Right and how to we respect danger? By prior experience and expectations. If I was on that jury, I would have rewarded the woman too. Why? Based on my prior experience with vendor provided hot beverages; a third degree burn from one is unusual to say the least.
I’ve driven with hot coffee, poured right in front and handed to me; dropped it on myself and didn’t require reconstructive surgery. I’ve had servers walk a pot of coffee from one of those Bun warmers, and pour a cup right on my hand as I covered my cup. I didn’t run to the bathroom with my skin peeling off. Did it hurt? Yep…reconstructive surgery? Nope.
Why did this woman? She did something that I used to do and still do if my cup holder is still full of yesterday’s half drunk coffee cup. So why is her labia fused? Do not see that the description HOT doesn’t convey the danger of the product for the use it was intended for?
Let me ask you a question. If it was placed in a bag and the bag broke resulting in the same injury, would the “It’s HOT, moron” still apply?
If so, then HOT doesn’t describe the a product, does it? Again we all have a tempeture range to go by when we consume HOT products. I.E, it’ll burn my tongue, not “I may need a trip to the emergency room and a skin graft.”
We’re talking 3 degree burns here. What do products that usually cause 3 degrees burn have; a warning that said product may cause severe burns and a little icon of a hand in flames. I don’t remember seeing any of those on my coffee cup in the old days. Yet that was temp of MickeyD’s coffee.
Further, every example you give doesn’t end up with you requiring reconstructive surgery…you see that, right? Burning the hell out of your chin on hot cheese and sauce isn’t the same as having your labia fused.
I looked at the brewers, I didn’t see a brand other than the starbucks logo. It is a squarish machine with 2 brewing cone things the top section had about 3 buttons on it and a green LCD screen, I hope that’s a good enough description.
My temperature was about 170-175 degrees straight from the barista’s hand to mine. By the time I added my sugar, stirred and walked the 1 block home, it was just over 160. I found the 175 degree coffee a bit too hot to drink, but it was drinkable when I got home.
Whenever someone purchases a product, they have a preconceived notion as to how dangerous it is, and they treat it with the appropriate level of caution. If I buy a sharp knife, am cutting something with it, and it slips and cuts my thumb, I certainly won’t sue. What if, however, that knife is (miraculously) WAY WAY sharper than any knife I’ve ever heard of before, and the first time I put it up to a piece of steak it slices through that steak like butter and instantly cuts three of my fingers off? In that case, I’d sue
When I buy a slice of pizza, I assume that it will be either edible or a bit too hot, such that biting into it would hurt. If I buy a piece of pizza, bite into it, and get such intense third degree burns that my mouth fuses together and I’m in the hospital for a month, I’ll sue.
If I buy a car, and crash my car into another car, that’s my fault. If a buy a car, and that car has a super-destructive bumper, and I am inching forward while parallel parking, and bump into the car ahead of me at like .1 MPH, and yet the car in front of me gets crumpled, I’ll sue.
See the distinction I’m making?
Now, clearly, real life cases aren’t going to be as exaggerated and cut-and-dried as the examples I gave (assuming you find them cut and dried). But that’s why we have jury trials. And the McDonald’s case went to a trial, and was decided. The system worked.
Oh, and don’t think that I’m in favor of frivolous lawsuits. I bet I’d agree with you about how stupid they are in 98 out of 100 cases. It’s just that this particular case is NOT a frivolous lawsuit.
This seems to be the most obvious way to answer the “She was stupid for putting it in her lap!” complaint. If the coffee was handed to her in the car, it slipped and fell in her lap, and the top came off covering her lap with burning coffee, would she have a better case in your eyes Cinnamon Girl?
As for the time of burning and the “didn’t hurt me” arguments… one second is a heck of a long time when you have burning liquid on you. If you spill hot coffee on your finger while standing up, the liquid will be off your hand within a tenth of a second. And by the end of that 1/10 of a second, the temperature of that coffee will be 30 or 40 degrees cooler. Hold your hand under the spigot of 200F water for a full 'One thousand one" count, and you WILL have cooked dead flesh third degree burns.
And thank you Pokadyne for the actual data points.
Yeah, I’m just saying that a car is not a good place for a meal (or a hot drink) the whole Drive through culture is worse than sell phones for road danger.
I think McDonald deserved a punative settlement against them for the fact there extra hot coffee had been raised before as a dange issue, they hadn’t done anything like a label saying allow to cool before drinking, they refused the ladies first claim for only medical expenses. Some reports of the event claim the lid wasn’t propperly put on the coffee, the fact that putting a lid on coffee in a thermally insulated cup makes determining the liquids temperature extremely difficult,… all add up to something where a punative action is not completely unreasonable.
But I also disslike the fact that coffee is now generally sold too cold for my liking, and do not believe that very hot coffee is in and of itself bad, just the situation where someone could be served very hot coffee without any reasonable way to check its temperature, and with the expectation of consuming it within a vehicle, rather than at a table.
Thanks for the clarification, Bippy. Sorry for the confusion and bitterness. It’s not a bad taste in your mouth if it’s been fused shut by molten coffee, right?
Jesus, are there no other McDonald’s employees here? Hopefully, tomorrow I can skedaddle up to McDonald’s and take some data. Like 1) Spigot water, 2) Coffee directly after being brewed, 3) Same coffee after poured into a cup, and 4) coffee in pot after sitting on burner for 30 min or so. (Although the McHoldingTime of coffee is only 30 minutes…)
How would this be useful data? McDonald’s changed their policy as a result of that lawsuit, so you’re not going to find 190 degree coffee being served.
I could keep repeating reasonable explanations that I and others have already mentioned. But, what’s the point?
Suffice it to say, all you’ve shown me is that kneejerk reaction is acceptable. The more heinous the injury and the deeper the pockets, the more easily justified to blame others for carelessness and lack of common sense.
What happened to walking away from the thread for a while? What happened to finding out the temperature of your own coffee? Or are you just upset that the actual facts have gotten in the way of your opinion?
Cinnamon Girl, either you’re being intentionally obtuse, or … well, let’s go with intentionally obtuse for now.
You mentioned pizza earlier, and how it’s cooked at 400 degrees. Do this for me: Find a pizza chain that hands over a 400-degree pizza to its customers. I can guarantee you that if you find such a chain, you and I will soon be rich. We can sue the pants off that chain by burning ourselves grievously on the pizza.
The temperature at which a product is prepared does not correlate directly to the temperature at which it is served. This is especially true of hot liquids, because they cool at a rapid rate when exposed to room temperature. See Podkayne’s post in this very thread.
Good lord. I’m honestly flabbergasted that anyone is trying to defend McDonald’s actions and corporate policy in that particular case.
I go to work in 2.5 hours. I’ll be back here with results in about 10 hours. Until then, I think Munch is right. I’m going to back off for awhile because I’m frustrated that we keep debating the same points over and over again. And, no, I’ve not seen any actual facts that convince me that the lady wasn’t entirely responsible for her own injuries.
So if a restaurant served their food with forks that had been heated to just below red hot (say 600 degrees), it would be “buyer beware”, and injuries to diners would be their own damn fault, because everyone knows that forks can hurt people and can get too hot?
Micky D’s was grossly negligent and not only endangered their customers, but harmed some of them, by superheating their coffee far, far beyond the normal serving temperature.
QtM, MD
who’s treated a ton of severe liquid burn injuries, but never saw a third degree coffee burn, because nobody sane serves it that fuckin’ hot!
Oh, and please don’t shut up while I’m gone. Y’all are wearing me out, but I’m glad we’ve got this place to debate and kvetch about this stuff. I think I’m a reasonable person and I think most fellow dopers are too. I can agree to disagree, but I can still be annoyed with it, can’t I? Carry on.
Thanks for the reasonable attitude, CG - truly. But if you get a chance, I would like to know what your response is to the fact that McDs had settled numerous cases before the infamous one, and admitted during trial it knew the temperature it served the coffee was too hot for its danger to be reasonably assessed by the consumer.
Disagree certainly, people shouldn’t impugn the morals, ethics, or intellect of those with whom they disagree. (At least not here. Mostly. Some days. :eek: )
Your experience is not universal, and a lot of other intelligent, reasonable people did NOT see it your way. So one should at least consider that the other view has some merit.
Soon to be added to the Straight Dope Message Board FAQ:
“Warning! Posting about the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit will prompt immediate and vociferous argument between outraged people who think they know the facts of the case and the law and much calmer people who actually do.”
