Coffee is HOT, you moron!

The BBQ Pit
121

But it’s not just whether or not the award was bogus: I mean, there are always going to be court cases people disagree with. THe question is, was thee award so bogus that it put the entire jury-trials/ civil tort system into question? Because that is how this case is used, as an example of such egregious injustice that the system itself must be flawed if this is the outcome. Earlier, Harborwolf said:

Not that the jury was wrong, but that the case shouldn’t have even* been allowed in court. *

That is a much more draconian claim, and the fact that such a collection of resonalbe people can argue so long about this suggest that there is no easy answer and that, as such, it is exactly the sort of case that should be tried. Which ones if not ones like these?

So I guess I am asking those that would have found for McDs, do you feel that this shows a systemic problem with our tort system, or that the system was properly functioning even though you feel it came out with the wrong conclusion in this case?

122

So you didn’t read my post! Contributory negligence. Did you see that? Wonder what it meant? Think that I am confused about it and want to set me straight? Then do so. But otherwise… even if she was MORE at fault than McDonald’s, McDonald’s is still liable. In most states (including the state in which the case was tried) if she had been 70% at fault, and McD 30% at fault, then she would still have gotten a jury award. It is not a black/white yes/no answer woman/McDonald’s answer. You admit that McD was partially at fault, so you admit that the case was valid. Only thing left to argue about is the amount of the award. McD was arguing that they had NO fault.

123

MandaJo, I believe the award was wrong and I believe there is a systemic problem with our tort system. With a 50% cut of the award dangling like a carrot in front of them, an entire industry of tort lawyers have cropped up whose sole purpose is to enrich themselves off the tit of corporate America. And every single American pays the price because the more lawsuits there are, the costlier everything is. As more of corporate America’s budget is diverted towards paying legal bills, the less money is available for R&D, manufacturing, and marketing. Bottom line: fewer jobs for the middle class.

And juries are starting to award punitive damages in the hundreds of millions and even BILLIONS. It makes a joke of the entire process.

Merck voluntarily pulled Vioxx off the market a few weeks ago. They saw the data that suggested an increase in the risk of stroke following long term use. By my estimation, they did the right thing by pulling their biggest money maker off the shelf. And their reward for being honest? The very next day after the announcement, there was a huge ad in USA Today asking users of Vioxx to contact x and y law firm. Do these lawyers care if Merck has to declare bankruptcy and thousands of jobs are lost? Do they care about the effect this lawsuit will have on the economy of Whitehouse, NJ? Hell, no. They see their opportunity to snatch a golden egg and they pounce on it.

Unfortunately, every time they steal a golden egg, they harm the goose that laid the golden egg. If the trend continues, we’re going to run out of geese.

124

I think the conclusion was wrong, but the system worked. As I’ve said once or twice here, if the coffee was too hot and McDonalds knew the coffee was too hot, then the case had some merit. I just dislike the lack of accountability I am reading in some of the posts in this thread.

What I have read from some of them is that where the coffee was is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how hot the coffee is. I disagree with that, for reasons I have stated.

Boringdad, I honestly don’t know what you are doing. You quote me and then follow it with the line

I respond to your question and attempt to clarify my view. I may have been a bit wordy. It happens when I get tired. The response I get from you begins with

I have read the thread and have read your posts. I just don’t see your point. If you have one, please make it clear without the dickish opening sentences. Maybe I can clarify whatever you are not getting.

125

Dickish opening sentence? Well, this is the Pit after all.

OK, I thought that I had made myself clear. I’ll try again.

Do you understand the principle of Contributory negligence? Under this legal principle, the jury is supposed to decide how much each party was at fault in an injury. Everyone who is even partially at fault is held liable for some amount of the damages. If two parties are at fault for injuring a third, the first two parties pay a settlement to the injured party in the proportion that they are found to be at fault. Company A is 30% at fault, Company B is 70% at fault, the award is for $100,000. Company A pays $30k, Company B pays $70k. It does not matter that Company A was only minorly at fault, the jury still concluded that Company A was acting inappropriately to some extent, and Company A still has to pay something.

In the McD case, you, Harborwolf, stated that McD and the woman were equally at fault, or the woman a little more so. That would be McD (Company A) being 40% at fault, and the woman (Company B) being 60% at fault. McD does not get off scott free just because they were a little less at fault. Hence, if you think that they were anywhere near equally at fault, then you have to agree that the case was valid under US law.

If we can agree that far, then we can argue about the amount awarded.

126

Agree?? In the Pit??? Well, this isn’t Great Debates after all. :wink:
If I’m remembering correctly from this thread, the money she won was dropped to $400k or in the vicinity. Since McDonalds didn’t want to help with medical bills, it seems fair to me. I’m a petty, vindictive little man. The initial settlement (the one that numbered in the millions) seemed a tad high.

But that’s neither here nor there. My problem with this case, and cases like, is what it says about personal responsibility. That’s why I didn’t think the case should’ve gone to trial Manda JO, but that’s just the cranky old man in me talking. I don’t think there should be much of a case for tort reform(mmmmmmm, tort reform) because I don’t think that we or our lawmakers can handle it reasonably.

127

Yeah, but I don’t agree with the assumption that putting a cup of coffee between your legs, ever, is unreasonable. I could conceivably do so, knowing that I faced a small risk of a few days of minor discomfort. I should be permitted to take minor risks with my health if I wish. As Qadgop has pointed out, the risk of a normal cup of coffee on a clothed body is minimal, because the clothes cool the coffee off so rapidly that it’s not got time to burn, whereas coffee this hot destroys the flesh beneath before the few seconds it takes to cool have passed. The woman, weighing her options, chose to take the small risk. And were she to suffer a couple days of minor discomfort as a result, I’d agree that she was entirely responsible. But instead she faced a much, much worse danger than a reasonable person would have planned for.

And if she’s not a good enough case, what about the prior ones? One of the earlier links points to other cases - including one in which hot coffee burned a woman’s legs quite badly when it was slipped as it was handed to her. Is it unreasonable for a person to take coffee from the drive-thru window where it’s served? Or would that case be good enough reason to hold McDonalds responsible for the damage they caused?

We’ve all heard the propaganda before. Where’s the proof? How much am I paying for products to support frivolous lawsuits? How often are ridiculous sums awarded and not reduced by the judge? How many billion-dollar awards have actually been handed out (without being reduced by the judge?) Hint: none.

These statements are alarming, no doubt. But they’re not evidence. I want proof that civil suits are doing a great harm to America before I see them curtailed, because the fact is, they’re the only weapon consumers have against companies. Congress is deregulatory these last few decades, and in some cases companies, like McDonalds with its coffee, have continued to provide products knowing that they had caused a great deal of harm. How else do we protect ourselves without our only defense against the corporations?

If lawsuits constantly hurt companies, and the companies were simply the innocent victims of circumstance and legal maneuvering, then yes, we’d need tort reform. But there simply is no evidence of this; these “frivolous lawsuits” mysteriously turn out not to be when reviewed properly, and the huge sums of money are awarded only in headlines - the newspapers never give the publicity when the awards are inevitably reduced later. I don’t believe things without evidence.

Yep. Merck also had documents that it hadn’t shared demonstrating the dangers of Vioxx. I just don’t think that’s cool. I guess in your world, it’s fine.

128

Wait, you confuse me…

You say that the case ended up awarding the woman around $400k (an assumption sinc the final settlement was undisclosed), and that this was fair. But you then turn around and say that the case should never have goen to court! If it never went to court, the woman would have gotten exactly $0. Which you apparently think would not have been fair, since you think the $400k settlement was fair.

You also say that this was a case of personal responsibility, but previously you stated that McD was partially responsible. If the case never went to trial, McD would have gotten away with shirking their corporate responsibility. Personal responsibility is all, and corporation can do what ever they want, buyer beware?

129

Note: Nobody has mentioned at what temperature McDonald’s *prepared *the coffee. Nor how the exact temperature of the coffee that burned the woman was determined. You’re assuming that the coffee didn’t cool before she wore it. How is that possible? It’s already been said that coffee cools just by pouring it in the cup. Does McD’s coffee somehow defy this natural tendency?

If McD’s was heating coffee after it was brewed, what were the specs on the burners? Did they maintain that temp? Even if it did (per their policy), you’d have to account for cooling when cupping.

Also, was the coffee she was served freshly brewed? Was it brewed at the proper temperature? If so, the coffee naturally cooled when cupped, perhaps 15º F or more. That might put it in the range of 190º F. If that’s the case, what did McDonald’s do wrong? They prepared coffee per reasonable preparation methods. They served it.

I’m mystified that a 79-year-old woman wasn’t aware that coffee could get that hot. It could because it does. In this woman’s adult life, many people percolated coffee. That means, they boiled it. Nobody has mentioned whether the woman was familiar with McDonald’s coffee. Everyone seems to be aware that the McD’s coffee at that time was extremely hot. Was she? Was the first time she ever ordered coffee at McDonald’s? If you know coffee is hotter than your own Mr. Coffee prepares it, you take greater caution.

My impression is that she had experiential knowledge of the fact coffee can be very hot (assumption of common experience). She might have known that McD’s coffee was very hot but regardless of her years of coffee experience, she chose to take the risk because she didn’t think she would spill it on herself. She was wrong. Perhaps she could not have predicted the exact outcome of her error (the extent of her injuries), but who ever can? Why risk injury at all?

In conclusion, taking that risk is the point at which she assumed responsibility for the results. And much more responsibility than McDonald’s for serving coffee at very close to the temperature at which the coffee was likely brewed.

I think McD’s defense in this case sucked raw coffee berries expelled from the pustulent ass of a Kopi Luwak. I think that contributed significantly to the judgment, coupled with the extent and location of her injuries and the relative wealth of the corporation. The general attitude that corps will do anything for a profit. Frail old lady with severe injuries. Poor presentation of the facts in the case. Deep pockets.

I’m tossed up over whether I think McDonald’s ought have settled this case. Part of me feels they should have because it’s the financially sensible thing for a corporation to do. In doing so, they would not have admitted liability anyway. (Even though few people perceive it that way. They paid. It must have been their fault.) Then again, why should any corporation have to take care of people who’ve disregarded the inherent dangers of their product? It’s like welfare. We have money, you don’t, so when you mess up, we’ll pick up the tab.

130

It was determined in that it was sufficiently hot to melt her vagina shut.

No, she chose to take the risk because she didn’t think that, if she spilled it on herself, it would melt her vagina shut.

131

Which is what temp at how long and what type of exposure? And what caused the exposure? And how could McD’s have prevented this?

No. She didn’t think she would spill it. I doubt if at that moment she even considered what the extent of her injuries would be if she had spilled it. Because spilling it never crossed her mind. All she had do was say to herself, “Whoa! Hot stuff near my hooter! Not a great idea. Hate to think what would happen if I spilled it.” Do you regularly go through these leaps in logic?

132

It’s sort of a prima facie thing. McDonald’s acknowledged that their policy was to hold the cofffe between 180-190 degrees. They acknowledged that this meant it was too hot to consume when served, explaining that they maintained this unusually high temperature so that the coffee would still be very hot on arrival if people preferred to purchase it and then take it home or to work to consume.

Nobody measured the temperature of the coffee seconds before it splashed in her lap, of course-- but the horrific extent of her injuries makes it abundantly clear that she had an encounter with liquid that was just barely off the boil.

If it was fifteen degrees cooler, the mishap wouldn’t have cost her $15,000 dollars in medical bills are radically altered her quality of life.

Never mind her shared liability for the moment – there were many previously settled cases where customers had been badly burned, particularly when hot coffee was dropped in their lap during the transfer from the drive-through window to their car. McDonald’s knowlingly exposed every person that drank their coffee to the risk of severe injury an order of magnitude higher than that which a cup of coffee can reasonably be expected to pose. Their rationale for this was that they wanted their consumers to be able to drink their coffee a half hour after it was served if that’s what they wanted to do.

There are all sorts of “common sense” for coffee. Which of these prepositions seems more common-sensical to you?[ul][li]Coffee is meant to be consumed as soon as possible after serving.You can expect to be horribly maimed if you spill it on yourself.[/ul][/li]
Cinnamon Girl, I’ve had coffee poured in my lap. Directly from the pot. By a waitress. It wasn’t my fault. Yes, I was burned. You know what? It never crossed my mind to sue. Why? Because it wasn’t that big a deal. It was quite tender for a week or so, but tt didn’t blister. I certainly didn’t suffer third degree burns and require several reconstructive surgeries as a result. And no reasonable person, on drinking that coffee, would have considered it “tepid.” It was nice, hot coffee.

McDonald’s liability in that case is clear.

133

Cinnamon Girl, you’re being so disingenuous right now that I don’t see the point in talking any more. Nevertheless, I’ll point out (as have others) that I’ve had lots of hot coffee spill onto me before. I’ve had servers accidentally get my hand as they refilled my cup. I’ve had it spill onto my shirt and my pants. I have never, ever suffered more than perhaps minor first degree burns.

And there’s always the risk that coffee will be spilled. For example, in the case of the woman whose coffee was dropped onto her lap (leading to major injuries) by the person working in the drive through. Surely you don’t think that was her own fault, do you? Shouldn’t McDonalds, whose policy was to hold the coffee at a temperature 40 degrees higher than other chains, face the responsibility for what they did in her case? Or in the 700 other claims for injuries from their hot coffee that preceded this case?

Coffee gets spilled on people all the time. People either spill it on themselves accidentally (whether or not due to negligence) or their servers spill it on them. The serving temperature of the coffee needs to take into account the fact that it will at some point be spilled on someone. Disregarding the details of this particular case - what about the many prior cases in which people suffered serious injuries through no fault of their own? As a big corporation, is McDonalds to be held entirely exempt from their own responsibilities? Because that’s the claim you keep making over and over.

And stop making claims that other chains serve their coffee that hot. There is no evidence that they do so. McDonalds no longer does, for instance. The coffee, as we’ve already explained clearly, cools quite a bit between when the water hits the grounds and when the warm cup is handed to the customer. If you can’t prove the point you keep trying to make - that coffee is very frequently served at that temperature - then stop making it. The reason you can’t find evidence of it because it’s not true. Put up or shut up.

134

Out of curiosity, has anything else like this happened more recently, since McDonald’s lowered their serving temperatures? According to Dead Badger’s link, even the 180 degree coffee I measured would cause 3rd-degree burns in .6 seconds.

135

Yes. It’s prima facie. The fact is the woman held a cup containing a HOT BEVERAGE between her knees and removed the top. In the car. At first blush, that is not a brilliant thing to do! Case closed. Get a clue. Any further discussion is only relevant because she performed this amazingly stupid act.

Exactly my point. Nobody measured the temperature. Nobody is also saying how long her skin (very sensitive skin at that) was exposed to whatever temperature the coffee was. Did she immediately remove her coffee-soaked clothing? If not, then she exposed herself to whatever degree far longer than if she’d spilled it on exposed skin thereby making the injuries far more serious. It’s already been demonstrated that much lower temperatures will cause just as severe injuries at greater times of exposure. If you sit in your cup of 150º coffee for a significant amount of time, you will severely burn your unmentionables too. Does anyone know what happened immediately after she dumped the cup in her lap?

Really? If your knowledge of the facts in this case is so extensive, please answer the questions I posed above. What did she do to minimize the burn once she dumped the coffee? How hot would 15º less make the coffee that was actually spilled? How many seconds (or micro-seconds) more would she had to have been exposed at that temp to result in the same injuries?

Right. Never mind that it wasn’t actually a McDonald’s employee that dumped it on her or told her to mix her coffee while she squeezed the cup between her legs.

Yes. And Kyocera knowingly exposes its customers who use their blades to the risk of severe injury an order of magnitude higher than that which a cutting implement can reasonably be expected to pose. There couldn’t possibly be any reasonable purpose for selling knives that sharp.

[quote]
There are all sorts of “common sense” for coffee. Which of these prepositions seems more common-sensical to you?[ul][li]Coffee is meant to be consumed as soon as possible after serving.You can expect to be horribly maimed if you spill it on yourself.[/ul][/li][/quote]
Yes, actually coffee is meant to be consumed as soon as possible after brewing. You know this. And you know that proper brewing temperature is too high to drink. Common sense tells you it HAS to cool before you drink it. How much it cools and how fast is variable. But this is irrelevant as the lady didn’t drink it, she wore it. If she had drunk the coffee and her lips actually melted off in the short time of contact, I’d say the coffee was served unreasonably hot. And yes, it’s common sense to know if you use any product that is inherently harmful in a manner not proscribed, you can reasonably expect the possibility of being horribly maimed. Including coffee, as it’s brought to horribly maiming temperatures in its preparation. I already said that.

Yay for you. Presumably you acted immediately to reduce the severity of the burn, right? Or did you just sit there enjoying the heat because obviously it’s perfectly reasonable that nice HOT coffee won’t burn you? I’ll bet your first reaction was, “Oh shit!” knowing inherently that it could burn you. And why would you sue? It would be reasonable to expect the server to apologize profusely, the company to offer to pay for your dry-cleaning, and take care of whatever medical bills necessary, since after all they were directly responsible for your wearing the coffee in the first place.

Hardly.

136

People. We’re not making any headway. In fact, we’re regressing.
Some of us think it’s the stupid woman’s fault for putting a cup of scalding hot coffee between her legs, and are aghast that our legal system would reward someone so common sense challenged that she couldn’t reason that her lap is not a cup holder. Regardless of whether the coffee was too damn hot. And that, maybe her getting her cootchie fused so she cannot reproduce is a GOOD thing for the gene pool.

Others believe that McDonalds damn well deserved to get sued, because frankly, if the coffee is that hot, then they’re doing something wrong and a wake up call such as a lawsuit is in order so they can correct it before someone else gets hurt even worse.

Neither side is going to give on this. It’s Christmas. (It is. I swear it. Didn’t you get the memo?) How about we put it away? We are no longer beating a dead horse. It’s glue.

Not trying to Jr. Mod. Just sayin’.

137

Yes, though I don’t agree with the other parts of cinnamon’s arguments, I do agree with this point.

I don’t care if it’s 150 or 200, or how badly you “think” it could burn you, a reasonable person doesn’t put a flimsy paper cup of hot liquid between their thighs in a space like the seat of a vehicle (or any space for that matter.

Jeez, I won’t even put a cold beverage in a cup with a lid, that could come off between my thighs.

I mean, what was the woman’s thinking here? “Well, it’s only 150 [insert correct temp here] degrees, as most restuarants keep their coffee, no WAY could it be enough to melt my skin, so I’ll go ahead and put it between my legs, because after all I’m safe from a BURN, I’ll likely only get a burn”???

To me, that suggests at least half of the responsibilty on her, if not more.

138

So now your case is dependent on your unwarranted assumption that she decided to let the coffee sit on her legs and work its magic? Is that even plausible to you? It’s not to me. If something that hot fell on my unmentionables, I wouldn’t have to consciously react in order to get it off of me as soon as possible. That’s not “common sense”, it’s reflex. And I bet you anything the woman did everything she could to get the stuff of her lap. So no, I don’t think this is valid.

Coffee is inevitably going to be spilled on someone, at some point. Things get spilled in restaurants. It may be the customer’s fault, it may be an employee’s, or it may just be a complete, unpredictable accident. How could a company not have the responsibility to make sure that when the inevitable accident occured, a customer wasn’t seriously injured? Things spill! Like in the case of the woman whose coffee slipped as it made its way between the hands of the drive-thru employee and the customer. Shouldn’t McDonalds have to take those inevitable accidents into account?

139

Yes. It was determined at trial that her injuries took between 2 and 7 seconds. There’s no way you can make the severity of the burns her liablility. A totally immobile person that had 170 degree coffee in their lap would not have suffered anywhere near the extensive injuries that she did.

Coffee that was 15 degrees cooler could simply not have produced the anything like the injuries she received – Scalding injuries get exponentially worse as the temperature of the liquid increases. A scald from 190 degree coffee isn’t going to be 10% worse than a scald from 170 degree coffee. It’s going to be spectacularly worse, and much, much deeper. The difference between something you shrug off, and something that ruins your life.

This is just ludicrous. My reaction was to stand up. Not someting that would have been possible in a vehicle, but completely besides the point because the difference the action made to the severity of the burn was trivial. What makes the difference is how much thermal energy is in the liquid. It cools rapidly as that energy is absorbed by your flesh. You’re not going to get out of your clothes, so you’re looking at the amount of energy that’s in the liquid that your clothes absorb. This takes seconds. She could only have gotten similar burns from 160 degree coffee if she were immersed in it.

140

As I said in my earlier post

I also said

And you’re talking about my reading skills :wink:

I’m gonna go ahead and try to restate this one more time. I don’t think the case should’ve gone to trial. Since it did go to trial, and I currently lack the technology to go back in time and stop it, I can understand how the trial went the way it did and see how the settlement was fair. I know that being able to see both sides of something is rare, on this message board in particular :stuck_out_tongue: , but I try.

I can understand the way the trial went, but I reserve the right to not be happy about it.

Does that clear everything up, or are you trying to catch me in something?