patrick.net

That was 20 years ago, and it was debated ad nauseum at the time. Slow news day?

Nothing new in this report. Same old bogus appeal to shock value. Yes, she was badly burned by the coffee. But the fact is that such occurrences are so rare as to be statistically insignificant. There have been countless on-line debates about this over the last 20 years. Coffee is hot; if you pour it on your body it will burn you. Thanks to that lawsuit, we now have to live with lukewarm coffee with silly warning labels that say, "coffee is hot". Duh. McDonald's used to have the best coffee of any fast foot chain. Now it is lukewarm crap, because they are afraid to heat the water to the proper temperature to extract the flavor from the coffee grounds.

The woman suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, she lost nearly 20% of her body weight. Two years of medical treatment followed.

I'd recommend you watch this movie:

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp

It may just change your mind about so-called "frivolous lawsuits".

finehoe says

The woman suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, she lost nearly 20% of her body weight. Two years of medical treatment followed.

So instead of any rational argument, you just give us more appeal to shock value. I already SAID the woman was badly burned. Coffee is hot, and it will badly burn you if you dump an entire cup on yourself. Sometimes bad things happen that just aren't anyone's fault. If I hit myself in the head with a hammer, it will injure me. Do I sue the hammer company?

Homeboy says

Sometimes bad things happen that just aren't anyone's fault.

As I said, watch the movie and you will see there was more to it than that.

I prefer the made-up frivolous lawsuit stories: fake stories are much more black-and-white, like the killing of Vince Foster, or Ron Brown, or the stories of Clinton and Ollie North standing on the remote runway watching the cocaine planes fly in with CIA coke. And there's always Richard Gere and the gerbil, or James Dean biting off the driver's penis at the moment of impact.

Consider the story of the man who trimmed his hedge with the lawn mower. What an idiot! The fact that this totally fictitious lawsuit ever went through the courts is a travesty.

Totally false, but appealing to a wide variety of non-analytical people for its puerile simplicity. Like Austrian "economics".

Homeboy says

Sometimes bad things happen that just aren't anyone's fault.

True, and unfortunately we have chosen to setup our system where the injured party can be driven to bankruptcy because of medical bills. If an accident is no ones fault should the victim have to foot the entire bill?

Initially the woman was only wanting medical bills covered (I believe about $20k), and McDonalds said, "fuck you." If they had just paid the medical bills then no one would have ever found out about their pattern of willful neglect.

Homeboy says

If I hit myself in the head with a hammer, it will injure me. Do I sue the hammer company?

This analogy does not really apply.

Imagine a carnival ride -- how about Ferris wheel. As we get on we know that there is a very low, but actual chance of injury on a ride. Shit can happen that is realistically out of anyone's control.

On the carnivals part there should be a expectation on how people are going to behave on the ride: looking around; leaning forward; etc.

Now imagine that the Ferris wheel did not have a very secure lap bar, and occasionally when someone leaded forward and put their weight on the bar the seat would tip and the occupants would slide under the bar and fall from the ride. Also, sometimes when the operator brought the ride to an abrupt stop the seats would swing and some would spill their riders out.

Now imagine if the Ferris wheel had 700 people fall off the ride; most because people were shifting around in the seat, but some because employees stopped/started the ride abruptly. In addition the carnival received many warnings about the ride from their own safety personnel.

Person 701 gets on the ride she; shifts in here seat; falls out; spends 2 weeks in the hospital with life altering injures.

Who is at fault? The rider knew there was some risk to carnival rides...is it her fault for getting on in the first place? Is it her fault because she leaned forward to get a better look?

This analogy is pretty close to exactly the way the McDonalds lawsuit shook down.

leo707 says

1. McDonald's coffee was really fucking hot; much hotter than one would make at home, or other establishments made; so fucking hot it would literally burn the flesh off your body.

Let's dial the histrionics down a notch. The upper limit is 100C at sea level which is definitely not "so fucking hot nobody ever brews anything at this temp". [It couldn't be more than that unless the Mickey D in question was substantially below sea level which it wasn't. :P ]
And since McD most probably use a commercial drip machine it wasn't even at boiling point. Probably 96-97C max.
Coffee from a moka pot many people have at home will be hotter than that. People brew black tea with boiling water every day.

Any reasonable person expects freshly brewed coffee to be near boiling point (unless specifically ordered otherwise) and supposed to handle it accordingly.

Straw Man says

much hotter than one would make at home, or other establishments made

The upper limit is 100C at sea level which is definitely not "so fucking hot nobody ever brews anything at this temp".

Poor word choice on my part. I should have said "serving" temperature not "make." In general one lets a heated beverage -- or any heated consumable for that matter -- cool before serving it.

The McDonalds coffee was in the 180-190F range (about ~82-87C). Generally, the "serving" temperature at home or other establishments is in the range of 135-140F (anything above 140F is going to be undrinkable). If McDonalds had "served" their coffee at 155F then serious burns would be very unlikely to result in an spilling.

The McDonald's coffee also abused her emotionally for 12 years and ran over her dog. I have lost a brother and several close friends to McDonald coffee burns. It's time we the people stand up to our freshly brewed overlords and demand they be iced in their containers.

This is just the sort of righteous capitalism that will pull this country out of it's economic funk and provide jobs for everyone.

leo707 says

they made the conscious choice that extra-hot coffee would boost sales to a greater extent than dealing with burn victims.

SoftShell says

This is just the sort of righteous capitalism that will pull this country out of it's economic funk and provide jobs for everyone.

leo707 says

they made the conscious choice that extra-hot coffee would boost sales to a greater extent than dealing with burn victims.

Well...not for everyone, just those in the legal industry.

finehoe says

As I said, watch the movie and you will see there was more to it than that.

I already wasted my time watching a video which claimed to provide info about a case that was "misunderstood". It did nothing but appeal to emotions through shock value, and provided no information I didn't have 20 years ago. If I watched every bullshit "movie" that someone here on Pat Net told me to, I would have wasted my entire life. Not gonna watch your stupid movie. If you have something to say, say it. If you got nothing to say, STFU.

leo707 says

Whether or not she took the lid of was a relatively minor issue in the case. The real issues were:

No, it was THE most important fact in the case. Everyone knows that coffee can burn you if it spills on your skin. Putting a cup of coffee between your legs and trying to pull the lid off is not a wise move. I also find her claim that they drove away from the drive thru, then momentarily pulled over so she could add cream to be highly suspect. I think it's much more likely that she tried to do it while the car was moving.

leo707 says

1. McDonald's coffee was really fucking hot; much hotter than one would make at home, or other establishments made

It's SUPPOSED to be really hot. It was NOT hotter than coffee you would make at home, unless you make shitty coffee at home.

http://www.huladaddy.com/coffee-talk/how-hot-is-your-coffeemaker.htm

According to the Specialty Coffee Association of America and the National Coffee Association, the optimal temperature for brewing a great cup of coffee is 197.6 – 204.8F. If the temperature of the water is too low under extraction occurs. Since acids in the beans are the first substances to dissolve, the coffee will taste weak and have a sour flavor.

Oh Noes! That could burn you. Quick, let's sue the Specialty Coffee Association of America and the National Coffee Association.

leo707 says

2. During discovery it was found that McDonald's knew how hot their coffee was; they knew that people would receive serious burns as a result; in fact they already had many customers who had received serious burns; they made the conscious choice that extra-hot coffee would boost sales to a greater extent than dealing with burn victims.

OH MY GOD IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!! RUN!!! HIDE!!!!

They chose to make hot coffee because coffee DOESN'T TASTE GOOD if it isn't hot. You can ask any coffee expert about that. The number of people who were burned by McDonald's coffee was statistically insignificant. What part of "statistically insignificant" don't you understand? Relative to the number of cups of coffee sold, McDonald's didn't have any more cases of people being burned than any other restaurant.

What you are asking us to believe is that McDonald's heated their coffee too much because they deliberately wanted to injure people. Why would they do that?

leo707 says

If an accident is no ones fault should the victim have to foot the entire bill?

That's what health insurance is for. Are you seriously suggesting that a party who is not at fault should be liable for medical bills?

leo707 says

Initially the woman was only wanting medical bills covered (I believe about $20k), and McDonalds said, "fuck you." If they had just paid the medical bills then no one would have ever found out about their pattern of willful neglect.

There was no "pattern of willful neglect". Relative to the number of cups of coffee sold, McDonald's didn't have any more cases of burns than any other establishment. The fact is that it was an EXTREMELY rare occurrence. It's like saying they should have had a lightning rod in case someone got struck by lightning.

leo707 says

This analogy does not really apply.

No, it applies perfectly. You just fail to understand it.

leo707 says

Now imagine that the Ferris wheel did not have a very secure lap bar, and occasionally when someone leaded forward and put their weight on the bar the seat would tip and the occupants would slide under the bar and fall from the ride. Also, sometimes when the operator brought the ride to an abrupt stop the seats would swing and some would spill their riders out.

Now THAT is an analogy that doesn't apply. If there were something WRONG with McDonalds' coffee, then of course they should have been liable. But there was nothing wrong with it. The reason your argument is fallacious is that you are incorrectly believing that 700 is a "big" number. You are failing to compare the 700 burns with BILLIONS of cups of coffee sold. You are not being logical; you are simply being emotional. You are not comprehending what it means to have billions of customers. How many people do you think have slipped and fell at McDonald's in 10 years? Thousands, perhaps? How many have choked? How many have been hit by cars in the parking lot? 700 is not a big number in this context. It is a tiny number. Should they stop serving solid food so nobody will choke? Should that not have parking lots so nobody will ever get hit by a car? To say something happened 700 times is a specious argument. You are not being rational.

Typical knee-jerk response to an incident, citing meaningless statistics with no context.

"700 people were burned" - that's all we hear.

What we need to know is, what PERCENTAGE of people are burned by coffee from other sources, and is that percentage more or less than McDonalds. But I know, watching movies is so much more fun than being logical.

marcus says

Actually this is a lie. I get breakfast every now and then at McDonals, and their coffee is quite hot. Not too hot anymore. And not in styrofoam anymore.

I disagree. McDonalds' coffee tasted much better when they brewed it at the correct temperature. And to call someone a liar just because you can't tell the difference between a good cup of coffee and a bad one is incredibly obnoxious.marcus says

I didn't follow the case at all

Then shut the fuck up and let the people who actually know the facts discuss it.

Homeboy says

McDonalds' coffee tasted much better when they brewed it at the correct temperature.

That's like asking if you want your shit brownie hot out of the oven or let the turd cool on a marble slab for 10 minutes first. At least Starbucks has the nerve to charge $12 for their brackish swill before cauterizing your taste buds.

Philistine says

That's like asking if you want your shit brownie hot out of the oven or let the turd cool on a marble slab for 10 minutes first.

Look, I'm 100% in agreement that McDonald's serves dogshit on a bun. But their coffee WAS good. It was much better than Burger Barf, Jack in the Crack, Dunkin' Sploogenuts, Taco Hell, or ANY of those places. It was actually pretty decent coffee. Sure you don't like it now, because they have to serve lukewarm diarrhea since they're afraid some old biddy will burn herself and sue them. Starbucks is pretty decent too. And from what I can determine on the internet, Starbucks serves their coffee at 175-180 degrees, which, according to you guys, is too hot. What I keep trying to tell you is, it has to be hot to taste good. You can drink your "safe" 150 degree Taco Bell coffee; I prefer something that doesn't taste like vomit.

Just explain how, if it makes absolutely no difference how hot the coffee is, why they would want to serve it hot. You really think they just wanted to injure people?

Homeboy says

I disagree. McDonalds' coffee tasted much better when they brewed it at the correct temperature. And to call someone a liar just because you can't tell the difference between a good cup of coffee and a bad one is incredibly obnoxious.

Their coffee is hot enough to burn your mouth now. But I didn't say I thought it was good (because I don't). I also didn't call you a liar. I said that saying their coffee is lukewarm is a lie.

Way too much emotion.

Actually, now that you've taken the trouble to make your argument, I see you have a legit point of view, and I'm more on the fence. In fact I always thought the settlement was probably way too high, without ever learning the details of the case.

Fact is I often agree with you, and you have some good points here.

But you're the one that's an obnoxious asshole, and you really should work on that.

Homeboy says

Then shut the fuck up and let the people who actually know the facts discuss it.

Also, my experience has been that brewing coffee at lower temperature actually makes it better.

Some of the best coffee I have ever had was made with this.

http://www.amazon.com/AeroPress-80R08-Coffee-Maker/dp/B000GXZ2GS/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

A major premise behind the AeroPress is that you get better coffee when you brew at a lower temperature.

Stand the chamber on a sturdy mug, then proceed to pour hot water into the top of the chamber (175 degrees F is optimal).

Using a regular french press correctly, also calls for not using boiling water, but rather water around 180 - 190 if possible.

Heat it a tad after in the microwave if you want it hotter.

A good cup of coffee requires four things to be executed correctly:
1- Proper brewing temperature
2- Proper serving temperature
3- Quality beans
4- Quality water

Any one of those items being 'off' can have a major impact on the experience.

Don, don't you think it's kinda long to make your point?

What was your point, anyway?

Did you have fun typing that?

B.A.C.A.H. says

Don, don't you think it's kinda long to make your point?

What was your point, anyway?

Did you have fun typing that?

I think its in there if you take the time to read it, but honestly I don't expect many to do that. That said, yeah, I did actually enjoy writing it - haven't thought about that stuff in a long time (I don't do litigation) but its fun to see how much of that I can remember.

I have something unhelpful to add to the discussion:

Am I the only one in the world who finds coffee, hot or iced, fit only for spitting into the toilet and never drinking again?

And what's with the obsession with drinking beverages so hot that, if you chugged them, it would line your esophagus with life-threatening burns?

leo707 says

Yes, you are ignoring how our legal process works. Believing that you are smarter than a judge and jury who had access to much more information that you did; you are refusing to try and understand why there would be such a large reward against McDonald's in this case. Here is your very emotional response to the fact that McDonald's knew they were burning people and chose to do nothing about it.

On the contrary, I am not ignoring the legal process, I am pointing out its inadequacies. Lawyers try to sway jurors by appealing to emotion. "Look how badly this woman was burned - here are some graphic pictures." O.K., that's really awful, but does it mean McDonald's did something wrong? I object to the premise that if someone got hurt, there HAS to be a rich person who is liable and able to pay a lot of money. The attorneys for McDonald's explained how they were ignoring context - how 700 complaints was a miniscule number compared to the billions of cups of coffee they served. They explained how ALL experts on coffee say it must be prepared at a high temperature or it will have an unpleasant flavor. These facts were lost on a jury who could only think: "Oh my god - look at those burns on that poor old woman".

Obviously you are not aware that the judge struck down the jury's award. That's right, the JUDGE thought it was incorrect. They actually ended up settling for an undisclosed amount, so we will never know how much money she actually got.

So which one of us is "emotional" and believes he is "smarter than a judge"? I guess that would be you.

Homeboy says

Obviously you are not aware that the judge struck down the jury's award. That's right, the JUDGE thought it was incorrect.

No, I am not aware that a judge "struck down" the initial award. I am however aware that in September 1994 Judge Scott reduced the initial award to $480K, and also commented on McDonald's conduct as, "willful, wanton, reckless and what the court finds was callous."

Homeboy says

They actually ended up settling for an undisclosed amount, so we will never know how much money she actually got.

This is correct in November 1994 there was a settlement.

Between September and November of 1994, did some other judge "strike down" the award finding no fault on McDonald's part? This is interesting, I have not seen it in anything that I have read on the case. Please cite you source.

Homeboy says

Lawyers try to sway jurors by appealing to emotion. "Look how badly this woman was burned - here are some graphic pictures." O.K., that's really awful, but does it mean McDonald's did something wrong?

Does this happen? Sure, but not as often as you might think. Also, to win one needs to present facts as well. Just because there is an emotional component does not mean that the entire argument is incorrect. You are completely ignoring the other facts as to why Judge Scott referred to McDonald's conduct as, "willful, wanton, reckless and what the court finds was callous."

Hint: it was not just because there were some graphic pictures of a badly burned old woman.

Homeboy says

The attorneys for McDonald's explained how they were ignoring context - how 700 complaints was a miniscule number compared to the billions of cups of coffee they served.

Sure, just like a person who walks their dog through a city every day for decades walks the dog past 10s (100s) of thousands of people. If that dog bites 2 or 3 of those people in some contexts that would be statistically insignificant. If that dog ends up attacking and killing someone a judge and/or jury will find that the owner of the dog knew because of those past biting episodes that the dog was aggressive and dangerous. This is the way that McDonald's burning of 700 people was viewed by the court.

If it makes you feel any better, post 1994, people have tried to sue McDonald's (and other tea/coffee servers) because of burns, but as a result of this case McDonald's has lowered their serving temperature and uses better cups. All those other lawsuits have been thrown out.

Homeboy says

What is your belief? That McDonald's made the coffee too hot because they wanted to injure people? Does that make any sense?

No, McDonald's did not want to injure anyone. However, they knew that they were going to injure people, but they chose to do nothing to prevent the injuries that the knew were going to happen.

leo707 says

Does this happen? Sure, but not as often as you might think.

Now you're just making things up. Appeal to emotion is a standard tactic for trial lawyers.

leo707 says

You are completely ignoring the other facts as to why Judge Scott referred to McDonald's conduct as, "willful, wanton, reckless and what the court finds was callous."

I am not ignoring anything. If anyone is ignoring things, it is YOU. You completely ignore the fact that the risk was statistically insignificant, and that there is no evidence whatsoever that McDonalds' risk was any greater than any other restaurant. Whenever people cite numbers without context, e.g. "700 complaints", you KNOW they are not making a rational analysis.

Homeboy says

What do you mean it isn't true that the judge struck down the award? You just said so yourself. Are you fucking high? The judge changing the award says EVERYTHING about the jury's decision. People here are saying the JUDGE made the original award. He did not. He actually REDUCED it. He thought it was wrong. If you can't understand that, you are a fucking idiot.

I am presenting FACTS here. YOU are the one pulling things out of his ass.

Reduced and struck down are two different things.

The judge who reduced the award made it clear that while he thought the award was too large, McDonald's was indeed at fault.

leo707 says

Judge Scott referred to McDonald's conduct as, "willful, wanton, reckless and what the court finds was callous."

leo707 says

No, McDonald's did not want to injure anyone. However, they knew that they were going to injure people, but they chose to do nothing to prevent the injuries that the knew were going to happen.

If you misuse a knife, you will injure yourself. Does a knife company have a duty to make their knives incapable of cutting human flesh? They "know" that it can happen. Does that automatically make them liable?

Homeboy says

I am not ignoring anything.

So, you are not ignoring the fact that Judge Scott called McDonald's conduct, "willful, wanton, reckless and what the court finds was callous?"

It seems pretty clear to me that you are ignoring anything that would lead one to the conclusion that McDonald's was acting willful, wanton, reckless and callous.

leo707 says

Reduced and struck down are two different things.

Semantics. He struck it down and replaced it with a lesser award. The parties ended up settling for an undisclosed amount. This is documented in many articles. I suggest you educate yourself.

leo707 says

It seems pretty clear to me that you are ignoring anything that would lead one to the conclusion that McDonald's was acting willful, wanton, reckless and callous.

Not ignoring - disagreeing. There is a difference. I think the judge was swayed by emotion just as the jury was. But not to the same degree.

YOU are the one who ignores facts.

I think the crux of the problem here is the assumption by several of you that if a company "knows" their product CAN injure a consumer, that they have a duty to discontinue making that product in its current form. This is not at all true. I can scarcely think of a product that WOULDN'T injure you under the right circumstances.

Homeboy says

I think the crux of the problem here is the assumption by several of you that if a company "knows" their product CAN injure a consumer, that they have a duty to discontinue making that product in its current form. This is not at all true.

No, but if a company acts in a willful, wanton, reckless and callous manor that ends up in the injury of a person then the company should be held liable. This is true.

Homeboy says

leo707 says

Reduced and struck down are two different things.

Semantics. He struck it down and replaced it with a lesser award. The parties ended up settling for an undisclosed amount. This is documented in many articles. I suggest you educate yourself.

No, in every court document is will never say "struck down and replaced" it will say "reduced." They are two different things.

Also, the compensatory award of $160k was never "struck down" or "reduced."

Homeboy says

leo707 says

It seems pretty clear to me that you are ignoring anything that would lead one to the conclusion that McDonald's was acting willful, wanton, reckless and callous.

Not ignoring - disagreeing. There is a difference.

YOU are the one who ignores facts.

Hmmm...when you imply that the Judge disagreed with the judgement against McDonald's it seems to me like you are ignoring the Judge's actual position on the matter.

leo707 says

Hmmm...when you imply that the Judge disagreed with the judgement against McDonald's it seems to me like you are ignoring the Judge's actual position on the matter.

Instead of repeated ad hominem, why don't you try making an actual argument? Too difficult?