McDonald's and Hot Coffee
 

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.

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.

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.

that is amazing

Only in America.....

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

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.

So why didn't she sue the driver?

Re: McDonald's and Hot Coffee
 

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.

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.

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...

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?

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> :(

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.

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.

<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).

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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... :)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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)

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

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?