Xiroteus

I recall seeing how bad it really was a few years ago. Was not aware this case was that old already. The person it happened to has been gone for almost a decade already and it still continues to pop up.

Sdallnct

It's an interesting case. From many angles. While I think the verdict was totally incorrect, I have back off over the years calling it "frivolous". She clear had cause. IMO frivolous is without cause or damage. Several years ago an insurance company lost at the time one of the biggest class action suits in history for using non-OEM parts on a cars after accidents. IMO this was frivolous (it was later over turned in the Supreme Court). Why was it frivolous? There seemed to be no cause. The insurance policy did not require the use of OEM. Such parts were not shown to be less safe, effective or as well fitting as OEM parts. And nothing was shown that having these parts reduced the value of the car. Not to mention some State Departments of Insurance REQUIRED the use of non-OEM parts as a savings mechanism.

How can one collect anything if there was no damage, loss, or injury? This is more along frivolous to me.

Sdallnct

One angle not mentioned so far is the damage/benefit analysis. That McDonalds knew the coffee could burn, but by selling it so hot they would sell more. So they felt it was reasonable to just "pay people off" when hurt while continuing to sell it. People compare it to the Pinto (or whatever car that was). That the likelihood of having to pay a few injuries was worth not having to totally redesign the defect.

While all companies analyze risk and carry insurance (or self insure) I don't buy this on this specific case. For one it assumes the coffee is defective. It was not. 2nd it assumes McDonalds would pay people that were hurt. They had never done that before where the customer was the cause of the spill. Only those times when it was an "employees" fault or contributed to it.

Red Dog

You know why it's not mentioned -- because, again, this was not a negligence case (at least not for McDs; it was for the woman from a contributory standpoint); it was a product/strict liability case. That type of analysis is a part of the negligence liability calculus - as to the level of duty/standard of care owed.

General Zod

I think the lady won this case because she was an elderly lady that had this bad thing happen to her and rich McDonald's could afford to throw her a bone (If I remember right her lawyer estimated that the $2.4 million was like 2 days worth coffee sales). I don't think the jury got it right and I certainly don't think this lady "deserved" it (And apparently neither did the Judge). This is why cases that attempted to piggyback on this one haven't been successful. Like the lady who tried to sue Starbucks a couple of years ago when she spilled hot tea on her leg and was severely burned as well.

Groucho

There's a documentary about this and other cases called Hot Coffee (my apologies if it's been mentioned). While I don't agree with the film's conclusion (that tort reform is unnecessary), it is a good watch (if a bit graphic when they show the photos of the burns, etc).

Chrisedge

Water Temperature During Brewing
Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee. If you are brewing the coffee manually, let the water come to a full boil, but do not overboil. Turn off the heat source and allow the water to rest a minute before pouring it over the grounds.

Red Dog

You realize she did not get a multi-million dollar award - at least not in trial (it was eventually settled before appeal for an undisclosed amount)? The award was significantly reduced by the judge.

Yeah, I mentioned it, Groucho. I started a thread about it in the Political Film forum. I have no problem with having a national discussion about reform, but mainly in the area of Remedies (such as punitive damages). But this case is an absolute stinker as a reason for tort reform (in either the realm of strict liability/negligence or remedies (damage awards given the judge's remittitur).

There are so many myths and misconceptions about this case. I can understand people not understanding the law, but so many get the basic facts wrong.

General Zod

Yes. That's why I said that about the judge.

Sdallnct

Sure....if you own a dangerous animal (say spider monkey) and keep it in a cage. It might be the best cage available. It the spider monkey gets out and hurts someone you are liable.

However, in this case, to me it would be like knowing a slider money is dangerous and crawling in the cage.

It's also assume the coffee was dangerous. Used for it's intended purpose it was not.

Supermallet

On the other hand, if you purposefully agitate the spider monkey in advance of it interacting with a third party, and then that person gets in the cage and the spider monkey rips their face off, well, you might be held somewhat liable in that case.

Duran

There is a difference between the temperature at which the coffee is brewed and that at which it is served.

crazyronin

What about the dynamite monkey? Are you still liable if you have a sign that warns of the dangers of taunting the dynamite monkey?

Sdallnct

Wait....there are dynamite monkey's?? I thought Spider Monkey's were cool, but Dynamite Monkey's! Awesome!

DaveyJoe

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but there's a documentary on this subject. It's called Hot Coffee.

Jaymole

I was wondering when someone would mention this.

Here is the poster for the film:

EddieMoney

She died.



And that coffee burned the living fuck out of her.


Literally.

WCChiCubsFan

Another fine example of how people think they know the facts when in reality they do not.

McDonalds owners handbook now instructs owners to serve the coffee ten degrees cooler.

EddieMoney

If you look at the pictures of the old lady's burns, they look a lot like Krokodil wounds.

Just saying, the bitch was probably lying.

Sdallnct

And yet they are getting sued...again. Saying it is still to hot. Which just indicates the temperature really makes no difference (assuming you are going to have coffee that is hot).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4192626.html

Now I'm sure the details will come out, but at this point I can't tell exactly what happened. If in the process of the employee handing her the coffee if spilled (if so I'm sure McDonald's will settle) or if she just spilled it on her herself. She is claiming the lid was not secured properly.

So the big difference is that she is blaming McD's for their actions. She is claiming no fault on her part (least that I can tell). In the Stella case she clearly admitted to being totally at fault. Her ONLY issue was the temperature of the coffee.

Interesting they continue to use the number of people burned as proof. Interesting as this is obviously following the pattern of the Stella case. And totally deceiving. If I say 1,000 people were burned, it is easy to say "oh my god....how is McDonald's still in business?". Yet if I say 1 person in 24 million (roughly) are burned, give totally different perspective.

WCChiCubsFan

Doesn't matter if they are still getting sued, all I was pointing out is that the post was another example of people thinking they know the facts when they clearly do not.

van der graaf

Welcome to Otter, where the brain trust just makes shit up and calls it "fact"!

Sdallnct

Well it might not matter to your point, but I was making another one.

And, while I agree many miss the facts, most are out there. Speaking of, do you know if when McDonalds changed their manual? Or if it was because of the Stella case?

WCChiCubsFan

Doesn't matter if the facts are out there if people, even some in this thread, just ignorantly post misinformation thinking they are posting facts.

This poorly constructed sentence comes across as if you are questioning whether or not McDonalds actually did change their manual.

To be clear as possible here are two facts.

1. Fact: McDonalds DID change their manual.
2. Fact: The change occurred after this lawsuit.

Only McDonalds can tell you why they changed the manual.

DVD Polizei

As a company, why would you leave your training manual the exact same AFTER you've been successfully sued for millions on a subject within your manual that caused injury. That would leave yourself open to even more lawsuits, and the court would even agree you were negligent in your duty to protect a consumer.

Whether a company changes procedures after a ruling, doesn't really matter and doesn't prove guilt per se, because they do this automatically. It's like a "no contest" demonstration. However, to not show heedfulness after losing a lawsuit, is legally foolish.