You guys still don’t understand. The fact that the product is dangerous in any way does not make the company liable. So what if the coffee was hot? If I were on that jury I would have passed a not guilty verdict. And 400K is still too much money. If I were the judge I would have given her $1.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi *
[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.
the coffee in question was hot enough to burn away human flesh upon contact. ANY contact. so you would have burned away your little lip as you were testing it out, and would probably have then spilled it into your crotch thus taking away their liability in your world…
Wring, so if this coffee were so hot that it would liquify all flesh, one of two things is true: a) they made this one cup of coffee, out of the hundereds that they served that day, hotter than all the rest or b) every cup was this hot (because it was their policy (and most people drinking it that day melted some body part or c) the other people drinking McD’s coffee were prudent enough to test the coffee before imbibing it or d) teh coffee wasn’t hot enough to “liquify flesh”
So where are all the lipless, toungueless MCDonalds customers?
It is still not how the product was intended to be used.
I wonder if any of the tobacco plaintiffs are claiming suffered burns from dropping cigarette on sensitive areas.
We don’t understand? I do. I know that companies can be held liable if there products are unncecessarily and avoidably dangerous as to cause extreme harm. I mean my car could kill me if used improperly, that doesn’t give the auto manufacturer the right to install faulty seat belts. The issue is not that hte coffee was hot, it was that it was too hot. This woman was not some idiot, she was a regular person who spilled her coffee and ended up with third freaking degree burns…from a cup of coffee.
Everyone acts like they are so perfect as to not do something like what this woman did. She did not act unreasonably, she did not pur the coffee into her vagina as one person so nobly put it. She accidently spilled her coffee…first degree burns, ok that can be attributed to clumsiness, a brief moment of stupidity. But the fact that she suffered third degree burns, extremely painful, requiring surgery, is because MickeyD’s served coffee that was too hot and very dangerous.
Mr.Zambezi wrote:
Sshhhh! Don’t give them any more ideas!
— tracer, who is going to sue the manufacturers of matches and gasoline for setting his house on fire when he lit a match and threw it into a can of gasoline.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi *
**Wring, so if this coffee were so hot that it would liquify all flesh, one of two things is true: a) they made this one cup of coffee, out of the hundereds that they served that day, hotter than all the rest or b) every cup was this hot (because it was their policy (and most people drinking it that day melted some body part or c) the other people drinking McD’s coffee were prudent enough to test the coffee before imbibing it or d) teh coffee wasn’t hot enough to “liquify flesh”
let’s set aside the issue of your faulty counting…
"So where are all the lipless, toungueless MCDonalds customers? "
If you had read the site that gives more than a 10 second sound bite, you’d have become aware that there were significant numbers of customers of McDonald’s who HAD been burned by their coffee. Hence the punitive awards. They had ample evidence that 180 degrees was too hot for human consumption. the fact the woman ended up with 3rd degree burns attests to that. do you even KNOW how serious a 3rd degree burn is??? most folks react to this thinking of scalds they’ve had. scalds are usually 1st degree, where the skin is reddened and inflammed. 2nd degree involved deeper tissue burn where there are blisters, and the skin essentially “cooks”. 3rd degree is where the flesh is burned away - think a “well done” steak on a grill… and that happened from a cup of coffee. McDonalds has NOW reduced the temperature of thier coffee.
and back to what you keep avoiding: where is THEIR liability??? in the case of the cig companies, we’re talking about a product that even if used exactly as intended will cause harm.
consumers already pay dearly for their assumption of risk (and justifiably so in the case of higher insurance premiums auto and home for smokers). where does the corporate assumption of risk come into play?
One last time, then I am going to shut up about the coffee and hope that I never get sued with any of you on the jury:
Coffee is not designed to be poured on one’s crotch. Products should only be expected to be safe if used as intended.
A paperclip, if used properly is pretty safe. But if I use it to clean out my ears, any damage caused is my fault. Product liability is not a question of whether a product “could” be dangerous. It is whether or not it is being used in the manner intended.
guns can be dangerous, but it is not proof of a product defect if I shoot meyself in the head, accidentally or otherwise.
Tobacco companies do assume a lot of risk. All manufacturers do. The main one being that jurors will vote out of sympathy or hatred of their company rather than based on sound legal principles.
I happen to dip tobacco. I know the risks. How can it be the fault of someone else if I am injured by engaging in an activity that I know is dangerous?
As I said, if we remove the assumption of risk argument, the only other option is to make products that are 100% safe (even if misused.) I think that people are smart enough to make their own decisions about the risks they take and that they should be treated accordingly.
Which is why she purchased it with the intention of drinking it rather than wearing it, nitwit. Your repeated implications that she purposefully poured coffee on herself do nothing to strengthen your argument.
Had she spilled it and suffered a standard “Oh-crap-I-spilled-coffee-on-my-leg” burn, she probably would have chalked it up to accident. The fact that she had to undergo painful reconstructive surgery, then got blown off by McDonald’s, then discovered that McDonald’s had already been in trouble over the coffee temperature were the factors here.
FTR, I disagree with the tobacco lawsuit only because I hate to see a bunch of idiots rewarded financially for their ridiculous decision to start smoking. If anything, people like me, who have had to breathe that shit their entire lives from rude smokers, deserve that award.
I didn’t say she did it intentionally. It doesn’t matter that it was accidental. The point is that McDonalds did not cause her to spill it on herself. She did that. THe proximate cause of the injury was her clutziness. which is yet another defense: intervening cause. Were it not for her actions, the injury would not have occurred.
let me get this straight, the extent of injury and the unwillingness of Mcdonalds to pay are indicators of liability? That is a unique and scary legal theory.
Any one who thinks McDonalds were liable has a hole in their head. They should be permanently barred from being in a jury as they can’t see right from wrong. Better yet, they should be neutered so they don’t pass on their defective genes.
For the last time. The temperature of the coffee is immaterial. That shouldn’t have been allowed in court to begin with. The liability rests solely on the woman who spilled her coffee.
Imagine yourself as a small business owner who made the coffee. Say you made it too hot. So she burns herself. She sues you for 1 million. She wins. Should you be bankrupt and lose your shirt? Do you think otherwise now?
Continued…
So you want to know the truth? They sued because McDonalds has money. They sued because they thought they’d get money from a big company. Do you think they would have sued a coffee stand?
The temperature of the coffee was irrelevant to both sides. The fact that McDonalds had deep pockets was the true motivation here. Get it right. There is not a whole lot of justice in this world. You think the lawyers would have “helped” the woman if they didn’t think they could get money? Go back to kindergarten if you think this was justice. This was no more than legal robbery.
is to call names. Would I think that if I created an entirely dangerous condition and some one got injured because of it, should I be held responsible? you bet. you keep on saying the temp of the coffee was irrelevent. …wrong. the temperature (180 degrees) made it dangerous to consume at the point where the consumer is given the product. I give you raw chicken in your sandwich - gee whiz it’s your fault for eating it right then? 180 degrees is hotter than the water I used to wash dishes at the college cafeteria - and they gave me huge, thick rubber gloves to wear, 'cause they didn’t want me to get burned
back to cigs
your arguement can be summed up thusly: - you produce a product that is inherently dangerous when used exactly as intended, then you want to claim “But you’ll put me out of business if you sue me, so you shouldn’t be able to sue me…” how bout that for a scarey legal principal? the corporation shouldn’t be liable for intentional infliction of harm because they would suffer???
See, you can argue without calling names.
If Mr. Small Coffee House Owner was bankrupted over an injury lawsuit, perhaps he would, in his next business venture, heed customer complaints and Health Department admonitions urging him to turn the goddamned coffee down a bit.
Not to deny that many people are selfish, litigious, and greedy, Major F.; but with all due respect, it looks as though it was about the temperature of the coffee. Here’s some of what the discussion at the above link had to say:
I question the soundness of the argument that McDonalds’ shouldn’t be liable because spilling coffee doesn’t constitute “proper use.” Given the likelihood and frequency of coffee spills, especially at fast-food places and drive-throughs, it seems that the occasional spill certainly qualifies as part of “normal use” of coffee. A product shouldn’t land you in hospital when used normally. Also note that even if used impeccably “properly”—you get handed a cup of coffee, you immediately open it and drink it —you could still get gravely burned by it. The company’s own quality assurance manager is admitting this.
And they had had 700 complaints about this problem prior to this incident! As pldennison said, it seems as though nothing short of a lawsuit would ever give these people a clue.
I had an interesting conversation with a nice fellow from Sweden the other day, who opined that one of the major cultural differences he sees between our continents is that in Europe the default assumption is competence, while in the US (and to a lesser extent Canada), the default assumption is incompetence.
–
peas on earth
MF, you just don’t listen, do you? Sure it was the Jury that came up with the award originally, but the JUDGE accepted it, and the principal behind the award was agreed to by a panel of 3 very experienced Jurists (they did reduce the damages, but agreed McD’s was negligent in serving coffee so hot). Do you think all 4 Judges were nitwits and idiots, also? If the trial had been heard WITHOUT any freaking Jury, the verdict would have been the same (but prob less $). Note that McD’s did NOT appeal it further, ie they accepted some “guilt” but thought the damages were too high. The Jury correctly saw right from wrong, and their opinion was agreed on by no less than 4 Judges, and ultimately, by the McDs itself. Yes, in the AMOUNT of the judgement, they were swayed by emotions, but THAT is why there are Appeals courts.
And, if out of the million or so Jury trials in the last few years, the only ones you anti-democracy folks can come up with is OJ, the Coffee, and a cig one, ie 99.9997% of all Juries made GOOD dec, I’m happy to concede that .0003%.
Not to get off-topic or anything…
When you buy a product with no warning or disclaimer of possible hazards, I would imagine that it’s safe to assume that people would consider the product generally harmless.
When you buy a product with the obvious intention of consumption (nobody’s gonna wash their hair with coffee), I would imagine that it’s safe to assume that consumption of the product can take place immediately, barring a warning sign saying “Let this product sit for several minutes” (microwaveable dinners have a warning sign that says that, in addition to “Caution: Filling will be hot”).
When you buy a product through a drive-thru, a device intended to eliminate the need to get out of the car, I would imagine that it’s safe to assume that people would want to eat their food in the car.
When you buy a product that generally isn’t hazardous (indeed, as already pointed out, coffee generally is not served at 180 degrees), I would imagine that it’s safe to assume that the product will not be hazardous (again, barring the existence of a warning sign).
So, the real question is… did this styrofoam cup of much-too-hot coffee have a precautionary note on the side? Did the person at the window warn the consumer about a possible hazard? Does anyone know?
Existence of steam isn’t a warning sign… IIRC, steam is created at well-below 180 degrees Farenheit (of course, this depends on altitude… but we can assume pretty-close to sea level, can’t we?). Heck, I take a bath, and there’s steam… my flesh doesn’t get fried away, does it?
Anyway, a bit of a rant about the ongoing tangent in this thread… back to the tobacco!
I’m still wondering what the actual accusation is… did tobacco companies lie about the health hazards of cigarettes, or did they lie about how addicting the cigarettes are? Does anyone know off-hand? (I’d find it myself, 'cept I’m generally quite busy during the day, and quite tired at night).
You have changed my mind. I can see now that McD’s WAS liable. It is not reasonable to expect someone to forsee that the cofee was too hot for human consumption at time of purchase. I get that.
The cigs are a different story. It is more than reasonable to expect someone to know the health risks of cigarette smoking. You’d pretty much have to be brain dead to have missed ALL of the info that has been given us,neah, forced upon us! Unlike the coffee, smokers knew what the cigs were going to do and smoked anyway. They should recieve slaps on the forehead, not any money.
Coffee aside, the theory at work here is “foreseeability”. AWhen evaluating liability there are several factors that one uses to evaluate a claim. My analysis goes like this:
did we owe a duty to the plaintiff?
What was the level of duty?
did we breach that duty
and
Was the accident foreseeable?
Was it preventable?
Who could have best prevented it?
Forseeability is a little tricky because so many things are foreseeable, even if they are ridiculous. For example, it is foreseeable that someone will drop their radio in the bathtub while they are soaking. Ok, so the radio is a deadly hazard, and the accident is forseeable, and it is preventable (the radio could have a circuit breaker.) Therefore, a good plaintiff atttorney would argue that anyone electrocuted has a viable claim against the radio mfg.
But it is commonly known that dropping a 110v appliance in the tub will kill you. The person most capable of avoiding this through reasonable conduct, is the plaintiff. As a matter of law, people should not be awarded for using products in a manner not intended by the mfg. lawnmoers shouldn’t be used as fans, radios are not a rubber ducky. Also, if people are aware of the outcome of their actions and are capable of avoiding such outcome, they should not prevail if they consciously failed to avoid that outcome.
This is the concept of last clear chance. It arose from an auto claim around the turn of the century. Two neighbors were having a dispute over the one neighbor (call him joe) allowing his mule to roam free. The other neighbor (Bob) was driving down the road and the mule was in his way. Feeling that the mule was in the wrong for being in the road, Bob plowed into it, killing it.
At trial, Bob stated that he had told Joe to keep his mule out of the road. The mule clearly should not have been in the road, and therefore it was Joe’s fault that his mule got hit by the car. THe court ruled that while Joe knew of the hazard of letting the mule roam, and while the mule should not have been in the road, that Bob could have easily avoided the accident and was, therefore liable.
Smokers, knowing the risks, could have simply stopped smoking at any point. They chose to smoke and in doing so accepted the risks of a negative outcome.
Of course, no one is responsiblefor their own actions. If the radio doesn’t actually state “do not throw the radio ino the tub while you are bathing” then under the presumption that all people are morons, the manufacturer must be responsible for the actions of their moron customers.
[quote]
Smokers, knowing the risks…quote]
And, ultimately, that’s what’s at debate here, Mr. Z. DID smokers know the risks? ALL the risks? The EXTENT of the risks?
Yes, it’s common sense not to breath in anything other than oxygen/nitrogen. But was it common knowledge, 50 years ago, that cigarettes have a good chance of killing you? Were the exact numbers of fatalities common knowledge, as they are today?
That’s the other point. Nicotine is addictive. It creates an actual physical dependency on the drug, and therefore on cigarettes, to operate normally in an everyday environment. So could people “simply” have stopped smoking at “any” point? No. It would have caused them much difficulty, hassle, and stress to do so. Did they no this? Did cigarette companies tell them “Once you start, you can’t stop”? Probably not.