I know that, some number of years ago, a woman sued Mickey D’s for having coffee that was so hot that when she spilled it in her lap, it burned her.
This case is often ridiculed and used as an example of absurd litigation. But, here’s the thing: She won, in a court of law. Now, I am not saying that I think she was definitely right (I don’t know the details) but her case must have had some merit, no?
Could some one with more info and legal expertise please provide the er… Straight Dope?
They basically said that McDonald’s gave her coffee that was too hot for human comsumption. Also there was no warning label on the cup (there is now!). Thus, she had no way of knowing that the coffee was going to be that hot before purchasing it, and she did not have the chance, being clumsy, to act (or not act) on such knowledge.
IIRC, she had to have skin grafts and was practically crippled until she healed.
::winces and clenches knees together::
My take on it is: yeah, putting coffee in your lap is a dumb thing for anyone to do, but this particular coffee was WAY TOO BLOODY F*ING HOT!
Here’s the link to the previous discussion about this, which includes some excellent information by someone actually close to the case.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22459
It turns out that she did have a valid case:
That McDonald’s had been cited more than once for keeping the coffee too hot.
The woman had 3rd (and maybe 4th degree burns), which required reconstructive surgery.
She was only suing for actual medical costs.
She was not driving the car, and the car was not in motion when the coffee was spilled.
Anyway, read the link for the details 
Arjuna34
this was debated to the nth degree in a thread in GD about the cigarette company lawsuit.
here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=30871
The temp of the coffee was demonstartably waaaaaaaaay too hot. the burns in question were 3rd degree (flesh is burned away), goes way beyond your basic scald that people THOUGHT it was about, the McDonalds corp KNEW their coffee was hotter than industry standard, and that it had caused serious injuries in the past and had CHANGED NOTHING.
in that thread is a link to a site with all the specifics.
and the placement of where the burns occured is irrelevant. coffee at that temperature would have burned away whatever flesh it hit.
If I recall, the woman originally only wanted McDonald’s to put a warning label on the cups and pay approximately $1,000 worth of medical expenses that her insurance wouldn’t cover. They supposedly declined and implied that she was a nutjob to even request such a thing.
The case did sound absurd until all the facts came out.
In my opinion, McDonald’s could have turned this into a public relations dream - poor old woman gets burned, and even though McDonald’s accepts no responsibility and is not legally obligated to do a darn thing for her, they assist her with her medical expenses out of the goodness of their corporate heart. (I don’t think that would necessarily make all kinds of scam artists come out of the woodwork looking to burn themselves so they could collect similar monies. Maybe I’m just naïve.) I understand that they would want to avoid any appearance of accepting liability, but I’m sure that could have been worked out somehow. Live and learn.
Two other relevant facts:
the amount of the award was reduced by the judge, McDonald’s appealed, and the appeal was settled for an undisclosed amount; and
the woman was found to be X% responsible for her injury (regardless of the temperature of the coffee, putting it in her crotch was, in legal terms, a dumb idea), and the award against McDonalds was reduced by that percentage.
Sua
This is one of those GET THE DAMNED FACTS hot buttons for me. It’s nice to see people who can discuss this particular case without being ignorant about it. (stating that she was driving or merely got scalded). I saw footage of that ladys burns and let me just tell you. HORRIBLE. I would have sued them for everything they had.
Naturally we all know coffe is hot, but THAT hot? Come on. What if it was your grandma or child that got it spilled on them? Accidents do happen. McDonalds had been repeatedly warned about the same complaint, and was monetarily punished for not complying. The media and others who acted like the victim was a golddigger were just wrong in this case.
Zette
Right on, Zette
My favorite part of the case was that McDonalds asserted that coffee tasted best when it was served at that temperature. Yeah, I always enjoy my coffee the most when it incinerates the flesh of my mouth. Mmmmm, mmmmmm!
Not only that, but people often accuse the woman of being at fault because she was the one that spilled it.
But see, when you are serving something to someone who will be driving away with it, you must assume some liability for accidents. There will always be coffee spills in moving vehicles. If McDonald’s is providing coffee *specifically for consumption in a moving vehicle, it must take the environment into account.
The standard of negligence is situational. If I sell hydrochloric acid, I bear some responsibility for putting it into a container that will protect people from commonly experienced mishaps. If that acid is being sold in a store, then perhaps a glass bottle with a stopper is good enough. But if I open “Sam’s drive-through Acid Shop”, then I had better make sure that the container is appropriate for that environment.
Another requirement is a fair expectation of safety on the part of the consumer. If you hand me a cup of liquid, I am (reasonably) going to handle it quite differently if you tell me that it is hydrochloric acid as opposed to tap water. In this case, it would be reasonable for the lady to assume that if she spilled the coffee in her lap it might stain her clothes and cause her to go ‘ouch’. Thus she handled it with a level of care inappropriate for the true danger of the product, WHICH SHE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT. She had no way of knowing that McDonald’s coffee was served at 190 degrees instead of the usual 130-140. So that makes it a ‘hidden defect’, and not totally the responsibility of the consumer.
So yes, McDonald’s was at fault. Their coffee had already injured many people. They knew it. They continued to serve it to people in moving vehicles. What if someone were driving the freeway and reached down to sip their coffee and it burned through their tongue and caused them to get into a major accident? McDonald’s was knowingly endangering the public.
And obviously-what if she had managed to open it, and put it to her LIPS? What would’ve happened then? Would it have burned away her mouth then? And her tongue?
Ouch!!!
I DID hear somewhere that some moron spilled a milkshake on his lap and tried to sue. It was thrown out of court.
Good points, Sam Stone.
Frankly, I’d bet that many, if not most, of the supposedly frivolous lawsuits we hear about actually do have merit when all the facts are presented. Not that people don’t try and sue over stupid things; rather those cases are thrown out (not settled) on the grounds of ridiculousness long before they ever get to a jury.
Just to nitpick: they were second and third degree burns. Fourth degree burns are the complete destruction of tissue, and are the kind of thing you get if you’re burned to death in a building fire.
BTW: One figure I’ve heard thrown about is that fully one-quarter of all lawsuits are frivolous. A frivolous lawsuit was defined as one where the damages are very minor or non-existant (eg. the milkshake lawsuit mentioned above) or where the legal basis for the lawsuit is very contrived and far-fetched. I’ve forgotten who gave the 1/4 figure, but he was supposedly a recently retired judge or something like that.
Why do they serve the damn coffee that hot, anyway? Although that particular McD’s may have been way off the scale, the few times I’ve ordered fast-food coffee, it’s been ridiculously (read: undrinkable for 10 minutes or so) hot. Do they use a different method of brewing it? Whenever I take a cup from a freshly brewed pot at home or work, its easily drinkable. What gives, McDonalds?
occ: I believe the official McDonalds reason for keeping their coffee so hot was that when they served it at lower temperature, customers complained that it wasn’t hot enough.
McDonald’s is probably serving it up that hot on the assumption that people order coffee at the drive-through but don’t consume it until they get wherever they are going. If they serve it at the right drinking temperature, it will be cool by the time the person finally sits down to drink it.
The other reason could be so that they can pre-pour cups of coffee during busy times. Having a margin of extra temperature gives them some flexibility in how they dispense the stuff.
Incidentally, if you sip 190 degree coffee you almost certainly wouldn’t get the third degree burns that lady got. The burns on her body were bad because her clothes acted as a trap for the fluid, keeping it against her skin for a long time. If you sipped it, you’d get the same reaction as when you sip freshly poured hot soup, which is probably around the same temperature. It hurts, you go ‘Ow!’, and the tip of your tongue gets scalded and hurts for a few minutes. Take that same soup and pour it in your mouth and keep it there for 30 seconds and you’ll see some serious damage.
> Not only that, but people often accuse the woman of being at fault because she was the one that spilled it.
Well, who did spill it? Dick Cheney? Bill Gates?
I hope she doesn’t go to Chili’s & order the fajitas.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The coffee was served at a temp. that is recommended by the National Coffee Association http://www.ncausa.org/Consumer/How_to_Brew/how_to_brew.htm
adam yax, I think the “usual” temperature, in the lawsuit, meant the temperature that coffee brewed using a drip coffeemaker normally was. I think I remember articles saying that while the McDonald’s coffee was probably no hotter than other fast-food places, it was much hotter than a home coffeemaker or typical restaurant coffeemaker and much hotter than the average person looking at the McDonald’s machine would think (since their machine looks like a drip maker, only a lot larger).