided. I can almost guarantee to you the "The Bar Assocation" doesn't have a unified opinion on the issue. People in criminal practice don't have a personal stake in what people think in this case. And if you think the corporate defense firms WANT people to think McDonald's was in the wrong, I assure you that you're misguided. Defense firms are some of the biggest proponents of tort reform you'll see anywhere, and they'll use this case as their flagship. If you think everybody for tort reform is looking out for the best interests of all, I've got some swampland to sell you. Spin works both ways, and if anything, I just would like it to stop in this case.

[OldDude]

Originally posted by CaptainMarvel

I wish you'd tried the experiment with actual coffee, instead of just water. I'd imagine the presence of coffee grinds would make a difference in the temperature.

Also, there's a difference between the brewing temperature of coffee and the holding/serving temperature of that coffee. Nobody is claiming that McDonalds should have changed their brewing temperature, but the holding temperature (what the temperature drops to while on the burner) is too high.

In any case, I can't argue with you about the temperature that much. Those are your specific findings of fact, but the court apparently found otherwise. McDonalds had every chance to disprove those factual findings, but it obviously failed to do so.

I knew my experiment would be criticized for that, but I didn't want coffee last night. I repeated the coffee experiment this AM, but slightly modified for the actual way I make morning coffee.
Only made six cups, not ten, as that's all we drink, poured into a stainless, double-walled, "thermos" mug because that is what I really drink my coffee from. Measured temperature after brewing both in pot and cup. Measured temperature when I felt it was too cool and needed warm-up. Measured Temp for both the pot and the cup when I got my second cup.

Immediately after brewing: Pot 171° F, Cup 167° F
Needs warmup: 133° F (obviously personal preference, all other data reflects machine capability)
After Standing, 2nd cup: Pot 185° F, Cup 179° F

I think the interesting finding is that the coffee continues to warm after brewing, sitting on the warming plate. The other interesting finding is that Mr. Coffee is guilty of serving at a higher temperature than McDonalds is accused of, not, as argued McDonalds serves at least 20° F hotter than home machines. The third interesting fact is the "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" attitude from the forum's lawyers and law students. I guess the fourth fact is McDonald's high priced lawyers seem guilty of incompetance if they didn't challenge the BS slung by the plantiff's high priced lawyers.

Mental note to self: Don't have lawyers over for tea or coffee.

[OldDude]

Originally posted by RandyC
Coffee. Krups. 159 degrees in the cup and it's freakin hot.

Just another data point. I have always operated under my the perception that around 145 degrees is where is uncomfortable to put your hand in it. That should be less than a hot beverage and more than a bath.

I've never seen data for just the hand, and don't know. Whole body data is 120° F, which is an accepted maximum temperature at which a shower or tub should be able to deliver hot water. If you have hotter water for dishwasher, some codes require a reducing or mixing valve, that ensure you can't deliver hotter in bath tub. That would be way to cold for a hot drink.

Thanks for adding 2nd data point.

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by OldDude
I knew my experiment would be criticized for that, but I didn't want coffee last night. I repeated the coffee experiment this AM, but slightly modified for the actual way I make morning coffee.
Only made six cups, not ten, as that's all we drink, poured into a stainless, double-walled, "thermos" mug because that is what I really drink my coffee from. Measured temperature after brewing both in pot and cup. Measured temperature when I felt it was too cool and needed warm-up. Measured Temp for both the pot and the cup when I got my second cup.

Immediately after brewing: Pot 171° F, Cup 167° F
Needs warmup: 133° F (obviously personal preference, all other data reflects machine capability)
After Standing, 2nd cup: Pot 185° F, Cup 179° F

I think the interesting finding is that the coffee continues to warm after brewing, sitting on the warming plate. The other interesting finding is that Mr. Coffee is guilty of serving at a higher temperature than McDonalds is accused of, not, as argued McDonalds serves at least 20° F hotter than home machines. The third interesting fact is the "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" attitude from the forum's lawyers and law students. I guess the fourth fact is McDonald's high priced lawyers seem guilty of incompetance if they didn't challenge the BS slung by the plantiff's high priced lawyers.

Facts, huh? Fact 1: All the "data" I got was not me "assuming" or "guessing" as you accused me of in a an earlier post. It was based on an article I read that discussed the EVIDENCE presented at trial. My mind was not made up; like everyone, I bought into the hyperbole that the media presented at first. Upon further RESEARCH into the FACTS PRESENTED AT TRIAL, I came to a different conclusion. Apparently, so did a jury as well as a judge. (Make that 2 judges, the one who served as a pre-trial mediator and the trial judge, who could've granted "judgment notwithstanding the verdict" if he believed the jury was clearly wrong). I can't contest your research into the temperatures, but those obviously weren't presented at trial. You have done two experiments at home on one coffee maker. Doesn't make it invalid, but also don't raise it to the level of a scientific conclusion either. Nevertheless, I would imagine that some pretty accurate temperature data was presented, so I am inclined to believe that they had accurate representations to consider.

And, if we're talking about assumptions, you assume an awful lot. You assume the woman had "high priced lawyers". Did you write that with as much of a sneer as you could muster? Where did you get such facts? Or, are all lawyers in private practice "high priced lawyers" to you? You have made assumptions about me and my attitude, as well as the other lawyers/law students here; you obviously aren't aware of how we are trained. We are NOT trained to assume things or just make a decision as to which side is right and leave it at that; we actually are trained to see both sides and be able to argue both sides. I could easily make a cogent argument for McD's. However, after researching into the facts of this case (something you don't appear to have done, despite your personal experiment), I came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had a very valid argument, one that I would probably have voted for were I on the jury (with the disclaimer that I have not seen the actual record, so I don't know precisely all the evidence presented).

I am not defending the lawyers in this case; I couldn't care less how they handled themselves. I'm also not defending lawyers in private practice, since I fully intend to work for the govt or a non-profit. Nevertheless, if you are going to start bashing others for assumptions and not considering the facts, I suggest you direct a little of that bashing at yourself...

[johnglass]

Originally posted by namja

If McDonald's is going to make their coffee so hot that it will cause third degree burns, then they need to let the public know. Even the McExecs agreed that their coffee could cause third degree burns, and that the public wouldn't and didn't know about this fact.

All store bought coffee will cause third-degree burns, it's just a matter of how long it takes. I should think a reasonable person would know this. Even if McDonalds coffee were 20 degrees cooler, as some people suggest, it would have been a matter of 1-2 seconds before 3rd degree burns set in. The lady was wearing sweatpants in the car, which soaked up the entire contents of the cup like a sponge and held it against her skin. Had the coffee been 130 degrees she still would have likely received nearly the same injuries

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by johnglass


All store bought coffee will cause third-degree burns, it's just a matter of how long it takes. I should think a reasonable person would know this.

Perhaps you are right, but then I guess I am not a reasonable person. :) Honestly, I would expect that coffee spilled on me would *not* cause 3rd degree burns, even if I did nothing. I would assume that the coffee would *cool sufficiently* on my skin before such burns were caused. I surely would not expect coffee to cause 3rd degree burns in 5 seconds! Remember, we're not talking burns here. We're talking 3rd degree burns. Most of us will never have such burns in our entire lives (which leads me to believe that simply spilling coffee normally doesn't cause such burns). This is not a burn that just hurts, or causes a blister. This is a burn that can land you in the hospital for, I don't know, let's say a week. ;)

Edited to add: hey don't edit your post while I am responding to it! :D

[OldDude]

Actually, I know "justice" is not about "truth" it is a side-show in which each counsel presents the fraction of "truth" that benefits his client. I wouldn't expect plaintiffs' lawyer to present any contrary evidence. If McDonald's lawyers allowed the evidence (I hesitate to call them facts after my experiment) to stand on typical temperatures, they did a very poor job.

I would suggest they should have hired a retired engineer ( :wave: ) and bought him a lab-grade thermometer to conduct a few key experiments instead of relying on so much opinion:
*Measure the temperature of delivered coffee at various fast food places. (I don't really have enough interest in this case to wander into various restaurants with my electronic meat fork, which looks a little dangerous)
*Depose the woman and determine how she prepares coffee at home. Either test her coffee pot, or a representative number (I agree on need for more than one) of samples of the same model. Repeat the experiment I did to determine whether, as I believe, she has DE facto accepted the same risk at home for a number of years.

Now, while we're criticizing language, it may make sense to discuss this "melting flesh from bones" hyperbole. I grant that water at or near boiling can cause serious burns, we even use it to cook things and kill any evil critters lurking in it. However, if you have ever cooked anything in boiling water, you know it takes hours to even soften flesh so it comes off the bone easily. To "melt flesh from bone" you would need much higher temperatures, about 300° F certainly, as could be obtained with oil in a deep fryer or high pressure (process) steam.

Again I respect the right of plaintiff's lawyers to try slinging this bull, McDonald's lawyers did a very poor job of refuting with data easily obtainable and appear incompetent.

(But I admit to slinging a little hyperbole of my own. Isn't that permitted in "closing arguments.") -smile-

[johnglass]

Originally posted by LurkerDan


Perhaps you are right, but then I guess I am not a reasonable person. :) Honestly, I would expect that coffee spilled on me would *not* cause 3rd degree burns, even if I did nothing. I would assume that the coffee would *cool sufficiently* on my skin before such burns were caused. I surely would not expect coffee to cause 3rd degree burns in 5 seconds! Remember, we're not talking burns here. We're talking 3rd degree burns. Most of us will never have such burns in our entire lives (which leads me to believe that simply spilling coffee normally doesn't cause such burns). This is not a burn that just hurts, or causes a blister. This is a burn that can land you in the hospital for, I don't know, let's say a week. ;)

I've added a bit to my post above concerning this. According to the link in my post at the top of the page, 3rd degree burns set in in a matter of 2 seconds at 150 degrees. Again, she was wearing sweats that kept the hot coffee against her skin, and I would guess at her age she wouldn't be able to get out of them all that quickly (unless maybe I sweet-talked her :D).

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally posted by OldDude
Actually, I know "justice" is not about "truth" it is a side-show in which each counsel presents the fraction of "truth" that benefits his client. I wouldn't expect plaintiffs' lawyer to present any contrary evidence. If McDonald's lawyers allowed the evidence (I hesitate to call them facts after my experiment) to stand on typical temperatures, they did a very poor job.I agree. If it were that simple to disprove, and if they didn't, then that's certainly a poor job. But it seems ridiculous to me to even consider that they wouldn't have at least considered that tactic, or a similar tactic.

I would suggest they should have hired a retired engineer ( :wave: ) and bought him a lab-grade thermometer to conduct a few key experiments instead of relying on so much opinion:
*Measure the temperature of delivered coffee at various fast food places. (I don't really have enough interest in this case to wander into various restaurants with my electronic meat fork, which looks a little dangerous)
*Depose the woman and determine how she prepares coffee at home. Either test her coffee pot, or a representative number (I agree on need for more than one) of samples of the same model. Repeat the experiment I did to determine whether, as I believe, she has DE facto accepted the same risk at home for a number of years. I think you're probably misunderstanding where they got that information from; they can't just pull that sort of stuff off of a website like you can here. They DID bring in experts on the matter to testify about the subject; their expert opinion may differ from yours, but that doesn't make your opinion superior to theirs. The idea of testing her coffee pot does sound interesting, assuming she brewed coffee at home. But the idea of her accepting that same risk at home could also be easily countered; she might not have been willing to drink her own coffee in the car, b/c it was too hot, but if the industry kept their coffee at a lower temperature than McDonalds did, she might not have had reason to expect McDonalds' coffee to be that hot.

Now, while we're criticizing language, it may make sense to discuss this "melting flesh from bones" hyperbole. I grant that water at or near boiling can cause serious burns, we even use it to cook things and kill any evil critters lurking in it. However, if you have ever cooked anything in boiling water, you know it takes hours to even soften flesh so it comes off the bone easily. To "melt flesh from bone" you would need much higher temperatures, about 300° F certainly, as could be obtained with oil in a deep fryer or high pressure (process) steam. Maybe so. I'm certainly not going to try that myself to find out, but A) it doesn't take all that much boiling for skin to easily come off of a piece of meat when it's cooked, which is largely what's burned, B) your opinion of what damage a burn can cause conflicts with bunches of other accounts I've read on the subject (and it also agrees with accounts I've read). Do a search on Google groups for "boiling water" and burns; you'll get tons of stories from the "minimal burn damage" side, and tons of stories from "melted down to the muscle" side. So in a courtroom setting, it would be a matter of which story was more compelling. I can certainly see how somebody COULD find your side the most compelling, but I can see it the other way as well. And if that's the case, this McDonalds situation goes from being "an obviously biased runaway jury" to "a jury call I just don't like."

Again I respect the right of plaintiff's lawyers to try slinging this bull, McDonald's lawyers did a very poor job of refuting with data easily obtainable and appear incompetent.Again, I think you're oversimplifying here. If McDonalds' lawyers could have proven their point, as easily as you seem to think they could have, then they did a terrible job. But I doubt it's as simple as you seem to think it is.

Originally posted by johnglass
I've added a bit to my post above concerning this. According to the link in my post at the top of the page, 3rd degree burns set in in a matter of 2 seconds at 150 degrees. Again, she was wearing sweats that kept the hot coffee against her skin, and I would guess at her age she wouldn't be able to get out of them all that quickly (unless maybe I sweet-talked her ). My grandmother's pretty old too, but I've seen her move when something burns her. It's pretty fast. In any case, at 140 degrees, it takes 5 seconds of exposure to get such a serious burn; which I think would be enough time to get out of a pair of sweats (or at least pull them away from the skin). The jury apparently accepted testimony that most coffee at home was around that temperature. I'd also wonder how quickly coffee cools down while inside a pair of sweatpants; it may be that it cools very rapidly, which is why a 160 degree liquid wouldn't be that dangerous, but a 190 degree liquid could cause such severe burning. I don't know, but I'm sure they explored that.

Could this case have been decided the other way? Probably. McDonalds dishonesty and attitude during the trial certainly didn't help them though; even the judge called them callous. But lots of cases out there COULD be decided differently, and at least a reasonable argument could be put forth for each. Whether or not you disagree with what the facts were in this case, with those facts, the decision wasn't unreasonable. We can second guess the fact-finders all we want, but we don't have the benefit of seeing the witnesses testify to determine their credibility, and we don't have any of the actual wording of their testimony. What I don't think this is was what it's normally touted as, which is a shining example of how tort law is spinning wildly out of control. And it certainly isn't "some old lady trying to get quick money from spilling coffee on herself" as you hear it described sometimes.

[RandyC]

Also speaking as an engineer, the thing that changes the data is thermal mass and transfer. Water splashed on you can be very hot and not cause much damage. The same reason people can walk on hot coals and not get burned. The mass of your body is much greater than the coals. This was made worse by the proximity and mass of the liquid being greater due to her sweatpants. You can have your skin splashed with molten metal (trust me on this) and if it's fast enough, it's not a big deal.

But from the case data I read, McDonalds had kept their coffee much hotter than normal for other fast food restaurants. Thney knew it. It was not a matter of whining about it, it was actual injuries from people that were reported to McDonalds and they made an deliberate decision to not change the temps.

I am sure McDonalds hired engineers to back up their claims and did a ton of investigation and such for the trial.

And for the claim that lawyers are the ones that back this up. I am not a lawyer. I will not be a lawyer. It just seems to me that the facts speak to the jury and court resolution as being accurate and most arguments against this come from emotion and a lack of in depth understanding of the case.

[namja]

Again, it's not really the hot coffee that is the core of this problem. It's the McDonalds' attitude that was the REAL problem. They new the dangers, they purposely hid it from the public, and despite hundreds of complaints and this lawsuit, the McDonalds' executives testified that they will not do one damn_thing about it.

Originally posted by johnglass
Had the coffee been 130 degrees she still would have likely received nearly the same injuries.
Same injuries from 130 degrees (as 185 degrees)? Never. The water cools rather quickly, so even with the sweat pants, even if she was wearing sponge, she will not get third degree burns.

I also am neither a law student nor a lawyer.

[jdodd]

Originally posted by johnglass
Again, she was wearing sweats that kept the hot coffee against her skin, and I would guess at her age she wouldn't be able to get out of them all that quickly (unless maybe I sweet-talked her :D).

rotfl
rotfl
rotfl

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by CaptainMarvel
My grandmother's pretty old too, but I've seen her move when something burns her. It's pretty fast. In any case, at 140 degrees, it takes 5 seconds of exposure to get such a serious burn; which I think would be enough time to get out of a pair of sweats (or at least pull them away from the skin).

Actually, from the account I read, she didn't immediately remove the sweats. Not because she was too old and slow, however. What I could gather from the article was that she didn't realize the danger immediately, but that wouldn't explain why she didn't react to searing pain. The best I could guess (the article really didn't say) was that she was either in some sort of shock or the burn somehow deadened/killed the nerves. Her grandson, the driver, saw his grandma looking really ill/incapacitated after a minute or two, and he pulled over and removed her sweats, IIRC.

Don't know what legal relevance that all has, but thought I would point it out...

[OldDude]

Originally posted by johnglass
Just some more food for thought...

From CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nasd/docs/mo00900.html)

It takes 2 seconds for a child to receive third degree burns from water at 150 degrees. It takes 5 seconds if the water is at 140 degrees, and 30 seconds at 130 degrees

Granted that is for a child, but I would assume that an old person's skin would be just as fragile, if not moreso. Looks like 130 degree coffee is the only safe way to go. :rolleyes:

I went and checked some scold sites as people suggested. If you want to be safe you need to keep temp. under 120. However, if you made coffee, let it cool to 120 and tried to drink it, you would be very unhappy.

Also went to some (gourmet) coffee sites to see what they recommend for good taste. Guess what:
link (http://www.hammacher.com/about_us/Institute%20Ehelp/ins_December2000.asp)
Many countertop coffee makers fall short in flavor expectations because the water isn't hot enough to brew good coffee. According to professional coffee houses, the ideal serving temperature should be between 180°-190° Fahrenheit to bring out the most flavor. Cold, cool, or warm water can't properly extract the coffee, and anything brewed at less than 180º F will be under-extracted and weak.

The amount of coffee in the filter basket is a matter of personal taste. A good rule of thumb is one heaping tablespoon per 6 oz. cups brewed, but that can be adjusted until a desired flavor and strength is reached.

Once coffee is ground and brewed, its ready to serve. But coffee isn't always served all at once. Typical at-home coffee makers keep the coffee warm by using a hot plate. This actually continues to cook the coffee, which destroys the delicate flavors. Professional coffee houses do not recommend heating coffee for longer than 20-25 minutes because it causes the coffee to become burnt and taste bitter. The Best Coffee Maker circumvents that problem by brewing directly into a vacuum carafe, which keeps the coffee warm without ruining the flavors. The coffee that was brewed using the right type of grinds and using the right brewing temperature can be enjoyed for hours, not minutes.


Now if coffee needs to be 185 to be good, and 120 to be safe, I think we have to conclude that coffee inherently has some dangers and people unwilling to accept the dangers should drink water (note the same argument applies to tea, except iced tea made from powder.)

Or this link (http://www.confex.com/ift/99annual/abstracts/3583.htm)
At what temperature should you serve coffee?

M. O'MAHONY, S. Pipatsattayanuwong, S. Lau, and H. S. Lee, Dept. of Food Science & Technology, Univ. of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616



OBJECTIVES: To investigate preferred and expected serving temperatures for coffee using R-index measures.


METHODS: 225 consumers tasted black coffees at six different temperatures (see below), ranking them for preference. The lowest temperature was below the pain threshold, the next below the epithelial damage threshold, the next two above. The two highest temperatures approximated to coffees served commercially. The 225 consumers also served themselves coffees from commercial servers at the six different temperatures (see below), ranking them in terms of expected serving temperatures in coffee shops. Time from serving to drinking was observed for 110 consumers of black coffee in five coffee shops. Temperatures and cooling rates were measured to allow estimates of their drinking temperatures.


RESULTS: The rank order of preference for temperatures was 160°F (71.1°C) = 140°F (60.0°C) > 170°F (76.7°C) > 120°F (48.9°C) > 180°F (82.2°C) > 100°F (37.8°C). The degree of difference between these values, given by significant R-indices (p 140°F (60.0°C) > 120°F (48.9°C) > 180°F (82.2°C) > 100°F (37.8°C). Corresponding significant R-indices (p<0.05) were: 55.64% (NS), 68.43%, 88.06%, 68.15%, and 81.62%. Coffee shop serving temperatures ranged 168-187°F (75.6-86.1°C). Observed time from serving to drinking ranged: 2-1005 sec, (median 114 sec). The average estimated drinking temperature was 168.1°F (75.6°C) (S.D. 9.01°F).


SIGNIFICANCE: Ranking indicated preferred drinking temperatures to be generally below expected serving temperatures. In coffee shops, during the delay between serving and drinking, coffee cooled to be closer to desired temperatures.

[OldDude]

Another link (http://www.1st-line.com/machines/home_mod/saeco/99cafelatte.htm)
Brewing Temperature (Filled Chamber with Water at Room Temperature):
----Average: 195 Degrees F ----Minimum: 190 Degrees F ----Maximum: 201 Degrees F
Coffee Serving Temperature
Average: 178 Degrees F


Typical recommendations for brewing and serving temperature are in the range McDonalds used. They are not the exception you all are claiming them to be. If you want coffee served at safe temperatures (120 F) I believe you need to try it first. I also believe you will be completely dissatisfied with the product.

Now, it is absolutely true that at recommended serving temperatures, coffee is dangerous if you spill large amounts on yourself, it will burn, I am not disputing that. What I am disputing is that there is a commercial market for "safe" coffee.

[OldDude]

link (http://216.188.92.147/~sacred-grounds.com/brewing101.html)
A good coffeemaker will deliver brewing water with a consistent temperature in the 195 to 205 degree Fahrenheit range. Make sure your brewer meets that requirement. As the Specialty Coffee Association of America¹s (SCAA) The Basics of Brewing Coffee mentions, water in that temperature range "liberates the aromatic materials more rapidly and permits proper extraction of other solubles within a reasonable time." Naturally, the actual coffee beverage will be several degrees cooler because the temperature will decrease once the water is filtered through the coffee.



on the flip side:
link (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/25/13272/5729)
The third guideline addresses another common flavor-denial attack: Low-temperature brewing. Most drip coffee makers brew at a temperature too low for proper flavor extraction. The most frequent explanation that I've heard for this sad yet pervasive flaw is that "really hot" coffee is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and thus manufacturers have lowered brewing temperatures accordingly. Whatever the reason, the effect is a cup of lifeless coffee.

So what is the right temperature? Just off the boil works well. Put a kettle of freshly drawn, cold water on the stove. When it boils, pour it over your freshly ground coffee.

[OldDude]

The lawyers should love this one. The plaintiffs lowyers were incorrect about temps of home coffee brewers and in this hjudge's opinion, The McLawyers failed to challenge them. The smoking coffee Pot:
link (http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/rbrill/torts-fall-99/evening/coffee.html)7. Coffee temperatures. Judge Easterbrook cited the voluntary ANSI standards for brewing, holding and serving coffee. A restaurant industry newspaper, noting that the plaintiff's lawyer in the (in)famous McDonald's coffee-spill case had told the jury that home coffee brewers operate at an average temperature of 135-140 degrees Fahrenheit, reported:

[The] executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America . . . is called upon frequently in similar cases . . . . [He] says the McDonald's defense erred by not challenging the figures cited for home coffee brewers, which were incorrect. Standards set by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers require brewing temperatures to fall between 170 degrees and 205 degrees Fahrenheit and holding temperatures to be at least 130 degrees. [¶] The coffee industry has even higher standards. . . . They set a minimum water temperature of 195 degrees and a maximum of 205 degrees. To maintain flavor, coffee must be held at 185 degrees to 190 degrees. The temperature drops by as much as 15 degrees when coffee is poured and loses up to 10 degrees when creaming agents are added. . . . [¶] "To be pleasing as a hot beverage, coffee, tea or soup must be served in a range between 155 degrees to 175 degrees," he says.

[namja]

Originally posted by OldDude
Typical recommendations for brewing and serving temperature are in the range McDonalds used. They are not the exception you all are claiming them to be.
Those temperatures are for the Saeco 'Caffe Latte' Drip Coffee Brewers and NOT relevant to this case. What is relevant is the temperature of coffee at most restaurants: 140-160 degrees. If everyone's serving at 140-160 and McDonald's serves at 185, then it is their responsibility to let the consumers know.

What if you ordered steak at a steakhouse, and it arrived at a piping hot 200 degrees, and you got burned from it? Or you ordered seasoned fries, and it arrived super spicy (2x as spicy as jalepeño peppers), and you started choking from it?

The restaurant has the responsibility to inform the consumers. If they do not, and if their actions cause harm to the consumers, then they are legally responsible for their actions.

[OldDude]

No other restaurants, huh. Hardee's is involved in a similar suit. The case is not decided. However, an "expert" witness was tossed out by the judge, because he could only testify the coffee was too hot and could not provide expert testimony on whether the cooler coffee he was recommending was acceptable to cutomers. Not from the rukling that Hardees' serves at about the same temperature as McDonalds. (scroll down in link, there is another unrelated decision on top of it.
link (http://www.interfire.org/features/breaklegal/breaklegaldev8-27-01.htm)
The relevance inquiry assures that the expert's proposed testimony will "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue" as required by Fed. R. Evid. 702. "Expert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful." Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591 (citations omitted). The consideration of relevance requires the district court to determine whether the testimony "fits" the instant case; not all reliable expert testimony is relevant expert testimony.

See id. ("[S]cientific validity for one purpose is not necessarily scientific validity for other, unrelated purposes."). In other words, Fed. R. Evid 702 requires a valid scientific connection between the expert's testimony and the pertinent inquiry before the court as a precondition to admissibility. See id. at 591-93.

With those considerations in mind, the court turned to the question of whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding Diller's testimony. The court concluded that it did not. Diller's testimony simply did not meet Daubert's requirement of relevance and for that reason, it was properly excluded.

The pertinent inquiry was whether Hardee's coffee, which is served at a temperature of approximately 180 to 190 degrees, is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use, namely human consumption. On this subject, Diller's testimony merely states that "[c]offee spilled onto bare skin at that temperature will cause a severe burn nearly instantaneously" and "coffee drunk without dilution at that temperature range will cause burns to the mouth." Diller further opined that "[f]rom the perspective of lowering the probability of causing thermal burns, 150 degrees is a much safer temperature for serving beverages." In sum, Diller's conclusion is that coffee served at 180 to 190 degrees is hot enough to cause burns and that coffee served at a lower temperature is less likely to do so, an idea that is not disputed by any party.

Although Diller's testimony may well be accurate, it failed to address the key question of whether it was unreasonable for Hardee's to serve coffee at that temperature. Importantly, although Diller is an expert on thermodynamics, he possesses no knowledge or experience in the food or beverage industry. Thus, Diller seems unsuited to the task of determining the utility of Hardee's policy of serving coffee at a temperature of 180 to 190 degrees. Perhaps for this reason, Diller failed to indicate whether it is possible for Hardee's to serve quality coffee at a lower temperature. See Holowaty v. McDonald's Corp., 10 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1083 (D. Minn. 1998) (to rebut evidence that heat is an essential element of a quality cup of coffee, plaintiffs would need to show it was possible for defendants to sell quality coffee at a lower temperature). Indeed, Diller suggests that,"[f]rom the perspective of lowering the probability of causing thermal burns," coffee served at a temperature of 150 degrees would be safer, but he failed to explain whether such a modification is even possible, and if so, whether Hardee's was unreasonable for failing to make such a modification.

Diller's testimony on the risks associated with serving coffee at a temperature of 180 to 190 degrees, without any information on the feasibility or costs of lowering the serving temperature, did not aid the trier of fact in determining whether it was unreasonably dangerous of Hardee's to serve coffee at the higher temperature. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony, and no new trial is warranted.

[OldDude]

Originally posted by namja

If everyone's serving at 140-160 and McDonald's serves at 185, then it is their responsibility to let the consumers know.

.

Did you read the "recommended serving temperature" from gourmet coffee houses? What are they, chopped liver?

[wildcatlh]

Originally posted by OldDude


Did you read the "recommended serving temperature" from gourmet coffee houses? What are they, chopped liver?

One would expect different things from a "Gourmet coffee house" than they would from McDonalds, wouldn't you think?

[johnglass]

Originally posted by WildcatLH


One would expect different things from a "Gourmet coffee house" than they would from McDonalds, wouldn't you think?

In terms of quality of coffee, sure, but not temperature. Cheap coffee brews at the same temperature as the good stuff.

[namja]

Originally posted by johnglass
In terms of quality of coffee, sure, but not temperature. Cheap coffee brews at the same temperature as the good stuff.
Evidently, this is not the case. Fast food chains, diners, family restaurants, etc. serve their coffee 140-160. Gourmet houses (according to your research) serves coffee at 185+.

[LurkerDan]

All I can say at this late point in the evening (late for me, at least) is this:

You go, OldDude! I give up! :lol: :thumbsup:

[OldDude]

Originally posted by LurkerDan
All I can say at this late point in the evening (late for me, at least) is this:

You go, OldDude! I give up! :lol: :thumbsup:

I had long since given up and gone to bed.

I am really not trying to minimize the issue; I understand the woman got serious burns. I just think that people are too quick to propose a solution that won't work very well. A lot of research points to the need for very high brewing temperatures and serving immediately at almost the same temperature to have satisfactory product. I think people proposing that coffee be served at 130 seriously need to brew a cup, pour it black, let it cool to 130, then add cream and sugar if they use it, and drink it. I pretty well guarentee they will be dissatisfied, and not repeat the experiment.

I don't think there is a market for "safe" coffee. Now I think we need to look at the fact that drinkinging dangerously hot coffee in a moving vehicle, even as a passenger, is inherently more dangerous than sitting in a restaurant (except in California where there might be an earthquake). Maybe coffee shouldn't be sold at the drivethru window, only indoors, (and shouldn't be sold at all in California). Maybe coffee drinking in a vehicle should be prohibited. I just don't feel this woman's suit should ruin coffee for everyone else, especially when in a restaurant, not their cars.

It also looks like McD's lawyers "phoned it in" by failing to challenge "incorrect facts" (usually called lies, except in legal proceedings) presented about home coffee makers, just as I guessed.

[OldDude]

Originally posted by namja

Evidently, this is not the case. Fast food chains, diners, family restaurants, etc. serve their coffee 140-160. Gourmet houses (according to your research) serves coffee at 185+.

Hardee's, another gourmet coffee house. :lol:
Now there are two dangerous chains.
Do you have independent data for this or are you just believung the same lawyers who submitted "incorrect facts" about home coffee brewing?

Seriously, based on my measurements 155-160 is probably hot enough at the moment it is poured. I think 140 would be very unsatisfactory, I found 133 to be the temperature at which I would demand a warmup. These numbers will vary a little from person to person.

Note that law is unlike science. Only people with "standing" in the case can submit material. If one lawyer submits "incorrect facts" and the other lawyer fails to challenge, they don't get corrected. That doesn't make them true. In science, anyone can run an experiment. If the results are reproducible by others (and I certainly encourage you to make your own measurements), then they are generally excepted as true until someone does a reproducible experiment that shows they are wrong, at least under certain circumstances. This will always cause a little tension between the two viewpoints.

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally posted by OldDude
I am really not trying to minimize the issue; I understand the woman got serious burns. I just think that people are too quick to propose a solution that won't work very well. A lot of research points to the need for very high brewing temperatures and serving immediately at almost the same temperature to have satisfactory product. I think people proposing that coffee be served at 130 seriously need to brew a cup, pour it black, let it cool to 130, then add cream and sugar if they use it, and drink it. I pretty well guarentee they will be dissatisfied, and not repeat the experiment. How would a warning not work to put people on guard? It's been said numerous times by people here that they don't really expect to get third degree burns that quickly from a mere coffee spill.

I don't think there is a market for "safe" coffee. Now I think we need to look at the fact that drinkinging dangerously hot coffee in a moving vehicle, even as a passenger, is inherently more dangerous than sitting in a restaurant (except in California where there might be an earthquake). Maybe coffee shouldn't be sold at the drivethru window, only indoors, (and shouldn't be sold at all in California). Maybe coffee drinking in a vehicle should be prohibited. I just don't feel this woman's suit should ruin coffee for everyone else, especially when in a restaurant, not their cars. So how does it ruin coffee for everybody else? There's nothing about the lawsuit that said McDonalds had to lower their coffee temperatures. That may be the route McDonalds chose, but they have other options available to them. There were two elements to her lawsuit, both needed: a dangerous temperature, and no warning. McDonalds chose to get rid of the former, rather than providing the latter. Blame McDonalds.

It also looks like McD's lawyers "phoned it in" by failing to challenge "incorrect facts" (usually called lies, except in legal proceedings) presented about home coffee makers, just as I guessed. Again, if we go by your information without acknowledging that there might have been more going on behind the scenes, then it does make McDonalds lawyers look bad. But how does that make this a bad case, or a failure of justice? McDonalds, by your version, had a VERY easy way to defeat the arguments of Mrs. Liebeck. They didn't, and it's their fault, not hers, or anybody else's. That's the whole point of a trial; it's a fact finding expedition.

I also would like to point out that "incorrect facts" aren't called "lies" all the time, in legal proceedings or otherwise. They're also merely called "errors." Or do you think now that her lawyers purposefully misrepresented their facts, without the benefit of actually hearing them, or how they were presented?

[OldDude]

Originally posted by CaptainMarvel
How would a warning not work to put people on guard? It's been said numerous times by people here that they don't really expect to get third degree burns that quickly from a mere coffee spill.

I also would like to point out that "incorrect facts" aren't called "lies" all the time, in legal proceedings or otherwise. They're also merely called "errors." Or do you think now that her lawyers purposefully misrepresented their facts, without the benefit of actually hearing them, or how they were presented?

I never said I opposed a warning, and nowadays everyone prints a warning on their lid (of course no one reads them) so "problem solved." Apparently this case started in '92. I have no clue when McD added their warning. If everyone else is happy with the warning, I am too. I just don't want lukewarm coffee because of this woman.

The date of the trial vs conditions today may unfairly color my opinion. The plaintiff's lawyers made a big deal that home machines serve coffee at 140. Via the Internet, there is so much info that says this is simply not true that the lawyers would have to either be suborning perjury or wearing their most myopic, tunnel-vision blinders and letting their expert testify erroneously. Admittedly in 1992, such data might not have been so easy to find. However, I can't find any data that suggests any home unit serves at 140 so I wonder where or how they made this fact up.

Editted to add: I found many law firms that give a "summary" of this case on their website. I would describe them as "ambulance-chasers," you would describe them as specializing in fee-contingent injury and product liability cases. At any rate they cling to this clearly incorrect claim that home machines serve coffee at 140. What about them, now that it is obvious this "incorrect fact" was never true?

I also have to admit in spirit of full disclosure that, while I don't oppose a "hot" warning on the coffee lid, I do get upset with the 20 pages of inane warnings in some product's instruction book before I can get to the real instructions on how to operate the product properly, instead of improperly.

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally posted by OldDude
Another link (http://www.1st-line.com/machines/home_mod/saeco/99cafelatte.htm)

As Namja stated, that was actually a review about how a coffee machine performed.


Typical recommendations for brewing and serving temperature are in the range McDonalds used. They are not the exception you all are claiming them to be. If you want coffee served at safe temperatures (120 F) I believe you need to try it first. I also believe you will be completely dissatisfied with the product.

Now, it is absolutely true that at recommended serving temperatures, coffee is dangerous if you spill large amounts on yourself, it will burn, I am not disputing that. What I am disputing is that there is a commercial market for "safe" coffee. Stop knocking down my straw man, please. Nobody is arguing with your assertion that coffee tastes better at higher temperatures, and I don't believe anybody is saying that you ccouldn't find a way to serve super-duper red hot coffee, if you want. The only thing people are saying (I think) is, if the coffee is hotter than normal (which, whether you think it's correct or not, was uncontested), and therefore presented a substantially greater danger than normal, there should be a warning.

From the Hardee's case you mentioned:
Based on these events, the Garlingers brought suit against Hardee's in West Virginia state court claiming that the Hardee's employee was negligent in causing the coffee to spill and that Hardee's was strictly liable because its coffee contained a design defect, namely that it was served at an unreasonable and dangerously hot temperature. Hardee's removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizen-ship.
First, take any state court decision on a similar subject with a grain of salt; those judges are usually elected, and no judge wants to be the one who gets labelled as allowing another "McDonalds case."

Second, I question the judge's reasoning in that case:Importantly, although Diller is an expert on thermodynamics, he possesses no knowledge or experience in the food or beverage industry.
By that standard, since you're an engineer, not an expert in the food service or beverage industry, should we completely disregard your findings?

In terms of quality of coffee, sure, but not temperature. Cheap coffee brews at the same temperature as the good stuff. There's a difference between brewing temperature and serving temperature. Nobody's debating brewing temperature.

I never said I opposed a warning, and nowadays everyone prints a warning on their lid (of course no one reads them) so "problem solved." Apparently this case started in '92. I have no clue when McD added their warning. If everyone else is happy with the warning, I am too. I just don't want lukewarm coffee because of this woman. I'm fine with a warning too. I tend not to drink coffee at any temperature, because I'm sensitive to burns on my tongue. As long as the warning is sufficient (ie. not "may cause burns"; even "may cause serious burns" is okay.), I have no problems. I do question the wisdom of placing the warning on the cup, in tiny print. It seems to me you create more of a burn hazard that way, just from people trying to read it. It would strike me as smarter to put a warning on the drive through, but I'm sure that's not the only way.

While looking for the year the warning was added, I ran across this: (Editor’s note – Do any of you agree the problem of Idiot Warnings can be traced the famous McDonalds incident several years back where a customer discovered that hot coffee is actually hot? After buying some coffee to go, the customer spilled the coffee, scalded her hand, and then had the nerve to sue McDonalds. The real tragedy is some half-brained jury actually sided with the plaintiff!!
That's the sort of thing that just drives me nuts.

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally posted by OldDude
Editted to add: I found many law firms that give a "summary" of this case on their website. I would describe them as "ambulance-chasers," you would describe them as specializing in fee-contingent injury and product liability cases. At any rate they cling to this clearly incorrect claim that home machines serve coffee at 140. What about them, now that it is obvious this "incorrect fact" was never true?
I really wish people would stop making assumptions about me, and what I believe or would say. If you knew me in person, you'd know that I'm sharply critical of opportunistic lawyers.

[OldDude]

Originally posted by CaptainMarvel

As Namja stated, that was actually a review about how a coffee machine performed.
Yes, but they tout the temperatures it can achieve because good coffee is brewed and served at high temperature. It goes to what "normal" really is as opposed to what the lawyers said (mistakenly or with forked tongue).

[b]Stop knocking down my straw man, please. Nobody is arguing with your assertion that coffee tastes better at higher temperatures, and I don't believe anybody is saying that you ccouldn't find a way to serve super-duper red hot coffee, if you want. The only thing people are saying (I think) is, if the coffee is hotter than normal (which, whether you think it's correct or not, was uncontested), and therefore presented a substantially greater danger than normal, there should be a warning.

From the Hardee's case you mentioned:

First, take any state court decision on a similar subject with a grain of salt; those judges are usually elected, and no judge wants to be the one who gets labelled as allowing another "McDonalds case."

Second, I question the judge's reasoning in that case:
By that standard, since you're an engineer, not an expert in the food service or beverage industry, should we completely disregard your findings?
It was only to make the point at least two major chains serve at this temperatures. Again calling into question whether the lawyers had good testimony about serving practices. I'm certainly qualified to measure temperature with a thermometer. When it comes to offering a studied opinion on whether a restaurant could serve coffee at 130° F and satisfy their customers, I am aware it is not my field and would not offer a professional opinion, as that would be an ethical violation. My personal opinion is obviously that the idea is complete BS. I believe this expert admitted he was not qualified in that particular area and the judge dismissed his testimony

There's a difference between brewing temperature and serving temperature. Nobody's debating brewing temperature.
But the many brewing links I overwhelmed you with point out that it should be served only "a few" degrees cooler and served immediately (and the one site you felt was irrelevant specifically touted the serving temperature it could achieve, presumably as a "good thing" since advertising normally addresses good things. If brewed properly, it would not have time to cool naturally within the "immediately," you would have to add approximately 0.3 lbs of ice per pound of coffee to reach the claimed "acceptable" temperatures quickly.

I'm fine with a warning too. I tend not to drink coffee at any temperature, because I'm sensitive to burns on my tongue. As long as the warning is sufficient (ie. not "may cause burns"; even "may cause serious burns" is okay.), I have no problems. I do question the wisdom of placing the warning on the cup, in tiny print. It seems to me you create more of a burn hazard that way, just from people trying to read it. It would strike me as smarter to put a warning on the drive through, but I'm sure that's not the only way.

While looking for the year the warning was added, I ran across this:
That's the sort of thing that just drives me nuts.

[OldDude]

Originally posted by CaptainMarvel

I really wish people would stop making assumptions about me, and what I believe or would say. If you knew me in person, you'd know that I'm sharply critical of opportunistic lawyers.

I'll try to be less inflamatory. I really meant any lawyer or aspiring lawyer would use the second term as the legally correct term for this particular specialty.

What do you think about them continuing to misrepresent the temperatures at McDonald's vs home coffee brewing machines? Ethical? Violation?

[OldDude]

Originally posted by CaptainMarvel

Stop knocking down my straw man, please.

I'm sorry. This thread is so long I have no idea what straw man I'm knocking down.

At my company, we always said we threw straw men out there to be burned, so if I knew, I probably wouldn't respect him, but in this case, I can't even identify him.

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally posted by OldDude
Yes, but they tout the temperatures it can achieve because good coffee is brewed and served at high temperature. It goes to what "normal" really is as opposed to what the lawyers said (mistakenly or with forked tongue). Again, I can't argue with any certainty what's "normal", and we don't know how those facts were argued in the case. But if you're totally willing to discount the findings of one court, at least bear in mind that those numbers for Hardee's serving temperature come from another court's findings.

In any case, even if the serving temperature of coffee everywhere IS that high, I don't believe it's "normal" for people to expect to get burned that seriously from coffee. McDonald's knew their coffee, served at that temperature, in the confines of a car, had caused serious injuries before (well above what I would expect a reasonable, average person would expect), and they did... nothing.

It was only to make the point at least two major chains serve at this temperatures. Again calling into question whether the lawyers had good testimony about serving practices. I'm certainly qualified to measure temperature with a thermometer. When it comes to offering a studied opinion on whether a restaurant could serve coffee at 130° F and satisfy their customers, I am aware it is not my field and would not offer a professional opinion, as that would be an ethical violation. My personal opinion is obviously that the idea is complete BS. I believe this expert admitted he was not qualified in that particular area and the judge dismissed his testimony. We don't know how they reached the conclusion that Hardee's served coffee at that temperature; as you've pointed out, facts CAN be wrong in cases. The guy in the other case was certainly qualified to tell whether a person would be burned (he was admittedly an expert on that matter), but they threw all of his testimony out for the reason he wasn't an industry expert, which none of us are.

But the many brewing links I overwhelmed you with point out that it should be served only "a few" degrees cooler and served immediately (and the one site you felt was irrelevant specifically touted the serving temperature it could achieve, presumably as a "good thing" since advertising normally addresses good things. If brewed properly, it would not have time to cool naturally within the "immediately," you would have to add approximately 0.3 lbs of ice per pound of coffee to reach the claimed "acceptable" temperatures quickly. I'm not arguing with you about the temperature coffee should be served at. But if you think that $70 coffee maker is what's normal, I would suggest otherwise; another one of your links mentioned that the normal coffee machine costs around $30, and has a lower temperature. If you look at the rest of that site, it becomes clear that it's a gourmet coffee oriented website (see their tutorials on "the science" and "the arte" of making coffee). It's highly unlikely that a gourmet site would give a "normal" coffee maker an "A" rating. And again, nobody is debating that, for sure, gourmet coffee drinkers expect hotter coffee. At the very least, maybe people are a little more aware of how seriously they can get burned from coffee, if only because of the warnings.

What do you think about them continuing to misrepresent the temperatures at McDonald's vs home coffee brewing machines? Ethical? Violation?Again, since we don't have the record of the case (and the judge who felt it was appropriate to criticize the jury's findings didn't have the record of the case), I'm still, in spite of what you said, not 100% convinced that their findings of the home coffee temperature HAD to be unreasonable. We don't know WHAT evidence they put on to support that finding; for all we know, they had the actual engineer who designs each and every Mr. Coffee up there saying that. I don't have a problem with most of the sites (that I see) that mention it.

The point of some of those sites seem to mention what really happened in the case, not Tort Reform's version of it. That was actually part of how the case was decided, so why not mention it? It isn't as if anybody could use their website as evidence in court (and have it be respected).

For years, the insurance companies and tort reform proponents have endorsed the myth that this lady drove herself up to the window, bought coffee, spilled it on herself while driving, got a little burned, got in front of a crazy jury, and won millions of dollars. When what happened was completely different; you and I may not like the numbers they had to work with, but with those numbers, do you really think the jury was wrong to decide as they did?

This case is always brought up as an example of the tort system out of control, and it just isn't. At worst, it's an example of a bunch of corporate lawyers screwing up by allowing some (maybe) erroneous information to go unchallenged. At best, it's a message to big business not to underestimate the value of humans in their cost-benefit analysis.


I'm sorry. This thread is so long I have no idea what straw man I'm knocking down.

At my company, we always said we threw straw men out there to be burned, so if I knew, I probably wouldn't respect him, but in this case, I can't even identify him.
Sorry. It seemed to me that you were intent on debating me about whether coffee is better hot or not. It seemed like you were acting as if I was saying "coffee would be okay a little colder", and then you were tearing that position apart with references about how coffee is "better". I think that was a misunderstanding between us, because you (apparently) didn't know (at that point) that I was okay with leaving all coffee that hot (provided there's a reasonable warning).

My fiancee is going to kill me if we don't go out to eat now, and we'll be out of town tomorrow. If there's something you want me to reply to, please make it clear that that's what you want, and I'll do it Monday after I get off work. Otherwise, I guess the last word is yours.

[OldDude]

I think this is about played out. However, you seem to think that I am focused only on gourmet home coffee units. That is just what I found first. I also found this site which makes commercial units in various sizes (follow the link (http://www.boyds.com/about/otc3.cfm), its too long to post)

They stress even in a commercial setting the need to brew at 200° F and hold the brewed coffee at a 185° F serving temperature.

I also found some 40 year Navy coffee directions (Navy coffee is not gourmet) which specify 185° F holding temperature.

This of course is the temperature of the coffee as leaving the pot and flowing into your cup. The thermal mass of the cup and whether you use cream or sugar will affect the temperature in the cup.

If McD's lawyers didn't challenge wrong data, I don't blame the jury - how are they to know. At the same time, that doesn't make wrong data true; wrong data will never become true. That gets back to a comment I made earlier about law vs. science. I feel plaintiff lawyer misrepresented the facts; in court, it is up to defendent's lawyer to challenge. After court, it is "jump ball" and anybody can call "shennanigans." I have found zero data supported their claim (I would have posted it if I did) and a ton that didn't. I recognize it would need some real verification to be used in court.

No need to respond as I think we are agreed they should warn, and not much left to debate after that except that I emphatically disagree with plaintiff's lawyer about "normal."

[MvRojo]

My sister in law school said that the lady ended up getting a lot, lot less than $3 million after all the litigation and court stuff was finished. McDonalds probably appealed the decision and got the amount dropped to under $500k.

Matt

[elektra]

One quick counter-point: If the coffee was so hot that it caused 2nd and 3rd degree burns (yes, liquid can do that) then it was definitely TOO hot to consume. The fact is that McDonalds had received hundreds of complaints about the temperature of the coffee at certain locations yet did nothing, nary a warning that the coffee was so hot it could cause 2nd and 3rd degree burns and was not fit for human consumption at the temperatures it was served at. Yes, hot coffee can scald you. However, it shouldn't burn a person as severly as the coffee burned the plantiff in the lawsuit.

If you get their coffee everyday, you know exactly how hot it is. If you've complained and they still make it too hot, don't get it. No one is forcing anyone to buy and drink their coffee.

My point was that she should have just been awarded her costs for medical and court expenses and nothing more. She still *chose* to buy and consume their coffee knowing how hot it is. She *chose* to do this in an environment that can easily lead to spilling it on yourself. She did not have to accept *any* responsibility for making these choices.

[benedict]

Originally posted by MvRojo
My sister in law school said [....] I think this side of the affair was all discussd in some depth earlier in thread.

And to link with <b>elektra</b>'s post - and the quote therein - concerning the situation of the "accident", someone mentioned before that it is the heat of the liquid combined with the duration it comes into contact with the skin that accounts for any particular degree of burning.

<b>OldDude</b>'s excellent empirical research shows the kind of product-heat certain machines produce. Coffee spilling over (pooling?) in one's lap/groin area when seated is more likely to stay in contact with the skin for longer and so the injury would have been exacerbated precisely because of that, IMO.

[bhk]

Also, the skin in the inner thigh is thinner and more prone to injury(as opposed to the back).
If all those people who drove Ford Pintos weren't careless and ended up in an accident then their cars wouldn't have exploded. Therefore, Ford shouldn't have been liable. This woman put the cup in her lap. Your analogy should then say "If all people who drove Ford Pintos after having a 12 pk. of beer..." If you want to accurately portray what happened here.

Well, I'm off to sue GE, they don't have any warning on their stoves telling you not to sit on them while they are hot.

[DivxGuy]

Fast food chains, diners, family restaurants, etc. serve their coffee 140-160. Gourmet houses (according to your research) serves coffee at 185+.I manage to make reasonable coffee out of the cheap stuff, because it's all I can afford, and my technique involves superheating a cup of water to "prime" my coffee maker.

The person in question should have known better than to put a cup of coffee between her legs.

BTW I got scalded by a cup of hot water at 17 that had come out of an electric kettle, and had second-degree burns over a large portion of my forearm.

RD

[OldDude]

I almost dread posting in this thread again, and would like to avoid the too hot/too cold/just right aspect of the case and focus on another issue.

Without an exact temperature,can we agree good coffee is pretty hot and will hurt like hell and possibly do serious damage if it spills?

If it hadn't spilled, this wouldn't have been a case and that is an element we haven't discussed. The coffee is served with a safety cap that actually makes it hard to spill large quantities, it grips tightly and it has a little "sipper" flap that limits how fast it can come out. In spite of this design the lady seriously injuried herself. Why? The safety lid is dangerous Why?

Because if you like cream and sugar in your coffee, you have to remove the cap to add it. The tighter the cap, the harder it is to get off and the more likely you are to lose your grip and spill it while struggling to get it off, causing a serious burn. This is true even in the store, but more so if juggling it in a car. Yet if the cap is loose fitting, if the cup tips, the lid will come off and a serious burn could result.

This dilemma can be solved in at least a couple of ways.
*Perhaps sugar and cream should be added by the server (to the amount you request) before the lid is put on. This is done in vending machines, not that they are a model for good coffee. Then it is not necessary to remove the lid and it functions to intent; it limits the rate of large spills.
*Perhaps the lid should be secured in a different way, easy to remove, but still secure when tipped, for example, screw-on.

[LurkerDan]

Yeah, I hesitate to post in this thread again, so I guess I won't...


D'OH!!!

[DivxGuy]

Because if you like cream and sugar in your coffee, you have to remove the cap to add it. I never found removing those lids all that difficult, but then again, what would I know? :p

RD

[OldDude]

Originally posted by DivxGuy
I never found removing those lids all that difficult, but then again, what would I know? :p

RD

You're not an 80-something year old woman with arthritis. I have seen people spill them while fumbling, but I don't have much personal experience as I drink coffee black. Its just a theory, but to me it makes more sense to focus on this issue than selling tepid coffee.

[RandyC]

I think the difficulty in removing the lid is a good point though. I am sure it's harder in a car, when you are 79 years old, and the coffee is 180 degrees.

I still think the main point in this thread, beyond details and legal wrangling is this. Many people bought into an untruth. This was not helped by the media which loves to buy into perceived conflict and emotional knee jerk stories. The myth has spread on the internet also. Many people believe that this case involves a person who was stupid. Bought some reasonably hot coffee. And then tried to drive off and received a burn from the coffee. And then was able to sue for that minor burn.

Should coffee be 150 or 160 degrees? What is the brweing temperature as it leaves the pot? All this is not the main issue. Coffee burns rise up exponentially as the temperature increases. Could that coffee have been held at 160 degrees? Sure. 165? Of course. Maybe even 170, which is scalding hot by my own home experiment. I could not even drink it.

Why 180 degrees? We are not talking about the brewing temp, this was the holding temperature.

The other salient points are that the woman did receive very serious injuries involving skin grafts and painful procedures. She was not trying to get rich by her actions. McDonalds fought her claims, in spite of knowing hundreds of previous people have also submitted claims for seroous burns, some also 3rd degree.

McDonalds was found to be remiss in their diligence by a jury of 12 people. People that saw a lot of data and heard experts. All of them agreed that McDonalds was at fault. The dollar amount awarded, relative to the size of McDs was pretty small.

I think this is the main point to me. There is a lot more to this story than most people are aware of, or care to even know. It's easier and works to validate preconceived notions about the judicial system and lawyers and people...to think that this was a case of someone just trying to cash in on big business.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[benedict]

<small>Originally posted by RandyC
I think the difficulty in removing the lid is a good point though. I am sure it's harder in a car, when you are 79 years old, and the coffee is 180 degrees.

I still think the main point in this thread, beyond details and legal wrangling is this. [....] There is a lot more to this story than most people are aware of, or care to even know.</small>Much of this was alluded to in the threadstarting post - and even accepted by some of us who replied but veered off in other directions such as our dislike of the tepid coffee we are now served....

.... anyhoo, I don't think <b>OldDude</b> provided the data for the heat of the coffee in the lady's car so I cannot say whether it was 180 degrees or no at the time of the spillage! Nor how long it stayed pooled in her lap; doing its worst. FWIW I rarely drink coffee while travelling in cars and if I do I am <i>very</i> careful. So spilled superheated coffee should not be an issue, touch wood. Or even spilled warm coffee: I'll just have to drink the muck.

Regardless of all this, I think <b>OldDude</B> should now patent a screwtop lid for take-out coffee. The richest guy in Britain made his fortune (several billion) from milk cartons!

[DivxGuy]

You're not an 80-something year old woman with arthritis.If I lacked the manual dexterity to properly handle a hazardous item, I wouldn't be handling it at all. A person needs to take into account their physical limitations in such situations.

As for the coffee itself, I like it hot, and I know (from experience) what it's capable of doing when it scalds. If I wanted a cold beverage at McDonalds, I'd order a soda pop or a milkshake.

Oh well, if coffee at McDonald's has to be "dumbed down" so that even people who can't tie their own shoes properly can handle it without danger, I can always go across the street to Starbucks.

RD

[RandyC]

Originally posted by DivxGuy
If I lacked the manual dexterity to properly handle a hazardous item, I wouldn't be handling it at all. A person needs to take into account their physical limitations in such situations.
And companies need to take in account what the typical user expects and understands and is capable of handling. If they do due dilligence in providing the understanding and doing whatever they can WITHIN REASON to prevent an injury, than it's cool.

Factually, there is no "dumbing down" of coffee and coffee served at 160 degrees, as previously stated, is very hot. It was shown in court that their coffee did not need to be 180. It was commonly served elsewhere at lower temperatures.

You hit upon the main point (IMO) of the case. You know what hot coffee will do. I think most people have an idea what hot coffee will do. But what is the expectation of the impact of almost everyone when you spill hot coffee on yourself? A scalding. Sure, it's painful. Heck, maybe you blister.

That is what has been mentioned time and time again. It's all about expectations. What did the customer expect? The removal of skin and 3rd degree burns? I don't think so. If they knew that, I am betting they would not have bought the coffee, or at least would have treated it a lot differently.

If for example, someone pulls up to the McD's drive thru and orders a cup of molten metal. Now we have different expectations. We all understand that this is very dangerous and will burn thru skin. Will grandma put a cup of molten metal between her knees? I don't think so. Will the kid let her? I don't think so. Why? Because they KNOW it will cause severe injury and the risk is not worth it.

But they did not understand that with coffee. And it all boils down to (pun intended) expectations and the difference between 160 and 180 degrees.

Add to the fact that it was demonstrated also that the company KNEW that this was a problem, over 700 times. And intentionally decided it was going to ignore the complaints and do nothing. To me, that becomes their responsibility when they could have done something. Crap happens and I have sympathy for a company when something they are liable for happens to them. But I lose that sympathy when they could have made an easy change, but indicate that for financial reasons, they did not want to.

[DivxGuy]

And companies need to take in account what the typical user expects and understands and is capable of handling. If they do due dilligence in providing the understanding and doing whatever they can WITHIN REASON to prevent an injury, than it's cool. Anyone who's had boiling water spilled on them knows that it blisters skin (in my case, I had about a raw wound of about 12 square inches that required several changes of antibiotic dressings each day for several weeks).

A reasonable 17-year-old (my age at the time of the mishap) might not be aware of just how injurious scalding liquid can be, but surely the standard for a reasonable 79-year-old (someone in possession of the wisdom of a lifetime) should be higher?

Factually, there is no "dumbing down" of coffee and coffee served at 160 degrees, as previously stated, is very hot. It was shown in court that their coffee did not need to be 180. It was commonly served elsewhere at lower temperatures. It was shown that Wendy's, greasy spoons, cafeterias, and other purveyors of low-quality coffee serve it at a temperature that is less injurious in the event of a spill (in other words, dumbed down for klutzier folks), but results in a less palatable product. Establishments like Starbucks that cater to those with more discerning tastes, however, serve their fare at hotter temperatures (try holding a cup of Starbucks just passed over the counter, and that doesn't have that protective sleeve and you'll see what I mean), because that's the way people who really like their coffee want it. In other words, McDonald's was far from alone in dispensing scalding coffee.

BTW people marvel that I am able to get reasonable flavor out of cheap coffee, and a coffee maker that operates at dumbed-down temperatures. What's the secret (at least part of it)? You put in a cup of water in the microwave, heat it until it starts bubbling, and then pour it (very carefully) into the basket to "prime" it. Without the superheated water, the results are just not the same.

RD

[RandyC]

Originally posted by DivxGuy
Anyone who's had boiling water spilled on them knows that it blisters skin

Again, normal coffee is not served boiling in the cup. I have spilled coffee on myself, in fact, I make it almost a regular habit.

My son was taken to the ER for a full cup of hot coffee spilled on his head.

In no case did I think that the coffee would cause a 3rd degree burn. I still don't expect if I buy coffee and spill it on me that it will.

Blah.. I am repeating myself.

[OldDude]

You might want to look at the summary of this case in Minnesota, which reached a very different conclusion, basically that McDonald's temperatures were appropriate. It is a long article and I have only quoted a couple of brief excerts.
Link (http://www.cofc.edu/~arsenaus/205/Holowaty.html)
. . .Heat is an inherent feature of a cup of coffee. If coffee were considered "defective" merely because it is hot, then all products with injury-causing characteristics would be defective. Knives, matches and dynamite, for example, would be deemed defective regardless of their individual characteristics. Accordingly, the test is not whether a product is capable of producing injury, but whether a reasonable manufacturer would have designed the product in a different way to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury.
. . . Diller does not have expertise in coffee brewing and cannot offer any opinion about the possibility of brewing and holding coffee at the temperatures he recommends. Diller's testimony is tantamount to saying that it is safer to make steak knives that have dull edges. While it is true that dull steak knives are less likely to cause injury, the knives are "safer" because they lack a quality that is an inherent feature of a steak knife -- a sharp edge. In this case, defendants have presented evidence that heat is an essential element of a quality cup of coffee. To rebut this evidence, plaintiffs would need to show it was possible for defendants to sell quality coffee at a lower temperature. Diller does not address this issue. Accordingly, Diller's testimony does not suggest that any restaurant owner would have selected a different brewing or holding temperature for the coffee.

For these reasons, plaintiffs have not shown that a reasonable restaurant owner in the position of defendants would have sold coffee at a lower temperature. Thus, defendants are entitled to summary judgment under the reasonable care balancing test.

. . .Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that the cup of coffee they purchased was hotter than normal. In fact, the only evidence in the record suggests that the temperature of the coffee was slightly lower than the average temperature of a cup of coffee in the commercial setting. Thus, plaintiffs' claim also fails under the consumer expectations test.
. . .Next, plaintiffs contend that the coffee was defective because it was not accompanied by adequate warnings. Defendants offer two reasons why they are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' failure to warn theory. First, defendants contend they did not have a duty to warn because the danger of burns is open and obvious. Second, defendants contend that plaintiffs have insufficient proof that the alleged inadequacy of the warnings caused Mrs. Holowaty's injuries. The Court agrees with both contentions and grants defendants' motion for summary judgment.

. . .Although a manufacturer has a duty to warn of reasonably foreseeable dangers, there is no duty to warn if "the user knows or should know of potential danger." . . .The Court holds that the risk of burns resulting from spilled coffee presents the same kind of obvious danger. The average person in the community knows that hot coffee can cause burns. Plaintiffs, in fact, admit that they were aware of the danger. . . .

I know. If that's "short", you should see "long." Well, follow the link. Interesting reading and a very different perspective than the other case.

[OldDude]

These 1945 instructions on preparing Navy coffee may also be of interest. By the way, in spite of claims, Navy coffee is definately not "gourmet."
link (http://www.seabeecook.com/cookery/recipes/navy_coffee.htm) Brewing Coffee the Navy Way

Recipes and coffee making guidelines excerpted from the 1945 edition of the Cook Book of the United States Navy

[General Rules] [Care of Equipment] [Glass Coffee Makers]
[Navy Coffee Recipes]

Roasted coffee is a delicate and perishable product. Whether ground or in the bean, unless vacuum packed in tin, coffee requires careful handling. It looses both flavor and strength on contact with air.

Store coffee, tightly covered, in a cool, dry place. Avoid storing it near foods which have strong odors. Roasted coffee readily absorbs foreign odors, and these make themselves apparent in the finished brew.

If coffee in bean is procured for general mess use, grind only the quantity required just previous to using it each time the brew is made.

Navy coffee has been expertly blended and roasted. If a few simple rules for making coffee are followed, a rich and enjoyable brew may be expected.

General rules

Always use clean equipment.

Rinse urn bag with fresh cold water before using.

Measure coffee and water accurately.

Use freshly drawn cold water which has been brought to a rapid bubbling boil for brewing coffee.

Hold finished coffee at temperature of 185° F to 190° F until served. Never allow finished coffee to boil.

Remove grounds as soon as coffee is made. Seepage from coffee grounds impairs the good flavor and aroma.

Use fresh coffee for each brew. Never use any portion of used coffee grounds a second time.

Make coffee fresh as needed. Never allow more that an hour to elapse between making and serving coffee.

Care of urn equipment

Keep all parts of urn equipment scrupulously clean.

Rinse thoroughly with clear, clean water after each use.

Wash urn twice each 24 hours using urn brush, hot water and washing soda. Use approximately 1 tablespoon washing soda for each quart water.

Rinse urn thoroughly several times with clear, hot water. Be sure that all traces of washing soda are removed.

Rinse coffee faucet on urn daily. Scrub all parts thoroughly with brush, hot water and washing soda. Rinse thoroughly with clear, hot water. Insert a long, thin coffee pipe brush and scrub inside of faucet pipe and plug at bottom of inner liner thoroughly. Rinse with clear, hot water.

Clean gauge glasses at least twice each week using gauge glass brush, hot water and washing soda. Rinse thoroughly with clear, hot water.

Rinse urn bag in clear, cold water after each use. Keep bag submerged in cold water at all times when not in use. Renew cloth bag frequently.

If filter basket is used, wash and dry all parts thoroughly after each use.

[OldDude]

Originally posted by RandyC

I think this is the main point to me. There is a lot more to this story than most people are aware of, or care to even know. It's easier and works to validate preconceived notions about the judicial system and lawyers and people...to think that this was a case of someone just trying to cash in on big business.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

This same "fact sheet" is quoted over and over by hundreds of law firms. McDonalds lawyers did a terrible job of challenging plaintiff's "facts" in court, but that doesn't make them true, just quoted. Your test, my test, and dozens of articles I've referenced from the web have contradicted these "facts" including an interview with director of coffee makers' institute (I didn't go back through thread to get title exactly right.) which said the lawyers had their facts wrong. Apparently in law, lies can be made true if unchallenged by opposing counsel, and quoted often enough.

This "fact sheet" is repeated quoted, with everyone placing the same "religious" level of trust in the words of plaintiff's lawyer as Eve alledgedly placed in the words of The Snake. I think that trust is equally misplaced.

No one has posted a single piece of independent evidence (not quoted from this one McDonalds case) to support the existence of a recommendation by coffee producers, coffee brewer manufacturers, restaurant associations, or regulating government bodies recommending or encouraging a lower temperature.
(There may in fact be one that my search terms missed, but I guarentee that had I seen one, I would have posted it. Engineer's ethics do not permit unfortunate evidence to be ignored)

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by OldDude
This same "fact sheet" is quoted over and over by hundreds of law firms. McDonalds lawyers did a terrible job of challenging plaintiff's "facts" in court, but that doesn't make them true, just quoted. Your test, my test, and dozens of articles I've referenced from the web have contradicted these "facts" including an interview with director of coffee makers' institute (I didn't go back through thread to get title exactly right.) which said the lawyers had their facts wrong. Apparently in law, lies can be made true if unchallenged by opposing counsel, and quoted often enough.

This "fact sheet" is repeated quoted, with everyone placing the same "religious" level of trust in the words of plaintiff's lawyer as Eve alledgedly placed in the words of The Snake. I think that trust is equally misplaced.

No one has posted a single piece of independent evidence (not quoted from this one McDonalds case) to support the existence of a recommendation by coffee producers, coffee brewer manufacturers, restaurant associations, or regulating government bodies recommending or encouraging a lower temperature.
(There may in fact be one that my search terms missed, but I guarentee that had I seen one, I would have posted it. Engineer's ethics do not permit unfortunate evidence to be ignored)
The pertinent point to be gained from the "fact" sheet is not that the facts are wrong, as you have so diligently proven. The pertinent part is that these facts are what was presented at trial. So, what does that mean?

As you have pointed out, McD's lawyers screwed up. It also means that the jury, given this info, ruled absolutely correctly. Whether they should have ruled that way with correct facts is another story.

What this also means is that this case should not be used as a poster child for all that is wrong in our legal system, as it so often is. You contest the facts used, but that is not why I started this thread in the 1st place. People throw this case around lightly, saying horrible horrible things about the woman who sued, with no recognition of how this suit came about, what happened, why it happened. That is wrong, and does a disservice to everyone...

[OldDude]

I agree with that. What are your thoughts on the Minnesota case, which reflect how a different court looked at it? The coffee lid now has a warning on it (and did in 1998 MN case) apart from that the material facts seem about the same to me as a lay person. Either defendent's lawyers or the case judge did a better job of challenging plaintiff's facts ( again as seen by lay person).

[OldDude]

Originally posted by LurkerDan

What this also means is that this case should not be used as a poster child for all that is wrong in our legal system, as it so often is. You contest the facts used, but that is not why I started this thread in the 1st place. People throw this case around lightly, saying horrible horrible things about the woman who sued, with no recognition of how this suit came about, what happened, why it happened. That is wrong, and does a disservice to everyone...

For a moment, I thought I agreed, but as I think about it, I really don't. Others may have misrepresented other facts about this case in making it a poster child for what is wrong with our justice system.

This suit was all about temperature. I agree the jury decided correctly for the facts they heard and the fact they heard wrong facts, left unchallenged, lies directly with McD's lawyers. I also don't know whether, at the time plaintiff's lawyers knew they were misrepresenting facts.

These facts are easily checked via the web. Yet product liability lawyers and you, yourself, at the beginning of the post, are still proclaiming them true 10 years after the case when they aren't. Home coffee makers serve at 135-140. McDs serves 20 degrees hotter than anybody else. BS!! Yet most people accept this because lawyers still spout it. I believe lawyers now know or should know that they are misrepresenting facts, and the fact they are quoting from case findings, in my mind, does not relieve them of the responsibility for misrepresentation.

If we examine true facts:
1) McD's serves at approximately the temperature recommended by coffee growers, coffee appliance manufacturers, and in line with many other restaurants (not necessarily all)
2) Lady spilled and got badly burned
3) Lawyers misrepresented coffee serving practices in court and McD's lawyers failed to challenge
4) Lady got big settlement, later reduced.
5) Lawyer's misrepresentations become "facts," broadly accepted by most people, due to frequent quoting, even though they are wrong.
6) The Minnesota case is never heard of, although it looked at "facts" a little more critically
I believe this is a poster child for what is wrong with our justice system, or part of what's wrong, perhaps not for exactly the same reasons as others believe it. [/rant]

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by OldDude
For a moment, I thought I agreed, but as I think about it, I really don't. Others may have misrepresented other facts about this case in making it a poster child for what is wrong with our justice system.

This suit was all about temperature. I agree the jury decided correctly for the facts they heard and the fact they heard wrong facts, left unchallenged, lies directly with McD's lawyers. I also don't know whether, at the time plaintiff's lawyers knew they were misrepresenting facts.

These facts are easily checked via the web. Yet product liability lawyers and you, yourself, at the beginning of the post, are still proclaiming them true 10 years after the case when they aren't. Home coffee makers serve at 135-140. McDs serves 20 degrees hotter than anybody else. BS!! Yet most people accept this because lawyers still spout it. I believe lawyers now know or should know that they are misrepresenting facts, and the fact they are quoting from case findings, in my mind, does not relieve them of the responsibility for misrepresentation.

First off, there was no web to check these facts with 10 years ago. Second, if I accept your facts to be true, which I am inclined to do, there are plenty of other sites out there (not all run by lawyers) that present the facts as they appeared in the case. My research ON THE WEB revealed those facts, not yours. Who is to blame for that (I mean, aside from me for my shoddy research ;))? The legal system?

I don't know many people, lawyers or not, who are misrepresenting facts. What is being represented are the facts as portrayed at trial. I have no idea how these became facts at trial, and never will know.

This may be a poster child for bad lawyering, but I don't know how this reflects poorly on our justice system, unless we do away with the adversarial system entirely...

[OldDude]

I don't know what to say about the non-lawyers. I'm concerned with the lawyers who still quote it as truth while promoting their firms. I recognize you had no involvement in the case and were just quoting what you found. I am perhaps a little more suspicious and went a little deeper.

Don't you feel a little misled by your fellow lawyers? I reread the thread and your initial arguments were all about McD's temperatures vs home machines and other establishments, ie the false propaganda that product liability/injury lawyers put out there while pretending the Minnesota case doesn't exist (that one was really hard for me to find). Personally, I would be flaming po'd in someone in my profession misled me to that degree.

I don't honestly know how to change it, I don't want to change the results of a ten year case necessarily, I just object to the continued misleading of people with this information. Within the case the fault is all McD's lawyers for not challenging. In public ads, internet sites etc, still misrepresenting facts a decade later goes a little deeper, and is part of whats wrong with our justice system. JMO

[benedict]

<small>I really hate the way the word "fact" is being used here without quote marks.</small>

[OldDude]

Actually I thought I was pretty consistent with quote marks ("inverted commas" over there) or used with a verb like "misrepresenting" where I felt they could be omitted.

[benedict]

<b>OldDude</b>, <b>your</b> facts <i>were</i> facts. (I was being polite by keeping it general!)

:)