|
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 |
<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. .... 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! |
You're not an 80-something year old woman with arthritis. 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 |
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. 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. |
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. 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. 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 |
Originally posted by DivxGuy Anyone who's had boiling water spilled on them knows that it blisters skin 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. |
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 . . .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. . . . |
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 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. |
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 "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) |
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) 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... |
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).
|
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... 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] |
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. 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... |
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 |
Grrrr!
<small>I really hate the way the word "fact" is being used here without quote marks.</small>
|
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.
|
Not guilty!
<b>OldDude</b>, <b>your</b> facts <i>were</i> facts. (I was being polite by keeping it general!)
:) |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.