Yes, coffee is hot. I guess it comes down to, is there too hot or not?
If a company serves you coffee that is too hot too even drink, much hotter then necessary or is generally accepted, and is extremely dangerous, which is much much more dangerous then hot coffee (as opposed to freaking hot coffee) then they are assuming a large risk.
They are basically handing you an extremely hazardous item, more hazardous by several levels then the “standard” and doing so without any warning.
And McDonald’s knew they were handing scalding cups of coffee that were very hazardous. They knew they were handing out coffee much hotter and more dangerous then reasonably could be expected. But they discounted the risk.
The jury heard all the eveidence and ruled correctly.
This may be a bit off-topic and I beleive greatly in personal responsibility, as I do in the cigarette case, however I do not believe this was a good example of out of control jury verdicts. it is a better example of the media distorting the facts.
I believe that their coffee was served around 110 degrees. Coffee is usually served at 105.
But regardless of the temp, the product was used improperly. a reasonable person should not expect to be able to stir their coffee with their johnson without injury. If you jam your hand into lawnmower blades, you should lose the right to claim that they are too sharp.
So, who was more negligent, McD’s or the lady who poured coffee on herself?
Who could better have avoided the damage caused by smoking, the individual who smokes 20 cigs a day knowing the probable outcome, or the company that offers the product. At teh absolutely most liberal, it should be 50-50.
So, how do you “KNOW” the product was used improperly? Were you on that jury? Did you read the trial transcript? perhaps the appelate brief? No? Did not think so. According to the Jury, the evidence said the product was used “properly”. And a reasonable person assumes that accidents sometimes happen even to reasonably careful people.
So who is more negligent? Probably the folks who think they know enough to second guess a jury’s verdict after hearing 1% of the evidence. Read an Ann Landers column or a Readers Digest article, and now we are all experts on the case.
Any liquid hot enough to cause third degree burns should NOT be handed out in styrofoam cups with itty bitty loose plastic lids. have any of you nay sayers experienced a burn???
I had second degree burns covering my torso when a coffe pot was spilled over my back. yes, coffee pot - as in coffee about to be consumed. and all I got was 2nd degree (hurt alot, but that’s another story). the McDonalds woman got 3rd degree burns. skin actually was burned away. and this is something you were to put to your lips? again, assumption of risk here, also applies to the corporation - if in the face of evidence that something you’re doing causes harm - CHANGE it! as in the cigarette companies had an even more compelling reason to change their product to decrease risk instead of increase addiction.
and, I agree with previous posts - if you don’t know the case record, don’t make half assed assumptions about the issues.
You can read the link I posted above. McDonald’s served their coffee at between 180 - 190 degrees. This was corporate policy. That is too hot too even drink safely without burning your mpouth and throat. McDonald’s knew that this was too hot, dangerously so.
Look, I know coffee is hot, but at home and most anywhere else your coffee is about 140 degrees. Experts testified that at 155 degrees the coffee would not have produced third degree burns.
ROTFLMAO. Come on, Danielinthewolvesden, you use that same argument every single time. Give us another, or is that the only argument you have? You don’t need to be on the jury to know about the case. Have you read the trial transcript?
There’s one elementary fact you guys have all ignored. Coffee gets cold if you leave it alone. If it’s too hot, don’t freaking drink it!
And the product was used improperly. Coffee is not meant to be poured on one’s genitalia. The temperature of the coffee was irrelevant.
Will we see in our lifetime labeling on knives “Warning, sharp!”? I hope not. And if people need that warning in order not to get hurt, they deserve to die.
ROTFLMAO. Come on, Danielinthewolvesden, you use that same argument every single time. Give us another, or is that the only argument you have? You don’t need to be on the jury to know about the case. Have you read the trial transcript? **
[/QUOTE]
Nope, I haven’t, but I don’t need to, as I am assuming that the folks who heard and saw all the evidence know more about it than I do. I assume then, you also tell people all about movies that you haven’t seen after just reading a short review. Fer putzes sake, you haven’t even been on a jury, or been tried, but now you’re an expert.* :rolleyes:
*and I am not picking on just MF here, this is addressed to all of you who think they can second guess a jury after hearing 1% of the evidence.
Yes, we know the coffee was too hot. And we know the lady was a moron who must bear at least partial responsibilty for holding the cup between her legs.
By the by, her award was cut from the millions to just over 400k by the presiding judge. Maybe somebody already mentioned that, but I was too lazy to read the whole thread.
Probably because it’s the only argument that’s yet to have any counter offered up. I rarely agree so completely with Daniel.
ANYway, back to the cig thing…
We seem to have a debate of facts here. Some have said that tobacco companies are in trouble for lying about health… some have said that they lied about how addicting their product is.
If it’s about the former, I would agree that people have known cigarettes to be bad for a long time. I mean, it’s common sense… don’t breath air that you can see. Of course, exactly HOW bad has been vague for a long time, but that’s hardly the issue, and NOT the tobacco companies’ fault.
BUT (and you know there’s always a “but”), if Marlboro et all lied about how addicting cigarettes are, I can understand the case. After all, it would have led to the notion of “I’ll smoke for a while, just to see if I like it, then quit.” A (generally) false notion, at that.
No daniel, I did not read the transcript, and I was not on the jury. But I can state, with reasonable certainty, that coffee is not meant to be ingested through the vagina.
My bona fides: 5 years as a senior claims adjuster, 3 years as a claims consultant, 2 years as an insurance manager for a $330 mm/yr company. I have seen many, many claims and lawsuits, have investigated tons nad am well acquainted with the legal principals at play with product liability cases (I have written product liability policy language and handled product cases up to $22,000,000.) shall we play the qualifications game some more?
The mere existence of a hazard does not constitute liability. Lawnmowers are inherently hazardous, as are guns, and liquor and fatty foods. However, where one has the ability to avoid injury and fails to do so out of indefference or sheer pig ignorance one must do so. Just because a jury hands down a sympathy verdict does not mean that the verdict is correct, nor that the alleged torfeasor was responsible in whole or in part for the injury.
But since you were not on the jury, I assume that you will refrain from opining on any and all future debates involving jury trials…
Sure lawanmowers are dangerous. That does not give the manufacturere the right to make them extremely dangerous. Yet, McDonald’s gave out coffee that was extremely hazardous. I want to emphasize the coffee was extremely hot, not just hot or very hot or whatever. It was quite dangerous and there is a substantial differnce between the hazrds coffee of varying temeratures can cause.
And you know what, coffee spills, we have all done it. So even with intended use there is a very real hazard imposed from the coffee.
What if someone simply had the coffee in their hand, accidently got bumped and it spilled it all over themsleves or someone else. Well if it was McDonald’s coffeee there is a good chance that person would suffer third-degree burns. If it was reasonably hot then they might suffer some minor burns. That was the issue, that the coffee was simply too dangerous and hazardous to be given out without warning.
then the person who bumped you is at fault and you can sue them.
What if I bump you while you are using a very, very sharp knife? You see, where all this is going is that corporations are responsible for the actions of indivisduals. We need duller knives, colder coffee, and absolutely no products that can be harmful if misused.
I should be able to walk down the highway, blindfolded and juggling chainsaws. If I get hurt, it is clearly someone elses fault.
What you are getting at here is the concept of strict liability. This is the principal that certain activities are so dangerous that comparativ liability does not apply. Typically this is reservedfor dangerous animal, explosive use, and firearms. Hot fluids are NOT in the same category.
Assumption of risk, comparative liability and last clear chance…endagered concepts.
Oh, for Jesus Christ, Mr. Z., you of all people know that arguing from ignorance will get you nowhere. Nobody was tring to ingest anything through their goddamned genitals.
Facts:
The woman in question was a PASSENGER in a parked car, not the driver, as many assume. The car wasn’t moving.
The woman was holding the coffee and attempting to remove the lid (or maybe the tab on the lid) to add cream and sugar.
The lid caught and jerked, causing the coffee to spill in her lap. The 180-degree factor came into play here, liquifying skin.
The woman asked McDonald’s to help with her medical costs, and despite their many prior citations on the hot coffee issue, they blew her off, so she sued for recovery of medical costs plus damages.
Anyone who things 110-degree coffee is “cold” is an idiot.
OK, so she spilled coffee on herself because she was trying to pull the lid off while in the car. I can think of about 100 better ways to do this. she could have gotten out of the car. She could have placed the cup on the floor of the car. She could have gone into McDonalds and put in the creamer there.
She was NOT using the product as it was intended to be used. Regardless of temp, coffee is not meant to be poured on one’s lap. Until you cinvince me that McDonalds was responsible for dumping the coffee on her, I see no liability. The temp of the coffee was totally irelevant until she dumped it on herself.
Until I see one fact that changes this, I will not be convinced that McD’s had more than about 5% liability. I would have denied this claim and defended it as McD’s did.
The tobacco deal is a little different in that they are claimiming a defective product, that, if used appropriately, would cause injury. However, I feel that smokers willfully assumed all risks from smoking, therefore removing any and all liability from the tobacco companies.
The coffee lady not only assumed risk, but also misused the product.
Oh, I should also note that some liability WAS assigned to the woman (although far less than the 95% you imply), and while the size of her award was reduced SIGNIFICANTLY on appeal, the appellate court found no problem with the assignment of liability. (It was something like 80/20, with McDonald’s receiving most of the blame.)
Apparently you have little problem with companies continuing to sell a product which has been found to be dangerous even when used properly.
so if she had DRUNK the coffee and had 3rd degree burns in her mouth, then and only then would McDonalds have liability??? I mean really, you keep on focusing on what part of the body got burned. The point was, I believe, that the coffee was given to her to consume at a temperature that would burn away human tissue. their answer that “most people wait to drink their coffee” doesn’t cut their liability - look at it this way - if they’d sold you an uncooked hamburger with the tag line of “most people warm them up first” don’t you think they should have SOME liability???
and re: assumption of risk by the consumer - ok, if I buy fireworks, which we all know can be dangerous unless you know what you’re doing, and I get injured because I refuse to follow or learn safety precautions, I’m with you, I would have liability.
However, the cig companies have known for 30 years or more that the product that they manufacture causes great harm, EVEN if used exactly as intended. Where’s THEIR assumption of risk??? remember the old SNL skit (back when it was funny) with Danny Ackroyd hawking his “Halloween costumes” like “Johnny Space Mask” - a plastic bag and a rubber band to close it round the kids head? the product, as demonstrated, with intended use, causes harm. Why should ONLY the consumer be held liable for risk?
Oh, please. How many people get out of the car to put creamer in, or, for crying out loud, put it on the * floor? * Going inside? That’s why they HAVE a drive-thru in the first place . . . so you don’t have to get out. Food served at a drive-thru is ostensibly to be enjoyed in one’s car, so it was not unreasonable for the woman to open her coffee while in the car. The woman was sitting in a parked car when she opened it, which is a hell of a lot more than other people do. She had no way of knowing that the coffee was practically friggin’lava-hot.
People spill coffee. Everyone does. It’s almost expected. I’ve spilled hot tea on myself enough to know. I just don’t expect the spilled tea to send me to the hospital for skin grafts. The problem lies in the fact that McD’s was negligent in serving a product that was hot enough to * liquify flesh. * They were serving a product that could not be safely consumed. They knew it was too hot, and continued to be negligent by ignroing the health department and serving it anyway.
damn, pld, I have been using coffee improperly all of these years. I have to start pouring it on my crotch.
And yes, if she had burned her mouth, I would think that McDonalds defense would be all but gone. I happen to be one of those people who can’t drink anything hot. I have developed an apparently earth shatteringly unique process of drinking hot fluids. I test the temperature out first. What I gather is that it is the expectation of many here to be able to grab a cup of coffee, toss it down your gullet, or pour it on yourself without testing it.
I have no problem with companies selling products that can do harm. Booze, guns, cars, knives, bows, fireworks…All can cause harm even when used properly. I can choose to use them or not to. If I choose to use these products anyway, then I should have no recourse if I am injured. I don’t want to live in a world where people get rewarded for engaging in risky behavior. If tobacco can be sued like this, I see no reason that alcohol shouldn’t go down too.
I have a feeling that much of the sentiment for the plaintiff’s comes from a dislike of large corporations, which are thought to be evil empires with endless wealth. Correct me if I am wrong.
Oh, and if I have a hot cup of coffee in the car, I assume that I may spill some so I simply hold it someplace safe so that I don’t get hot coffee all over me. Silly, I know. It is really Starbuck’s job to make sure that I don’t scald myself. I think that they should have more detailed instructions on their cup because I is too stoopid to keeps the coffee offa myself.