# McDonald's coffee lawsuit revisited **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 30, 2002, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503 "2002-07-30T08:20:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12

**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/221 "2002-08-05T00:47:45Z")

> [@](#): > > Second legal maxim: when your own representative acknowledges the risk and states you intend to do nothing about it, you are going to lose the lawsuit. And this is exactly what it wrong with the legal system. Because there are MANY times when it is appropriate to acknowledge a risk, and yet do nothing about it. If you can’t say so in court, then the legal system is broken. Hypothetical: We have evidence that side air bags reduce injuries in accidents. And yet, a minority of cars have side air bags. Does this make them \*automatically liable for injuries? Or is it just that the Safety Manager can’t tell the truth in court? Because the truth is something like this: “We determined that the lack of side airbags will result in an additional 20 deaths a year from auto accidents in this model. However, it would cost us $500 to add it to our vehicle, and our marketing department told us that adding $500 in cost to the car would result in a 10% drop in sales, which was deemed to be too expensive to the company.” That’s the truth. That’s what the decision-making looks like. But you can’t say that in court? ---

**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/222 "2002-08-05T01:09:58Z")

> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > Hypothetical: We have evidence that side air bags reduce injuries in accidents. And yet, a minority of cars have side air bags. Does this make them \*automatically liable for injuries? Nope. That’s called “you get what you pay for.” R3TPL s. 2 Comments, Illustration 10 > [@](#): > > ABC Armous Co. manufactures bullet-proof vests for use by police and security personnel. ABC offers several models, some providing front and back protection only, and others providing wrap-around protection. State A highway patrol officers chose to purchase the model that provides frond and back protection only. They did so because that model is less expensive, allows greater flexibility of movement, and is more comfortable. Robert, a state trooper, was shot and killed while making a routine traffic arrest. The bullet entered the side of his body, where the vest did not provide protection. Robert’s legal representative argues that the design of the vest is defective because it does not provide wrap-around coverage. > Robert has not establish a defect … The mere fact of the availability of a wrap-around vest does not render defective the vest that provides only front-and-back protection. Although the wrap-around design is somewhat safer, it is also more costly to buy and use. Moreover, the differences in advantages and disadvantages are sufficiently understood by costumers that omission of the wrap-around feature does not render the front-and-back design not reasonably safe. To subject sellers to liability based on that design would unduly restrict the range of customer choice among products. If side air bags were not made available in any car line, there may be a defect claim. But if the consuming public is offered a choice, and chooses to pay less for less safety, the car company has no legal problem. Sua ---

**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/223 "2002-08-05T01:20:04Z")

**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/224 "2002-08-05T01:21:35Z")

SAM – > [@](#): > > This case in interesting, because the court agreed that the industry standard for coffee serving was between 175 to 185 degrees. The court also agreed that an average person has an understanding that coffee is hot and dangerous if spilled. That’s what those of us on the defendent’s side have been saying in this thread. We realize this. And no one is saying, or has said, that the jury in this case could not have ruled the other way. What we are saying – or at least what I am saying – is that the facts of this case are far more complicated than they at first appear, and the verdict of the jury was not so irrational and unfounded as to be an outrage – an example of idiocy and the justice system run amok. Do you disagree with this? I understand you still feel the better decision would have been to rule the other way, but do you at least see the grounds upon which the jury ruled as it did, and will you admit those grounds were defensible (if, in your opinion, ultimately wrong)? > [@](#): > > “We determined that the lack of side airbags will result in an additional 20 deaths a year from auto accidents in this model. However, it would cost us $500 to add it to our vehicle, and our marketing department told us that adding $500 in cost to the car would result in a 10% drop in sales, which was deemed to be too expensive to the company.” That’s the truth. That’s what the decision-making looks like. But you can’t say that in court? You can say whatever you want it court. The question is whether it’s wise to say it. And believe me, it is almost never wise to say that you as a company left an arguably dangerous condition in place for the sake of your corporate profits – unless you can show that remediation would have been exorbitantly expensive. I represent companies and businesses in litigation and I would _never_ say this. I would _never_ say that the company put its profits above the safety of its customers, especially when I know an injured customer is going to be sitting right there in front of the jury. What I _would_ say is “We decided not to put side airbags in because it would have made the product too expensive for the customer” or “we decided to leave the coffee on high because we wanted it to taste as good as it possibly could for our customers.” You put the emphasis on concern for the customer; you reiterate at every available opportunity that this (whatever it was) was just an unfortunate and unforeseeable accident; and you _never_ admit that you value the personal well-being of your customers less than you value the maximization of your profit margin. It’s money-grubbing, and while you may argue that it _isn’t_, not really, I think you must admit it sure as hell looks like it – especially when, as here, the company has shitloads of money either way. The problem with strict CBAs, and why they rarely fly well to a jury, is that they do not take into account human costs. But it is the human costs that any plainitff’s attorney worth his or her salt will be playing up – diminished quality of life, pain and suffering, inability to do things you used to enjoy. As I have said, the problem is that while the company wants to concentrate on the fact that only one in a billion (or whatever) people will be hurt this badly, the plaintiff will want to say, “Hey, I _was_ that unlucky one-in-a-billion, and I want you to know just how badly, and permanently, I was hurt.” CBAs weigh risk and (logically) decide to value the billion non-incidents over the one incident. But they don’t take into account the impact on the one. I guarantee you the jury will. ---

**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/225 "2002-08-05T02:08:32Z")

> [@](#): > > The problem with strict CBAs, and why they rarely fly well to a jury, is that they do not take into account human costs. But it is the human costs that any plainitff’s attorney worth his or her salt will be playing up – diminished quality of life, pain and suffering, inability to do things you used to enjoy. Yes they do. It’s an integral part of them. There are two components on the risk side - what are the odds that a defect will occur, and what are the results if a defect does occur. Defects that result in loss of a part during the inspection process or some other correctible problem are treated much, much differently than defects that can hurt someone. And let me tell you, the guys designing these processes are well aware of the human cost. You think about it all the time. I work in industrial automation, and if a machine moves an arm at the wrong time due to a software flaw, it could hurt or kill someone. You can lay awake nights worrying about stuff like that. But in the end, the software ships, and it ships with bugs. All software ships with bugs. All processes carry some risk of failure. So you use numerical tools to make the best choices you can. That means you’re reducing human lives to numbers. Don’t you see anything at all wrong with a legal system in which people have to play games with semantics in order to avoid telling the jury the literal truth? I get the feeling that if someone tried to defend themselves by resorting to numbers, and those numbers showed a known risk of injury, then that person would be guilty in the eyes of the jury of ‘coldly treating people like numbers’ and would get the book thrown at him. That’s a problem, but not a problem of engineering. The problem is with a legal system that is not particularly well equipped to deal with issues involving science and engineering. Oh, and I agree that the verdict wasn’t outrageous or insane, and I’ve said so repeatedly in other threads when I actually agreed with the verdict. I’m not so much interested in the results of this case in particular than in what it says about the way that cases involving arcane technical issues are tried. ---

**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/226 "2002-08-05T02:24:16Z")

> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > Yes they do. It’s an integral part of them. There are two components on the risk side - what are the odds that a defect will occur, and what are the results if a defect does occur. Defects that result in loss of a part during the inspection process or some other correctible problem are treated much, much differently than defects that can hurt someone. > > And let me tell you, the guys designing these processes are well aware of the human cost. You think about it all the time. I work in industrial automation, and if a machine moves an arm at the wrong time due to a software flaw, it could hurt or kill someone. You can lay awake nights worrying about stuff like that. Well, **Sam,** on the costs side of a CBA, does a company normally stick in the costs of compensating someone who is injured by the defect? It seems like it would make sense to do so. Otherwise, it ain’t a real CBA. Sua ---

**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/227 "2002-08-05T06:09:21Z")

SAM – > [@](#): > > Yes they do. It’s an integral part of them. There are two components on the risk side - what are the odds that a defect will occur, and what are the results if a defect does occur. Defects that result in loss of a part during the inspection process or some other correctible problem are treated much, much differently than defects that can hurt someone. But that’s not what I’m talking about by “human costs.” The two components to the risk side are what are the odds the defect will occur and what are the results – lost time while the machine goes down? Workers injured? Workers killed? The CBA does _not_ go beyond that immediate result – X number of workers injured or killed – to include everything that flows from those injuries or deaths. I may not be an engineer, but I am a lawyer – and one who represents businesses, at that. The human costs I am speaking of are simply NOT included in the routine CBA – in part because they cannot reasonably be, since they vary from person to person and incident to incident and cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty until after the incident occurs. > [@](#): > > And let me tell you, the guys designing these processes are well aware of the human cost. You think about it all the time. I work in industrial automation, and if a machine moves an arm at the wrong time due to a software flaw, it could hurt or kill someone. You can lay awake nights worrying about stuff like that. SAM, the fact that you lay awake nights worrying about it doesn’t mean the human costs are included in the average CBA in any but the broadest form – i.e., X number injured, X number killed. > [@](#): > > Don’t you see anything at all wrong with a legal system in which people have to play games with semantics in order to avoid telling the jury the literal truth? I get the feeling that if someone tried to defend themselves by resorting to numbers, and those numbers showed a known risk of injury, then that person would be guilty in the eyes of the jury of ‘coldly treating people like numbers’ and would get the book thrown at him. Once again, the issue is not whether the CBA as a tool is an acceptable one – it is. The issue is whether the particular CBA under debate is defensible – if the means used to come up with it and the conclusions drawn from it are reasonable. In this case, the jury did NOT feel that McDonalds’ decision to keep the coffee this hot was reasonable. And they were not required to conclude that it was. They were not required to accept McDonalds’ experts instead of plaintiff’s experts, and they were not required to take McDonalds’ CBA decisions as gospel truth and unassailably correct. > [@](#): > > That’s a problem, but not a problem of engineering. The problem is with a legal system that is not particularly well equipped to deal with issues involving science and engineering. In a case of this complexity – which is to say, not very – this is just bullshit, IMO. You don’t like the fact that the jurors rejected McDonalds’ CBA. Fine. That doesn’t mean they were “not equipped” to understand the rationale behind it. There is absolutely no evidence they misunderstood McDonalds’ position. You would just like them to be _bound_ by CBAs, beyond all power to even inquire as to whether they are reasonable. But they are not, and thank God for that. Heck, I _represent_ industry and even I will admit industry should not be self-policing (“We did a CBA and we decided this is an acceptable level of risk, and a jury cannot inquire as to whether it is or not”). Why not? Because the overriding motivator for industry is making money. The impetus to make money might well make some risks look reasonable to insiders that outsiders would conclude were not. Just as happened in this case. > [@](#): > > Oh, and I agree that the verdict wasn’t outrageous or insane, and I’ve said so repeatedly in other threads when I actually agreed with the verdict. I’m not so much interested in the results of this case in particular than in what it says about the way that cases involving arcane technical issues are tried. And I think your argument has a lot of validity – in another case. The CBA is not a “arcane technical issue.” Nor is a coffee burn. As I said before, this ain’t cold fusion. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your opinion appears to be that a jury may not inquire into the methodology or validity of a CBA, because they lack the intellectual tools to do so. Why would you conclude that is so in a case as simple as this one? What concept do you think this jury did not grasp, as opposed to just did not agree with you on? And please do not say “They didn’t understand that one in 10 billion is an acceptable risk,” because that merely begs the question of what constitutes an acceptable risk, and that is the issue they – not you – were charged with deciding. ---

**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/228 "2002-08-05T14:19:12Z")

**Sam** , what **Sua** said in his 8/4 9:24PM post. That is, isn’t it time for you to reach the position that **Beagle** reached long ago? McDonald’s erred when they decided not to settle with the woman, thus refusing, in this instance, to recognize the “costs” even while having cashed in on the “benefits.” The legal system isn’t broken; McDonald’s screwed up. In fact, the legal system, IMO, worked very well by punishing McD’s for not settling as they should have done. It’s hard to see why you can’t acknowledge this point. I think your emphasis on the 700 complaints is interesting though. I’m wondering if it’s probable that the great majority of spilled coffee ends up burning a hand, a finger or an arm where clothing doesn’t trap it, and where the damage isn’t so extensive. So, perhaps, the burn is less extensive, the cost of treating it far less, and, as a result, the customer himself/herself feels responsible for the extent of the damage that’s been done. In any case, this has been a very interesting thread. Hats off both to **Jodi** and **Sua** for informative and amusing posts–you two should have your own spot on CNN. 😉 ---

**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/229 "2002-08-05T15:02:13Z")

> [@](#): > > _by Sam Stone_ > That’s a problem, but not a problem of engineering. The problem is with a legal system that is not particularly well equipped to deal with issues involving science and engineering. I’ve sent the R3TPL back to the library, but I did read a relevant Commentary on design defects. It notes that normally, the plaintiff is required to present expert testimony to prove a design defect, but such testimony is not necessary when the defect is obvious to the common person. The example given was a company that sold teddy bears with (easily swallowable) button eyes that were only loosely attached to the doll. An expert was not necessary to demonstrate that it was possible to attach the button eyes more securely to the doll. There was no need for a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of using stronger thread or glue. The same applies here. Sua ---

**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/230 "2002-08-05T15:22:31Z")

I don’t know why some posters keep bringing up the fact that McDonalds chose a bad legal strategy - what bearing does this have on discussion of the verdict? **Sua** , I read your article to mean that the total of all McDonalds settlements was more than $500K, not that they had paid that much in individual settlements. (And a large percentage of that money came in one particular case in which the McD employee had actually spilled the coffee on the guy, surely an aggravating factor). ---

**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/231 "2002-08-05T15:32:49Z")

> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > I don’t know why some posters keep bringing up the fact that McDonalds chose a bad legal strategy - what bearing does this have on discussion of the verdict? Because a jury must decide on the theory of the case and the merits of the evidence submitted. If the theory and the evidence submitted to the jury support the verdict entered, then the verdict is meritorious. The legal strategy issue plays to that. Some people here have argued that had McDonald’s presented a different theory and different evidence, they would have won. They may well be right - though I still think that McDonald’s was liable for compensatory damages under any theory. > [@](#): > > **Sua** , I read your article to mean that the total of all McDonalds settlements was more than $500K, not that they had paid that much in individual settlements. (And a large percentage of that money came in one particular case in which the McD employee had actually spilled the coffee on the guy, surely an aggravating factor). You are right - I misread the article. Sua ---

**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/232 "2002-08-05T15:41:54Z")

> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > Because a jury must decide on the theory of the case and the merits of the evidence submitted. If the theory and the evidence submitted to the jury support the verdict entered, then the verdict is meritorious. > The legal strategy issue plays to that. Yes, I agree with that (again, to the extent that the focus is on the correctness of the jury decision). I was talking about people who said that McDonalds should have settled, e.g. Beagle’s recent post. ---

**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/233 "2002-08-05T17:17:39Z")

So as I understand it, McDonalds had 700 complaints, some of which they settled. Total amount spent on settements, about 500K. But we also know that one of those cases was settled for $235,000. That means the other 699 people shared $265,000 in settlements, or about $379 each, on average. That would suggest to me that the number of actual 3rd degree burn cases from McDonalds coffee can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. The vast majority of settlements must have been for very small amounts, suggesting that the injuries were minor. No one has a comment on the resolution of that other lawsuit I mentioned? Because it directly refutes many of the arguments that the anti-McDonalds folks have been saying here. Take, for instance, the notion that McDonalds was serving their coffee substantially above the industry standard temperature. The judge in the other case found that the industry standard is 175-185 degrees - exactly the temperature McDonalds was using. Others have also said that a reasonable person could not be expected to know that a cup of coffee spilled in your lap could result in 3rd degree burns. Well, in the other case, that’s exactly what happened, but the judge ruled that the company didn’t even have to post warning signs, because the danger of hot coffee was clear and known to the average person. So which court case was right? They seem to be at direct odds with each other. **Suasponte:** Yep. That’s what the courts said. That doesn’t make it right. Sometimes, seemingly simple decisions can have very complex analysis behind them. Sure, there are always some things that are self-evident - if I see two bare wires carrying a potentially fatal current through them, I know the design is unsafe, and no amount of engineering hand-waving is likely to change my mind on that. But I don’t see that the coffee case is one of those. And in fact, I’d suggest that the jury was wrong on a number of matters of fact. For instance, it appears that the industry standard temperature for serving coffee IS about 180 degrees, but the jury was convinced that the correct temperature is much lower. You can argue that the defendents didn’t do a very good job, but it sure looks to me like some bad facts got into this case. But the ‘technical’ issue that bothers me isn’t so much an engineering issue as one of innumeracy. Most people just have no conception of how small a number 700 is when compared to a population of 10 billion. That can cause their perception of the seriousness of the problem to be distorted. ---

**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/234 "2002-08-05T18:01:25Z")

**Sam** : \*"So as I understand it, McDonalds had 700 complaints, some of which they settled. Total amount spent on settements, about 500K. But we also know that one of those cases was settled for $235,000. That means the other 699 people shared $265,000 in settlements, or about $379 each, on average. That would suggest to me that the number of actual 3rd degree burn cases from McDonalds coffee can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. The vast majority of settlements must have been for very small amounts, suggesting that the injuries were minor. "\* **Sam** , this reasoning seems off to me on a number of grounds. First, we don’t know how many of the complaints actually were settled; just as we don’t know how many people were burned, severely or not, who didn’t even bother to complain. (In fact we don’t even know the amount of the actual settlement in this case.) What we do know is that the cost of treating very extensive burns, such as that endured by the plaintiff in this case, isn’t that huge: c. $20,000, right? Which means that $265,000 might include some fairly extensive burns. What you don’t seem to be taking into account is the serious difference between a small if severe burn–2nd or 3rd degree–on the hand (which is probably what occurs in the typical case) and the much more extensive burning incurred in this case. When McD’s did their CBA they ought to have recognized that every once in a while someone was going to get burned to the tune of $20,000–not the usual \<$1,000 that it costs to treat a less extensive burn on the hand. What I hear **Jodi** saying is that, under these circumstances, it was reasonable for the jury to have found as they did; not that in every instance where someone hurts themselves via a coffee spill there ought to be a large settlement in favor of the plaintiff. You conclude that the legal system is “broken” b/c of the McD’s verdict. Someone else might say that it’s “broken” b/c of the ruling you cite. If the 185 degree end of the “industry standard” causes near instantaneous third degree burns, and if in a small number of cases those burns end up being extensive burns to sensitive parts of the body, then perhaps the standard needs some re-thinking. Either that or businesses that insist on serving at the high end of the so-called “standard” ought to be ready to pony up $20,000 in medical bills when such a burn occurs. (Also to allay the frequency of that expectation, more effective warnings to consumers can be offered). Perhaps someone up above already made such an admission; I don’t remember. But prior to this case, I would not have thought that coffee was hot enough to cause near instantaneous 3rd-degree burns based on my own years of preparing and drinking coffee from my own coffee maker and places such as Starbuck’s. In retrospect I do recall that it used to take forever for McD’s coffee to cool down–even after taking off the lid entirely. But even that unconscious awareness on my part probably would not have made me exercise the kind of caution with respect to a McD’s coffee cup as I’d exercise, say, towards taking something out of my oven. Since McD’s coffee is reguarly served in a casual on-the-go kind of way–through drive-through windows, in flimsy cups, in cardboard holders, in cars without cupholders or tables–it makes sense for them, and for the rest of the portable coffee industry, to serve at a safer end of the hotness spectrum. Finally, since the research by the McD’s team found that McD’s was unusual, isn’t it possible that the judge’s findings in the case you cite were questionable and even dubious? In other words it sounds like a key difference between the two outcomes was to do with the definition of the industry standard and the data upon which that definition is based. In either case, why this outcome is seen as some kind of moral quandary, or indictment of the legal system, I simply can’t fathom. ---

**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/235 "2002-08-05T18:07:40Z")

**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/236 "2002-08-05T18:13:31Z")

**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/237 "2002-08-05T18:24:08Z")

Darn! I have to apologize for that triple post. My computer seems to do this automatically whenever the server is very tied up. No personal liability here :). ---

**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/238 "2002-08-05T18:25:28Z")

Sorry I couldn’t reply sooner, but this thread is getting way ahead of me. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > **blowero,** I’m not arguing that McDonald’s willfully set out to injure anyone to make more money. Instead, I’m arguing that McDonald’s set out to make more money than the industry norm. This is the “quality” point - hotter coffee lasted longer, which meant less wastage - McDonald’s made more money on each pound of coffee grounds than did Burger King, Wendy’s, etc., because they had to throw less of their coffee away. Sua, this is nothing but an assumption on your part. Every source I have found so far says that coffee TASTES BETTER when it is served at 180-185 degrees, and I have found no sources that say it doesn’t taste better. Unless you have some evidence that McDonalds’ motivation was purely to save money that I am unaware of, please stop repeating this distortion. Of course it stands to reason that offering A BETTER PRODUCT will net you more money - but it’s disengenuous to therefore conclude that greed was the motivation. > [@](#): > > And this point is key - why did other coffee sellers brew their coffee to a lower temperature, when they would have gained the same benefits as McDonald’s by brewing it hotter? I don’t know if you’ve been reading the quotes I’ve posted, but I have established that experts in the coffee industry recommend 185 degrees in order to have a superior product. In the trial, other fast-food places were compared to the HOME coffeemaker industry. I then posted an expert’s explanation that the home coffeemaker industry uses cheaper parts, and therefore is unable to provide the preferred higher holding temperature. McDonald’s erred in not challenging the comparison of COMMERCIAL standards (which are higher) to inferior HOME standards. You are suggesting that not only should they have, but McDonald’s had a DUTY to mimic the inferior standards of the other fast-food places. You ask why they would serve it cooler if there were a benefit to serving it hotter. That is absurd - it’s like asking why McDonald’s should bother to make their french-fries taste better when the other places are satisfied with lousy-tasting fries. You assume the motivation for cooler coffee was safety, when if fact it was probably simple apathy. If we are going to hold McDonald’s to a standard, it should be the standard of the commercial coffee industry, not the standards of other, less-successful fast food chains. > [@](#): > > Negligence law doesn’t care about what has happened; it cares only about whether the conduct of the party charged with negligence was that of a reasonably prudent person. And offering a product where the risk is VIRTUALLY NIL is not reasonable? > [@](#): > > I’m going to walk through the Restatement (Second) Torts (“R2T”)concerning standard of conduct. O.K., but in the interest of bandwidth, I may cut some stuff out if I concede the point or if it’s unimportant. > [@](#): > > _First,_ is the risk recognizable to a reasonable person? (R2T s. 289). The evidence of McDonald’s competitors’ practice indicates that it was. You could argue that, but in a trial, the defense would challenge your assumption. (If they’re competent, that is). > [@](#): > > The only reason I can think of that the competitors did not brew their coffee as hot is that they recognized a risk. Just because it’s the only reason YOU can think of, doesn’t mean it’s the only reason. You have me at a disadvantage, since I didn’t go to law school. I only have a paralegal certificate (I think we spent about 3 days on torts:D). But are you saying that you are allowed to _just assume_ that the competitors were doing this because of their knowledge of the risk, and then assume that McDonald’s was aware of this assumed knowledge that the competitors had, and use these assumptions to justify punishing McDonald’s? If that is really how the law works, it certainly isn’t just. > [@](#): > > Self-evidently, serving coffee at that temperature involved a risk to others. But it is NOT self-evident that the rather arbitrary figure of 160 degrees is the correct place to draw the line, especially in light of the recommendation of experts of 185 degrees. > [@](#): > > This begs two questions. _First_ what is the public interest in the provision of coffee? Obviously, there is some; 10 billion cups a year are sold. _Second,_ what is the irreducible minimum of risk? Obviously, there is a residual minimum of risk - coffee served at 160 is also potentially dangerous. But McDonalds’ competitors’ have established that it is possible to profitably provide for the public interest - giving us grunts coffee - at a lower level of risk. Again, you say McDonalds should have adopted the standards of Taco Bell, Wendy’s, and the like. I say they were correct in adopting the standards of the coffee industry. Tomato-Tomahto. > [@](#): > > Overall, IMO the case for negligence is there. The social utility of serving coffee at high temperatures is very low - companies can make profits serving coffee at a lower and safer temperature. I disagree. The social utility of having good food and beverages is not low at all. I would say it is very high. I like to drink coffee that tastes good - how about you? Combine this with the laughably low actual risk (0.0000007%), and I can’t see how there is a case for negligence. ---

**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/239 "2002-08-05T18:47:16Z")

> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > Okay, it turns out it was 700 complaints, not lawsuits. It also turns out that McDonald’s had paid out big money in the past - at least two six figure settlements. As it turns out, this McDonald’s coffee suit cost McDonald’s _less_ than at least one settlement it made. Thank you. I hope everyone reads this, 'cuz I was about to go postal if one more person said something sarcastic like “For the last time, it’s 700 lawsuits”.:smack: I’ve been saying it’s not 700 lawsuits all along. > [@](#): > > Also, it demonstrates that McDonald’s utterly ignored one unimpeachable legal maxim - when a retired judge tells you how a jury is likely to rule, you **listen to him.** > Second legal maxim: when your own representative acknowledges the risk and states you intend to do nothing about it, you are going to lose the lawsuit. > Sua Now there’s a Catch-22 if ever I’ve heard one: Plaintiff: Do you plan to turn down the heat? Defendant: No. Plaintiff: Ah-Ha! So you are a callous bastard. or… Plaintiff: Do you plan to turn down the heat? Defendant: Yes. Plaintiff: Ah-Ha! So you ADMIT that it was too hot. ---

**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/240 "2002-08-05T18:59:19Z")

> [@](#): > > Thank you. I hope everyone reads this, 'cuz I was about to go postal if one more person said something sarcastic like “For the last time, it’s 700 lawsuits”. I’ve been saying it’s not 700 lawsuits all along. My apologies, **blowero**. I’d been going off the data in your OP, which I erroneously assumed was reliable. Sorry 'bout that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503.md?page=13)