Quote :

"PEOPLE INJURY THEMSELVES"

10/19/2011 10:09:43 AM

I couldn't make it through that video. Ugh.

10/19/2011 10:10:56 AM

Quote :

"Yes, because only McDonald's serves hot coffee and should be sued when people injure themselves!"

Stop trolling. Read the facts...the verdict was correct.

10/19/2011 10:16:35 AM

I did read the facts.

McDonald's serves hot coffee, per their customer's request/standards
McDonald's has a warning on the cup, saying the coffee is hot
Woman spills her coffee on herself, due to her own actions, and ill placement of a hot cup of coffee

I don't see how McDonald's is at fault for anything. There was nothing wrong with the actions of employees, this product wasn't defective, and it wasn't different than the other cups of coffee that were sold.

10/19/2011 10:19:55 AM

Quote :

"McDonald's has a warning on the cup, saying the coffee is hot"

I thought those warnings were put on the cups after that case. And I also thought the coffee was above safety regulation temperatures in that case.

10/19/2011 10:21:52 AM

^^ See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

I'm not condoning the lawsuit or anything, but if you look into the case, it turns out

Quote :

"McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's."

and

Quote :

"Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. Instead, the company offered only $800. "

and

Quote :

"...scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had 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, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg). Two years of medical treatment followed."

For what it's worth, I at least understand this case for the sake of trying to cover one's medical costs - I personally wouldn't get near a 190°F coffee cup, and the potential 3rd degree burns is exactly why.

/derail

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 10:26 AM. Reason : ninja'd]

10/19/2011 10:26:16 AM

there was a label. no regulatory "maximum" or whatever

Quote :

"(A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.[16]) "

Quote :

"Similar lawsuits Similar lawsuits against McDonald's in the United Kingdom failed. In Bogle v. McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd. Field J rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving coffee at a lower temperature. "If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 C and 60 C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 C and 95 C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 C and 60 C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled."[16] Other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns. Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defend the lawsuit by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee after the suit. Morgan has since brought other lawsuits against McDonald's over hot-coffee burns.[20] McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[21] relying on more sternly-worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[21][22] The Specialty Coffee Association supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served.[20] The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[23] Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 °F (82 °C) in this case) is not "unreasonably dangerous." The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 °F [93 °C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 °F [66–71 °C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 °F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.[24]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

It is not MCD's fault that this woman spilled hot coffee on herself.

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 10:28 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2011 10:26:27 AM

Quote :

"It is not MCD's fault that this woman spilled hot coffee on herself. "

It's their fault for serving coffee that is too hot. People spill coffee all the time. You don't serve it boiling for this reason.

10/19/2011 10:30:37 AM

Too hot in who's opinion? The trustworthy government's? The vast majority of customers expected it to be that hot. Other lawsuits have been dismissed/lost on such issues. This was a rogue judge/jury.

Even coffee at so called "normal" temperatures can severely burn you. the ideal holding temps are 175-185, which can burn you. but what do yo uexpect MCDs to do? tell customers to wait 20 minutes for their coffee to cool down? ideal serving temp is 155-175, WHICH CAN STILL BURN YOU. in fact, below that range, at 150 degrees, it takes 2 seconds to cause serious burns

Quote :

"(A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.[16])"

Quote :

"he smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 °F [93 °C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 °F [66–71 °C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 °F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.[24]"

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 10:33 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 10:34 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 10:37 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2011 10:33:10 AM

When an overwhelming majority of establishments serve their coffee at 40-50 degrees lower, then I don't think customers "expect" it to be that hot. McDonald's admitted in court that they served it that hot for the drive-thru customers who took their coffee to work. They wanted it to still be really hot 20 minutes later when they got settled into their office. They also admitted that they had hundreds of complaints and injuries already, but no big lawsuits. They ran a cost benefit analysis and decided that they would make more money serving scalding hot coffee (which is what fucks over most of these companies that get sued...they want to make more money at the safety expense of the customer).

People spill coffee all the time. Accidents happen. Would you feel any different than if someone accidentally bumped into this woman and the coffee got spilled all over her face causing third degree burns?? But because of lawsuits like this, establishments are forced to lower the temperature of their coffee and we have less devastating injuries such as these.

10/19/2011 10:51:08 AM

I think a part of their argument is that they served it in a flimsy cup too. Obviously to an old lady.

That seems kind of reasonable, and epically when they were asking for a # in the $1,000s anyway. I watched a video on this and it was McDonalds who was pushing for a jury trial. Probably wasn't the smartest legal decision ever.

And to be perfectly fair, if I sell you a tank of liquid Nitrogen and the tank has a crack in it...

10/19/2011 10:55:57 AM

This thread is kind of like that video. No one is even paying attention to the toddler.

10/19/2011 10:57:10 AM

MCDs had been serving it's coffee at this temp. It's customers expected it. Any coffee drinker would know immediately that this coffee is hot. The cup even says so. And MCDs had a valid reason and customer support for serving it "hotter than others" (I'd like to see an explanation of "others". Who? How many? Who else served "too" hot coffee?). MCDs wasn't intentionally endangering others and their product wasn't defective.

And you're comparing a case of self injury to non-self injury. That's not what's at stake here.
Further, even at lower temperatures, those considered "normal" serving temperatures, STILL CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY. IN THAT CASE, NO COMPANY SHOULD EVER SERVE COFFEE AT IT'S PROPER SERVING TEMPERATURE.

10/19/2011 10:57:42 AM

Quote :

"MCDs had been serving it's coffee at this temp. It's customers expected it."

Customers buying cars years ago expected not to have seatbelts and airbags...yet we now have these safety features among thousands of other that customers never "expected" to have. We have a majority of these safety features because of lawsuits such as these.

Quote :

"MCDs wasn't intentionally endangering others and their product wasn't defective."

Actually, they intentionally sold coffee at an unsafe temperature after knowing the consequences if it being spilled and coming into contact with skin. A product doesn't have to be "defective" for it to be dangerous. I'm glad this lawsuit served its purpose in reimbursing the woman for medical damages and pain and suffering, punishing McDonald's, and ensuring coffee at a safer temperature at McDonalds.

10/19/2011 11:13:50 AM

Almost all coffee is served/supposed to be served at a "dangerous" temperature.

10/19/2011 11:14:38 AM

the problem with McDonalds is that there were internal communications regarding the superheated coffee before the accident. the decision was made to heat it more than standard to ensure pots lasted longer, thus reducing the number of brews needed each day, thus saving money.

long story short, there was evidence that McD's had discussions about the dangers of the hot coffee and decided it was cheaper to settle lawsuits than to spend more on making extra batches of coffee.

when this came out, they got hammered. they willingly put customers at risk in order to save money, figuring lawsuits would be cheaper to deal with.

of course, most idiots in amurica say LOL OMG COFFE IZ HOT LAWYERS SUCK

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 11:16 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2011 11:15:27 AM

Quote :

"of course, most idiots (wdprice3) in amurica say LOL OMG COFFE IZ HOT LAWYERS SUCK"

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2011 11:21:15 AM

haha, we trollin, we hatin

10/19/2011 11:22:54 AM

If the wheel comes off a rented roller skate at a rink, then the business is perfectly liable. It depends on what the implicit contract of the purchase is.

If I buy cigarettes labeled "cancer sticks", there's a little bit better of a case for personal responsibility than the "good health" brand.

10/19/2011 11:24:56 AM

Quote :

"If I buy cigarettes labeled "cancer sticks", there's a little bit better of a case for personal responsibility than the "good health" brand."

People don't buy coffee intending to pour it on their crotches.

10/19/2011 11:25:55 AM

^^that's a defective product and a case of negligence (maitenance and normal safety check)

serving hot coffee that is labeled hot that can be felt as hot that is known to be hot is not defective nor negligence

the point is, any coffee served at a typical serving/holding temperature is capable of causing severe burns in a matter of seconds. the temperature of MCDs coffee, while hotter than others, isn't much hotter than others and regardless, at either temperature (serving or holding) can cause burns. other legal cases have essentially said the same.

[Edited on October 19, 2011 at 11:41 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2011 11:37:51 AM

Quote :

"serving hot coffee that is labeled hot that can be felt as hot that is known to be hot is not defective nor negligence"

But that isn't the whole story. Quit being such a simpleton.

10/19/2011 11:42:24 AM

Oh here we go again, the yearly TWW tradition of beating to death the coffee case.

**************************************************************

Saw the girl case on CNN International yesterday on TV. The CNN reporter was even standing at the very spot, pointing to where the girl was lying, and showing how the garbage lady dragged her to exactly which spot next to the stack of bags of stuff. Felt weird to see the CNN reporter standing on the spot, knowing that the girl was lying there crushed just days earlier.

They also interviewed the garbage lady. She is like 4 feet something. She has been given money and other stuff by the government, and has gone back to her village.

I really hope the girl recovers fully. Otherwise, I don't know what better/worse: passing away in her coma, or recovering and being a 'vegetable' all her life. (apologies for using that word, have forgotten the proper word)

10/21/2011 11:36:30 AM

She died, dude.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/21/chinese-toddler-dies-a-week-after-being-hit-by-cars-ignored-by-passersby/

10/21/2011 11:43:37 AM

oh damn. thanks for the update.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15398332

i guess it is better that way. one of the children of heaven.

10/21/2011 11:45:38 AM

Quote :

"This thread is kind of like that video. No one is even paying attention to the toddler."

10/21/2011 11:46:54 AM

I'm glad she died.


Wish she died sooner in that state.

10/21/2011 11:56:18 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/25/world/asia/china-toddler-dead/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Quote :

"(CNN) -- A 24-year-old man has been charged with manslaughter for the death of Wang Yue, the toddler who garnered international attention after she was run over and ignored by passersby, authorities said Tuesday. Authorities arrested a man named Hu Jun, China's state-run Xinhua news agency reported. The man, who is from eastern China, is accused of being one of two drivers who drove over the two-year-old girl on a narrow street in southern China earlier this month. The girl, known by the nickname Yue Yue, later died. Chinese hit and run toddler dies Video captured by a nearby security camera showed the drivers, one after the other, hitting the girl in Foshan, Guangdong province. More than a dozen people walked, cycled or drove past the toddler as she lay bleeding in a busy market area. The video footage sparked a global outcry about the state of morality in China's fast-changing society. That included generating a flurry of activity on Sina Weibo, China's equivalent of Twitter, and spurring a "Stop Apathy" online campaign. The girl was eventually rescued by a 58-year-old scavenger who pulled her aside and tried to get help."

10/25/2011 10:41:08 AM

^^ Yeah I hate to think about how much pain she was in for that week

10/25/2011 11:05:17 AM

Quote :

"And you're comparing a case of self injury to non-self injury. That's not what's at stake here. Further, even at lower temperatures, those considered "normal" serving temperatures, STILL CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY. IN THAT CASE, NO COMPANY SHOULD EVER SERVE COFFEE AT IT'S PROPER SERVING TEMPERATURE."

If you can just ignore the "flimsy cup" claim, then yes, your argument works GREAT!

Not only are you ignoring that, but you're ignoring the details of the case. The family initially asked for only medical costs, which were on the order of $20k. The reason the case later saw awards on the order of $100ks is because the court, after seeing the details, thought it necessary to punish McD for being the corporate dick they always are. McD WANTED the case to go to jury trial.

No one argues against the fact that she sustained serious injury. You don't. Provided that this is an economic activity that will result in injury in very rare cases, then wtf is your solution? One way or the other, there is a tradeoff between cup price (and sustainability) and the # of injury cases. If you can not accept any legal penalty for the servers, then you accept serving coffee in any cup, no matter how crappy, is acceptable.

Do you not see how it makes sense to put the servers on the line for at least medical expenses? If the cases are so few, then F it! McD won't give a flip about a few $1,000 per year against their coffee business. Customers accept some risk, business accept some risk. You have to have a control that punishes the business when they go WAY overboard in their risk tolerance.

10/25/2011 11:25:34 AM