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.
