I bet everyone of you will remember what the 'hot coffee lawsuit' was. An elderly woman had sued McDonald for serving her such hot coffee it resulted in 3rd degree burns and millions in punitive damages. A lot of us might also remember it as the poster child of frivolous lawsuits. Some of us might also have taken actions according to our understanding of this issue. A nice summary at Priceonomics reminds us how the 7th amendment has eroded over the two decades following that incident.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Hot Coffee Lawsuit Helped Erode the 7th Amendment
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 39 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday May 12 2014, @12:36AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(film) [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2014, @12:55AM
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee [wikipedia.org]
Some corporations can't take a hint.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by MostCynical on Monday May 12 2014, @01:15AM
http://www.thinkreliability.com/CM-HotCoffee.aspx [thinkreliability.com]
Theoretically, serving hot beverages in a sealed cup would prevent (or severely limit) this sort of injury.
Who wants a sealed cup?
At what point is a hardware store not going to be allowed to sell chainsaws? http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/09/11783903 49892.html [smh.com.au]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by crutchy on Monday May 12 2014, @07:38AM
as much as the hot coffee thing may seem really dumb, i think at most it may have been more a case of punishment not fitting the crime than a case of no crime committed at all.
mcdonalds has a duty of care to its customers, and coffee that truly has the capability of inflicting burns is unwise regardless of legal threats. if you develop a reputation for burning your customers, eventually you will lose them.
"this cup is hot" warnings are intended only to protect mcdonalds and don't address the underlying problem; did anyone care to check what the coffee pot temperature was set to?
there is a temperature at which most people would say a coffee is uncomfortable to drink, and it would be reasonable to assume that a temperature that inflicts 3rd degree burns is probably a bit over that limit. maybe some people like their coffee superheated, but that would (and should) be optional rather than default.
the stupid thing about the coffee lawsuit wasn't the case itself but the corporate world's "cover my ass" reaction and an ignorant assumption by commonfolk that they could never possibly be in a similar situation as the old lady. maybe someone falling off a poorly maintained chair at mcdonalds would be funny too, except if it made them a paraplegic. how far should it be taken? who knows, but you don't see many poorly maintained chairs at mcdonalds (or anywhere else).
a similar comparison could be drawn in worplace safety laws, but anyone who knows anything about the kinds of incidents that occurred before such laws were put in place would appreciate them.
nb/ i don't do rtfa
</rant>
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Monday May 12 2014, @07:57AM
McDonald's probably did check (and maybe adjust) the coffee pot temperature. I don't know. But the extra warning on the cup can't hurt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2014, @08:43AM
Yes, and McDonalds own witness explained that it was set way too high to be drinkable, to stop people who paid for "free refill" to use the refill option, by making them need to wait another 10 minutes before they could drink their coffee.
When you bring your own witness in, and he basically calls you a fraud, don't expect the judge to have sympathy with your side.
(Score: 2) by jmoschner on Monday May 12 2014, @04:29PM
The ideal temperature range for brewing coffee is between 195 - 205ºF. The national coffee association even recommends maintaining already brewed coffee at 180 - 185ºF (a common temperature to serve coffee).
According to the Burn Foundation, hot water can cause third degree burns in 1 second at 156ºF, 2 seconds at 149ºF, 5 seconds at 140º, and 15 seconds at 133ºF.
(Score: 2) by crutchy on Monday May 12 2014, @09:36PM
if anyone really gives that much of a crap about how hot their coffee is, they probably aren't getting it from mcdonalds regardless of how hot they serve it
most people who get coffee from mcds just want caffiene... not a tastebud orgasm
(Score: 2) by crutchy on Monday May 12 2014, @08:22AM
the thinkreliability root cause analysis assumes equal responsibility to both parties. this case is different because most customers aren't privy to the same information as mcdonalds (who even knew before reading this that mcdonalds coffee is served at 180 deg F?) modern consumer laws are written to balance this inequality by putting the onus on mcdonalds to sell burgers made with patties that aren't supplied from cattle infected with mad cow disease, using utensils that haven't also been used to clean toilets, and to serve coffee that isn't a risk of burning your throat let alone your leg.
not sure where you were going with the chainsaw thing. i was kinda hoping for a juicy story about someone tripping over a chainsaw in a shop and poking their eye out on a hedge trimmer on their way down, but instead was taken to some crap about some depressed guy killing his father before killing himself, and an innocent electric chainsaw happened to be nearby and tried to stop him. was the link redirected by smh maybe?
(Score: 1) by MostCynical on Monday May 12 2014, @10:10PM
Chainsaw = wilful damage / misuse of "dangerous" object.
When is something dangerous? Is hot coffee "dangerous"?
What threshold should apply for "warnings" (or disclaimers?)
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by crutchy on Tuesday May 13 2014, @08:04AM
good question... i'm not sure of the answer (it's probably subjective to some extent)
chainsaws are different to coffees though. chainsaws are sold with user/maintenance manuals full of warnings and disclaimers (working with a chainsaw as an employee/contactor/rescue voluteer/etc usually requires formal training).
if a coffee came with equivalent paperwork i guess you could assume the same level of risk as a chainsaw user, but given that a coffee is generally supplied as is, the consumer must necessarily assume that the coffee is safe to drink and handle without any special prior knowledge of what temperature a coffee should be.
just some food for thought: should a hot chocolate be sold to a child at 180 deg F? obviously this would be questionable, but on the same token should a child be denied hot chocolate because of the temperature at which its sold?
(Score: 1) by MostCynical on Tuesday May 13 2014, @08:20AM
Chainsaws (and even coffee) may be sold with manuals, disclaimers, warning stickers, but the user (drinker?) may well never see the manual, the stickers, or the disclaimers.
I suspect there could be a derived responsibility for the person who *bought* the chainsaw, then gave it to an eleven year old to use, with no instruction.
If I buy a coffee and the shop had big signs saying "coffee is hot, be careful", would that equate to the manuals and disclaimers? Maybe this is what case law is for..
Bought anyone a hot coffee recently? Hope they didn't spill it..
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday May 12 2014, @10:25AM
The whole thing is bullshit as there was NOTHING frivolous about what happened to her. The place had gotten several complaints about serving coffee waaay too hot, the coffee they served her was so hot she got third degree burns that required skin grafts to repair, if the coffee is so damn hot that a spill requires getting your skin replaced? its too fucking hot, end of story.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Monday May 12 2014, @01:49AM
If someone is going to complain about frivolous lawsuits, don't use Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants as an example. The problem here is that Liebeck had valid claims, and was only seeking medical fees, and spent two years undergoing physical therapy to recover from the injuries endured; I don't know about you, but that's a pretty damn valid claim for personal damages.
To give you an idea of what that type of damage looks like (WARNING, not for the sqeamish): http://dxline.info/img/new_ail/third-degree-burn_1 .jpg [dxline.info] and here: http://maryemicari.com/gallery/albums/bruises%20an d%20burns/Third%20Degree%20burn.JPG [maryemicari.com]
According to the medical report, she had burns on 6% percent of her body, with lesser-degree burns in other locations, and was hospitalized for eight days, loosing 20% of her body weight during that time as she went through grafts and other procedures.
The coffee served at McDonalds was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns that melted her skin, and McDonalds refused to settle several times, leaving it to the jury to assign $160k in medical expenses (grafts + 2 years therapy). The millions of dollars number comes from what the jury came back with, but the trial judge lowered it to $640k.
Furthermore, McDonalds had settled several other cases related to other burns, and refused to change their practices or even put a warning label. This is right up there with the Ford model of "a recall is more expensive than paying lawsuits".
Its easy with this case to blame the victim, but please raise a hand if you've never spilled anything on yourself, or done something stupid. I've spilt drinks on myself before, especially if I'm trying to remove the lid for something. It's a foreseeable outcome, and by serving coffee at 180-190F, it was easy to see this exact outcome happening; imagine for a moment if you had a child at a table who had grabbed your coffee, and managed to spill it on yourself, getting third degree burns in the process; I'm pretty sure no one would say that this case is frivolous then.
It just happens the cause of the case is ridiculous when taken out of context, but its by no means frivolous. Others may feel differently, but I've yet to see an argument that convinces me that this wasn't a legitimate lawsuit ...
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday May 12 2014, @01:57AM
> If someone is going to complain about frivolous lawsuits, don't use Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants as an example.
I take it you didn't read the fine article.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Monday May 12 2014, @02:03AM
Uh ... *cough*. I saw the wikipedia reaction, and I got on my soapbox. Yeash, perhaps I should shutup and RTFA >.;
Still always moving
(Score: 3) by crutchy on Monday May 12 2014, @07:55AM
Keep it up NCommander. Your comment was insightful for those of us who also do not bother to RTFA.
This is a soapbox website (imho) and I come here for the comments; to rant, to vent, to troll, to pick fights with other trolls, to bicker till a nested comment generator gives up and just outputs a the remaining comments as flat. TFA is just a title for inspiration... to get the wheels of car analogies turning in the minds of geeks all over the world.
Future poll question: How many Soylentils really RTFA?
For me to even click a link for TFA, TFS must contain one or more certain keywords that trigger a mental boner.
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Monday May 12 2014, @09:25AM
I read all the articles that I submit, does that count?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2014, @10:29AM
I find that I have to RTFA, given the fact that most of the summaries on SN are so fucking grammatically incorrect that I have no idea what idea they are trying to convey.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mrcoolbp on Monday May 12 2014, @04:04PM
Maybe you should submit better summaries then?
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 2) by crutchy on Monday May 12 2014, @09:39PM
i rarely submit anything, cos i'm not much interested in tfa or tfs. i'm just here for the comments mainly, and the geeky community spirit.
(Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Tuesday May 13 2014, @03:45AM
I replied to the AC above because this site is what we make of it. When you have a community-driven model like this, it does a lot more good to chip in and help out instead of just complaining all the time. A few centavos of mine.
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday May 12 2014, @02:14AM
When I was 5 years old, I was eating some ramen noodles fresh out the pot when I accidentally spilled the scalding broth all over my arm -- while wearing a sweater which absorbed the hot liquid and clung to that arm.
Seeing the pictures brings back traumatic memories from 2-3 decades ago in rural Arizona -- and the worst part was that when the paramedics showed up they rubbed this burn cream shit all over my arm before bandaging it up, which made the burning even worse. Imagine squirting lemon juice or rubbing alcohol all over one of those burns in the pictures for an idea of what it felt like. Removing the bandages revealed giant blisters an inch in diameter popped all over my arm for the next week or two, leaving it a raw sore mess that seemed to roll right off the flesh. Bathing was also a bitch.
But the real question is, why would anybody willingly drink McDonald's coffee? Fuck, my parents were so poor that they fed me ramen noodles and government cheese, but at least they were classy enough to have Folgers or Sanka at home. Drinking McDonald's coffee is as dignified as being a 5-dollar prostitute.
(Score: 1) by nemasu on Monday May 12 2014, @05:40AM
Does the coffee there suck in the US? Or do I just like terrible coffee? It's pretty good in Canada, they even sell the beans.
I made an app! Shoutium [google.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday May 12 2014, @06:53AM
7-11 [examiner.com] now sells their own beans, and likely for one or both of two reasons: (1) Because it's what many people are used to and are too afraid and/or lazy to try something else, and (2) selling the beans fools rubes into thinking it's some kind of classy product worth showing off, as if you were buying it from Tiffany's rather than a 7-11. It's the same tactic Microsoft tried on their surface tablets - if we sell them and they're expensive, they must be good, right?
7-11 coffee tastes like fake industrial chemicals, probably has corn syrup in it (couldn't find an ingredients list), and is often loaded with sediment. Quality-control varies wildly depending on which 7-11 you go to if you want to get it hot from the pot. I drank it for many years and still do drink it occasionally, so I know.
You have to put some effort into finding good coffee in America.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday May 12 2014, @02:46AM
The problem here is that Liebeck had valid claims, and was only seeking medical fees, and spent two years undergoing physical therapy to recover from the injuries endured; I don't know about you, but that's a pretty damn valid claim for personal damages.
Ok, what were those valid claims? All I see here is that she suffered harm. That's not enough to have a valid claim. You also have to show that McDonalds was negligent as well. My view is that they weren't. She knew the coffee was hot and how it was packaged. She probably had experienced spills before. She also carried that coffee in an extremely unsafe manner (between her legs while driving). Knowledge/awareness plus considerable negligence on the part of the coffee drinker spells no valid claim for me.
(Score: 1) by yellowantphil on Monday May 12 2014, @03:02AM
She wasn't driving.
I read the article above, and the author said that a different jury may have found her to be more at fault in the accident. The jury that she actually got found her to be 20% at fault. You could argue that 20% fault was low.
I feel like 190 degree coffee is far too hot, since you can get third degree burns from it very quickly. But that is apparently a common temperature for serving coffee, even after this lawsuit.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday May 12 2014, @03:11AM
There's a simple solution. Don't buy it or have them drop an ice cube in before they give it to you. I bet the hotness of the coffee was one reason she bought it.
Because that is what a lot of people want.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Monday May 12 2014, @03:32AM
The court case found that it was explicately done to allow coffee to stay fresh longer, and nothing based on customer demand, I'll have to dig out the exact reference in a bit, but if coffee is hot enough to melt skin, do you *really* want to be putting that inside you?
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday May 15 2014, @07:16PM
The court already contradicts itself unless it is going to claim dubiously that fresh coffee is not a customer demand.
It was for her and perhaps hundreds of millions of people like her.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday May 12 2014, @03:38AM
> You also have to show that McDonalds was negligent as well. My view is that they weren't.
From the wikipedia article about the case. [wikipedia.org] I've left off McDonald's rationalization for not acting because its clear the jury didn't buy it when they assigned 80% of the fault to McDonald's.
> She also carried that coffee in an extremely unsafe manner (between her legs while driving).
From the same article:
(Score: 3, Funny) by mhajicek on Monday May 12 2014, @03:53AM
Well really, $640k should be enough for anyone.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1) by radu on Monday May 12 2014, @06:33AM
Come on, you *really* need someone to warn you that something that was boiled could be hot? Or didn't you know you need to boil water to make coffee? How old are you?
And the next time I'll hear someone saying "just imagine a child [...]" and everyone goes "she's a witch, burn her!" I'll spank someone... Don't you teach your children anything at all? Like "don't stick that knife into your eye, it ain't good for you" - you just go and sue the knife manufacturer for not putting a label on it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2014, @09:25AM
No. My parents didn't teach that either. You may think there's a problem with that but I just don't see it. Or anything else.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday May 12 2014, @07:49AM
FYI, your second link is to a make-up artist's site.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2014, @11:47AM
The New York Times has a "Retro Report" looking back at the lawsuit, using clips from the documentary about it. It points out that Liebeck did have valid claims, and that one of the main problems was poor reporting by the media that distorted the facts.
(Score: 2) by ls671 on Monday May 12 2014, @03:18AM
I wasn't aware of that "hot coffee lawsuit".
No wonder why I now find my coffee to cold in most places.
I have to tell them to put only half of a cream in it in order to get it hot enough and sometimes I even put it in the microwave when available, without boiling it of course.
Everything I write is lies, including this sentence.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday May 12 2014, @05:27AM
Hi, I RTFA'ed! The TFA is long. Reading hurts. Ideas too big. We need a legal system more like in the movie "Idiocracy"! But I did notice that Karl "Turdblossom" Rove is involved! Hey, after we privatize war, and education, how about privatizing justice? We could make millions!!
(Score: 4, Informative) by ticho on Monday May 12 2014, @11:04AM
Huh, I actually thought the article would be about the video game GTA and its "hot coffee" mod.