# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2002, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/81 "2002-07-31T22:31:33Z")
board ate my post. **Beagle** I absolutely disagree w/you on the “hot water burns”, so we can dispense with that discussion. That’s at the heart of the matter. Yes, hot liquids burn. HOwever, the level of damage and the amount of time required to cause said damage are directly related to the relative temperature, which is essential to this case. IN this case, the liquid served to the customer for consumption was at a level where it would cause (and did) 3rd degree burns in a matter of seconds, (which doesn’t give her sufficient time to react to minimize damage). And that, I contend (and so did the jury and judge who saw, first hand **all** of the evidence) was too hot. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/82 "2002-08-01T00:18:28Z")
BEAGLE – > [@](#): > > Jodi I hope your wrists are OK. They’re fine, but thanks for your genuine concern. :rolleyes:\ > [@](#): > > You rely on res judicata over and over - this is a debate, not court. What? _Res judicata_? As in, law of the case? As in, relevant to an attempt at future action – which there never was, not even on appeal, since the case settled? What the hell are you talking about? I don’t know – do you? > [@](#): > > Thanks for the lecture on facts - yes she was riding. That would reduce the plaintiff’s comparative negligence, IMO. Her _comparative_ negligence? Compared to what? Since you would apparently find McDonalds not negligent, what, precisely, are you comparing her negligence to? You’re welcome for the lecture on facts – probably only you and I and the other at-laws know how appalling it is that I would have to educate you on them. > [@](#): > > I will grant you this one essential point you raised (the bottom line), McDs should have settled. There, I said it. Not because I think the cause of action was great but because of the temperature evidence and the injuries to the plaintiff. I still think the case is borderline for obvious reasons. McDs let this be a coffee case when it was really a hot water case: a commonly known obvious risk which reasonable people avoid every day in dozens of situations. You amaze me. Do you think that if the facts were exactly identical but the beverage served was water instead of coffee – with no other change in the facts whatsoever – it would have significantly changed the outcome of the case? Why on earth would you consider that factoid to be of such overwhelming importance? If I serve you a cup of hot water for tea (instead of a cup of coffee), you might reasonably expect that, should you be so unfortunate as to spill it, you will not be rewarded with _instantaeous_ third-degree burns. > [@](#): > > The cup of concealment argument is pretty silly if you have ever had McD’s coffee - or ever held a disposable cup. Again, sez you. Apparently you do not believe that an insulated cup can transmit inaccurate information about the liquid in it – i.e., make one think the liquid is not as hot as it actually is – despite the fact that this is exactly the function of an insulated cup – so you don’t burn your hands, right? But then you are the arbiter of “silliness,” aren’t you, considering that no one who disagrees with you could possibly ever have held a disposable cup. > [@](#): > > The case is bad precedent if we are trying to prevent future harms: it provides a big financial incentive to take minimal care\* and hurt yourself. Weell, I think that’s pretty obviously not true, considering that McDonalds has both lowered the temprature on the coffee and added additional warnings to the cups, in the wake of this case. Therefore one could easily argue that the case has quite likely already helped to prevent future harms. The idea that any sane person would intentionally scald their genitals for money (“big financial incentive to take minimal care”) is of course laughable. > [@](#): > > generally Some posters have said “it was not even raised at trial.” Well, we are rearguing the case. What? No we’re not. How could we ever do that? The whole premise here is that the verdict of _this case_ was stupid, that _this jury_ made a dumb decision. How can you make that argument by reference to information never given the jury, or arguments never made before them? Were they mind-readers? Did they have the Magic Litigation 8-Ball? They made their decision based on the evidence put before them, and if you want to attack that decision, you are of course also limited to the information put before them. If you want to change the facts – make her a drunk careening down the road, throwing coffee on herself, after forcing the McDonalds flunky, at gunpoint, to superheat it – then go ahead. But then you’re not arguing _this_ case, nor fairly attacking the decision of _this_ jury. > [@](#): > > Are those opposed to the status quo limited to arguing within the status quo? In the context of attacking the verdict of a trial, yes. Obviously. You can’t blame a jury for failing to take into account something they did not know and were not told. > [@](#): > > I would like to concede for the record and I think I speak for everyone: hot water burns, nobody has rerestate that anymore. The point is not that hot water burns, but that super hot water burns super fast, and that therefore a person would reasonably expect _not_ to be served a super hot beverage, as opposed to a merely hot one. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/83 "2002-08-01T00:47:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > \*\*You amaze me. Do you think that if the facts were exactly identical but the beverage served was water instead of coffee – with no other change in the facts whatsoever – it would have significantly changed the outcome of the case? Why on earth would you consider that factoid to be of such overwhelming importance? If I serve you a cup of hot water for tea (instead of a cup of coffee), you might reasonably expect that, should you be so unfortunate as to spill it, you will not be rewarded with _instantaeous_ third-degree burns. \*\* This is the single part of the argument that confuses me. Yes. If I ask for coffee or water for tea, I expect to be served near-boiling liquid. You can’t make either beverage correctly without it. Hot chocolate? Not so much. Soup? Certainly not. But hot water for tea, or coffee? Of _course_ they’re going to be served near-boiling: you can’t _make_ 'em without near-boiling water. If the woman had ordered a cup of hot water for tea and spilled the tea-water while trying to put the tea bag in, would your opinion chage? Given that you _can’t_ make decent tea without really, REALLY hot water (sun-tea aside)? I honestly don’t understand why anyone would think otherwise. Ever had a sopapilla? Mexican fried dough-puff. Only edible if it’s served _straight_ outta the fryer. Let it cool for 5 minutes and it becomes disgusting. Since I expect my food to be served correctly, I expect the sopapilla to be served instantly so that the second it’s ready to eat. Same with coffee. I want that coffee at about 200[sup]o[/sup] 'cause when I put in the milk, it’ll cool the coffee somewhat. When I stir, it’ll cool the coffee somewhat. By the time I get to my third sip, the coffee’ll be even cooler. If you start with coffee at 150[sup]o[/sup], it’ll be barely lukewarm before you’re half-way through the cup. Fenris ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/84 "2002-08-01T00:59:08Z")
**Fenris** w/a/d/r, I suggest that you take your themometre w/you to the restaurant. I highly doubt that **any** restaurant serves liquid at that temp. When you get your cup o coffee, do you see bubbles from the boiling? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/85 "2002-08-01T01:08:14Z")
FEN, you make _make_ your coffee with superhot water, but you don’t _drink_ it that way. You youself admit to doctoring it up with a cooler liquid (creamer), knowing it will bring it down to the temprature you like to drink it at. I can’t quibble with the temprature the coffee is _brewed_ at; the problem is the temprature it was _served_ at. Not everyone uses creamer. Some people drink it black. And McDonalds _admitted_ in this case that it _knew_ that people were consuming the beverage _immediately_ – that’s one the stupid things _their own employee_ said on the stand. In effect, McDonalds said: (A) Yes, we know we serve our coffee at 180 degrees. (B) Yes, we know that’s too hot to be safely consumed. © Yes, we know people try to consume it while it’s that hot. (D) Yes, we knew that some would be injured but, hey, we consider those people to be “statistically insignificant.” Connect the dots and it’s not too hard to see why the jury spanked 'em. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/86 "2002-08-01T01:25:09Z")
to get some perspective - according to [this](http://www.dishwasherworld.com/page1.html) the _dishes_ in a restaurant are washed/sanitized at 180 degrees. When I washed dishes at the dorm, we were required to wear heavy duty rubber gloves while doing so, since (ahem) we could get burned if we didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/87 "2002-08-01T01:59:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > Where the heck are all of you when I’m trying to empanel a defense-friendly jury? My disdain for the ambulance-chaser types shines clearly through, and I make no effort to hide it. I’m prejudiced, and it keeps me off even legitimate cases. The bad apples have soured my overall opinion. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/88 "2002-08-01T02:04:33Z")
**wring** , in my KP duties (\>6) during my AF days, the gloves were to protect you as much from the dishwashing liquids as from the heat. Also, even were it 140 degrees, constant prolonged exposure to that temperature would result in serious burns. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/89 "2002-08-01T02:11:51Z")
The medical notations above suggest that you’re incorrect about the temp/duration necessary for damage - I recall even w/the gloves, my hands were bright red by the end of the deal, w/o spilling. and, of course, my personal experience w/water burn (just short of boiling), was that 2nd degree burns happened pretty instantaneously w/contact w/o protective gear (and is what the medical info posted before suggests). In your case, they may have also been concerned about the chemicals, I don’t recall that being the issue w/my experience. So, on balance, I’d say that the weight of it is: 1. your personal experience of no burns (I assume since I believe you’d have posted it) vs. 2. my personal experience of 2nd degree burns from liquid and 3. the medical links that have been supplied. ---
**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 1, 2002, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/90 "2002-08-01T02:16:35Z")
I’m still bothered by the 700 settlements in 10 billion sales. That number alone would tell me that McDonalds does NOT serve its coffee unreasonably hot. Because I guarantee you that out of 10 billion people, hundreds of thousands of them spilled that coffee on themselves. The contributing factors in this case, if I remember correctly, were that the woman was wearing clothing that trapped the liquid, and she was elderly and has loose skin that also trapped hot liquid. Being elderly, she was probably less able to shift her position or move her clothing quick enough to be burned. But consider just how many lawsuits McDonalds must have to deal with. I’ll bet you there have been more than 700 eye injuries from people poking themselves with straws. I’ll bet you there are THOUSANDS of cases on file of people slipping on the floor in McD’s and breaking bones. Maybe tens of thousands. Given the billions of people served, there will be all kinds of bizarre injuries. Thousands and thousands and thousands of them. I’m not sure that 700 injuries from coffee that had to be settled means that McDonalds was being negligent. But the concept of really big or small ratios can be hard to get across in court. Let’s say that someone walked into a McDonalds, and when they went to get a straw fro the dispenser the little lever flipped the straw into the air and hit the person in the eye. Fluke occurance, but given the billions and billions of people who have flipped the little straw dispenser, perhaps a dozen of them did the same thing. But on the stand, the questioning goes like this: Lawyer: You are the safety officer for McDonalds, are you not? McD Guy: Yes, I am. Lawyer: And were you aware that your straw dispensers could fire straws dangerously into people’s eyes? McD Guy: Our straw dispensers are not dangerous. Lawyer: I have here a document that says that TWELVE people have suffered eye damage from your straw dispensers. Were you aware of that? McD Guy: Look, we have billions and… Lawyer: Answer the question please. Were you aware that your straw dispensers had caused twelve previous eye injuries? McD Guy: Yes. Lawyer: So you KNEW that a straw dispenser could fire a straw and blind someone. You had twelve previous cases of that. Cases like little Suzy Chapman, who lost over half the vision in one eye, and had to give up her dream of being a pilot. So you knew of the horrible damage you had done, and you knew it could happen again, and yet you did nothing. Is that correct? McD Guy: If you do a billion of any kind of… Lawyer: Answer the question please. Did you take any action? McD Guy: Well, no. Lawyer: No further questions. And of course, the defense gets to question the guy, at which point they may bring in charts of statistics, esoteric explanations of FMEA analysis and acceptable risk, etc. But by now, the jury is half asleep, and besides, all this egghead stuff is just corporate rationalization, right? (anyone who doesn’t think that way, like an actual engineer or safety specialist, would be rejected from the jury before trial). The current judicial is lousy at this kind of case, IMO. Lay juries are just not competent to judge highly technical issues, and they have a built-in natural bias against things like reasonable risk or cost-benefit analysis. There needs to be some reform. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/91 "2002-08-01T02:22:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beagle \* > **Sua** A court already ruled that comparative negligence existed so we no longer debate it? I thought we were rearguing the case. My bad. When you wrote > [@](#): > > Just to rile up the lawyers: contributory or comparative negligence is clearly in play here. you were just stating the obvious. But, since you want to debate it, then debate it. I have seen no argument from you concerning that attribution of comparative liability. Speaking as an attorney, I’m not personally “riled up” when someone says the words “comparative” or “contributory” liability. I only get riled up when someone attempts to demonstrate that the attribution of liability in a particular case was correct or incorrect. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/92 "2002-08-01T02:24:15Z")
_sigh_ I give up. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/93 "2002-08-01T03:07:28Z")
I asked the barista at the coffee shop I frequent why anyone would serve coffee that hot. He said that above about 70 C (158 F) your sense of taste can’t tell bad coffee from good coffee. He says that Americans are used to drinking their coffee hotter than us and believes it’s due to the fact that they drink lots of very bad coffee (his opinion not mine). ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/94 "2002-08-01T03:28:40Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m still bothered by the 700 settlements in 10 billion sales. That number alone would tell me that McDonalds does NOT serve its coffee unreasonably hot. Did you ever actually get the stuff back then Sam? I did and it wasn’t just a little hotter than most, it was so hot it was like some sort of sick joke. It burned your lips if you tried to take a sip right away. I remember once ordering a large coffee with breakfast and when I had finished eating it was still too hot to drink. I left the full cup on the table because I thought it would be too scarey to try drinking in the car. Perhaps MacDonalds in all areas weren’t as bad but I had such vivid memories of how ridiculously hot it was that when I heard of the lawsuit many years later it made perfect sense to me. It was an obvious danger to be serving that stuff in flimsy little styro cups inside the restaurant, to be handing it out in the drive through was insane. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/95 "2002-08-01T04:05:13Z")
**Sam Stone** said > [@](#): > > I’m still bothered by the 700 settlements in 10 billion sales. That number alone would tell me that McDonalds does NOT serve its coffee unreasonably hot. Sam. It’s probably well that you aren’t trying to make a living as a lawyer. If you were, you’d probably starve to death with logic like that. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/96 "2002-08-01T04:13:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\*_sigh_ > > I give up. > > :rolleyes: \*\* Oh no, don’t give up. You still haven’t reached 10,000 posts yet. ---
**Author:** ![Chris\_Luongo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7cd45c/32.png) [@Chris\_Luongo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chris_Luongo)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/97 "2002-08-01T04:25:22Z")
Quick legal question for the lawyers here. I’m reading in several posts that she only sued for such a large sum because McDonald’s was too evil/cheap/arrogant/stupid to pay her $11,000 medical expenses. Suppose the restaurant had agreed to pay the $11K. Could that be construed as an admission of guilt, thus putting them at even greater legal risk? ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/98 "2002-08-01T04:43:40Z")
**Jodi** I was merely noting your voluminous reply. You seem to be getting very excited over an old negligence case. I mean res judicata in the sense of the issues having already been resolved by a court, ergo, there is no debate. If you examine the post I was referring to this should be pretty clear. **Fenris** pretty much summed up the crux of it. Your last long post really added nothing to the debate, except I think it may have made you feel better. **Sua** I was not really trying to “rile” anyone. I have a (bad) way with words sometimes - though I am quite sure I am hilarious.\* I was merely raising the issues of her contributory (here comparative) negligence. I have already outlined on all of my previous posts what I think the plaintiff’s duties were. \*sarcasm alert ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/99 "2002-08-01T05:08:55Z")
McDs would get a release or waiver signed as they turned over the $11,000. That would end the case - this is why lawyers on TV always tell you “don’t sign anything, until you speak with an attorney.” Generally speaking settlement offers cannot be used against a party. Similarly, if a company takes remedial measures (like McDs lowering the temperature of coffee - which is wrongly cited above as some kind of admission of guilt) those cannot be used against the defendant. So the answer is no. **Jodi** , was any of that correct? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/100 "2002-08-01T07:36:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > Your reading comprehension isn’t so good, is it? > […] > Do you need a crash course in products liability law Those comments were both uncalled for. Get back to me when you learn to debate in a civil fashion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503.md?page=6)