McDonald's coffee lawsuit revisited

Great Debates
241

who sez we didn’t ‘understand the innumeracy’ of it?

Speaking only for myself, yea, I understood that there weren’t a ‘statistically significant’ number of injuries. That did not at all mean (as Jodi has patiently repeated many times) that they shouldn’t be liable/responsible for the rare one that **did ** happen. As was pointed out, if you’re walking away from the counter and the coffee spills and hits your hand, you’re likely to drop the container and the coffee will hit the floor. what little might fall on you would fall on your hand and be a minor amount (since gravity would get it off of you) and be open to the air, which would quickly reduce the temperature.

When you get a cup full of coffee leave it open to the air, it looses heat pretty immediately. If you were to take a tablespoon amount of even super heated coffee and have it sit in the open air (vs. a styrofoam cup w/lid), it’d pretty quickly get relatively cold.

PHysically speaking, let me tell you what happened w/my super heated liquid burn. There was about 2 cups of liquid in the container, just under the boiling point (steam was rising from it, no bubbles). I was wearing clothes. the entire two cups dumped on my back as I was bending over near where it was sitting. I instantly raised up (started swearing and screaming, but that’s neither here nor there) and pulled my clothing off of my back.

Because of the amount of liquid, and the heat of the liquid, the results were: on my back were blisters about a foot long and 2 - 4 inches wide. Because it was a liquid, it soaked into my shirt, and followed my body around, so that my sides were also covered in blisters, and, since I was angled up slightly to the right when the water hit, it also came around my front covering my belly (well there was a swath of about 6 inches on my torso where it didn’t hit - poor 2 cups of liquid on your back - cold- and see what areas get wet). Additionally, there were several large blisters on my legs from the water dripping down, but only on my thighs. IOW - as soon as the water was hitting the atmosphere it started to cool off and the farther away from the ‘dump site’ the longer it was in the air, and the more time it had to get cool. Also since liquid will tend to hold it’s temp when confined vs. free flowing, as soon as it spreads out into a larger area, the temp will more quickly hit the ambient temp of the surroundings. But because of the relative heat of the liquid initially, the intial contact points were pretty throughly cooked, even tho I reacted quickly.

while it’s true that if you submerge your hand in 120 degree water for sufficient time (especially if you’re keeping heat applied)you will get a burn, it’s not likely that a spill will mimic that. In order to cause deeper level burns, the liquid has to either be held and confined to that area for length of time, or or be of significantly hotter temperature.

The poor woman in this case got both of the above circumstances, it was held longer to her skin because it happened while she was seated in a car (where it’s much more difficult to stand up and let it fall to the ground) and it was much much hotter.

Body temp is under 100 degrees, and according to this even a “Hot TUb” shouldn’t be much more than 104 degrees. So soaking in over 104 degrees can get you burned, but apparently, again, according to the medical stuff posted way back around page one, temps of the sort that McDonalds was using can cause 3rd degree burns within a few seconds. that’s the difference. and those few seconds don’t give the average person (let alone a little old lady in a car) sufficient time to react in order to prevent serious injury, when there’s not an ability to get out of the way of the hot liquid (as will happen if you’re sitting in a car).

question for the legal eagles - the notations on settlements - would that be a definitive list? ie would it include times when some one was injured, and the restaurant immediately stepped up and offered to pay the bills?

242

Coffee tastes better at 180 degrees? Impossible. You have to be able to drink something to be able to taste it. So unless you like the taste of your mouth burning, it tastes better at a cooler temperature.

Sam you are making a simplifying assumption which is that McDonalds coffee has always been served at 180 degrees. I don’t know whether it has or not, but I just wanted to point out this hole in your reasoning. So basically you don’t know whether it was 700 out of 10 billion, because you don’t know how many coffees were served at 180 degrees.

243

–CORRECTION–
180 degree coffee does not cause “near-instantaneous” burns.

A.) The figure is 12 to 15 seconds. I would not call that "near-instantaneous.
B.) Coffee that is 20 degrees cooler can ALSO produce 3rd degree burns, and it only takes 5 to 7 seconds longer. Surely you can’t seriously contend that 12-15 seconds counts as instantaneous, while 20 seconds does not. I posted this link twice already - I’ll re-quote it here as a courtesy:
http://www.cooter-ulen.com/tort_liability.htm#McDonald’s%20Coffee%20Case
180-degree coffee like McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature by 20 degrees (to 160 degrees Fahrenheit) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds.

If anyone has a SOURCE (besides another doper’s opinion) that contradicts this, please post it, or direct me to the post that I missed.

(Originally I thought I had seen a source that said 3 seconds, but I went back and looked again, and it was referring to Second-degree burns.)

No, go back and look at all the links I posted. It doesn’t have to be in your mouth at 180 degrees - it needs to be served at 180 degrees. No offense, but I would tend to take the word of the coffee-experts I quoted over yours.

244

Avumede: Well, pick one. Of course I’m using the assumption that McDonald’s served the coffee at roughly the same temperature throughout the 10 year period where it received the complaints. Isn’t that was the plaintiff was asserting?

I assume you’re trying to suggest that their coffee used to be cooler, and that explains the low number of complaints, but that they suddenly raised the temperature before this lady was burned? Or that this particularly McDonalds was serving coffee hotter than the others?

I assume you have some evidence that this is the case? If not, are you just pulling this possibility out of the air to explain away a troubling fact?

I really don’t understand your point. I thought everyone here was operating under the assumption that 180 degrees is the temperature under debate, and that it was reasonably established that that was McDonald’s chosen temperature over the time period in question.

But now that we’ve established that McDonalds had received only 700 complaints over 10 years, does that change anyone’s mind? Is this still a clear indication of a serious problem? Bear in mind that a company the size of McDonalds probably gets more complaints than that over things like the seats being too hard and the drive-through being too slow. I imagine that McDonald’s complaint department probably fields tens of thousands of complaints a year, of which about 50 were complaints that the coffee was too hot.

Personally, I’ve burned my mouth on hot grease from McDonald’s fries on more than one occasion. I’ll bet they have thousands of complaints of burns from hot food. They may have even had to settle some cases when someone took some fries that were right out of the deep-fryer and accidentally dumped them on their bare legs. Accidents happen. Does that make McDonald’s negligent? Or do we all understand that deep-fried food comes out of boiling oil, and we should be careful with it until we understand how hot it is?

For that matter, have you ever gotten a fresh pizza and accidentally dropped a piece in your lap? I burned the crap out of my leg once doing that. Blisters and all. The thought of suing someone didn’t even occur to me. Food is hot. Pizza has a layer of very hot sauce trapped between an insulating layer of cheese and dough. So take that first bite carefully. No lawsuit required.

245

C’mon, Sam - quit confusing the issue with that pesky logic.:smiley:

246

Okay, FWIW, I’m bowing out. Not to inhibit discussion among the rest of y’all, but I believe the relevant points have been made repeatedly and IMO nothing new is being said. Though no minds appear to have been changed, it looks like everybody on either side understands the points made by the other side. Now you guys are just trying to change each others’ minds and it seems clear to me, after five pages, that ain’t happening.

So thanks for a stimulating discussion (and thanks for the compliment, MANDELSTAM!). In the vernacular of Clueless, I’m outie. :slight_smile:

247

No. It needed to be stored at 180 degrees to enable McDonalds to keep their crappy coffee longer before they had to throw it out. In fact, there is no purpose whatsoever in serving the coffee at 180 degrees, since that is far too hot for anyone to drink without burning their mouth. See (I think) Fenris’ excellent empirical research from (I think) page 2.

Yes. At least 70 people per year were being burned badly enough to formally complain about the it. As a defense attorney, if a client comes to me with a problem of that magnitude, I’m gonna tell them to fix it, especially when all McDonalds had to do was serve their coffee at the same temperature as everyone else–the temperature that consumers expect when served a hot cup of joe.

248

From this site gotten from the snopes article I see that there were not 700 incidences or complaints, but 700 claims.

I also see that the oft mentioned number of 180 degrees is incorrect it is rather between 180 and 190 (185°F +/- 5°). The testimony was that "…at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn (3[sup]rd[/sup] degree) to human skin in two to seven seconds. " and “…if Liebeck’s spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.”

But I don’t want to confuse y’all with the facts…

=)

249

This is all great stuff—and I’ve enjoyed reading it as a layman. I think what you legal scholars are missing is that a lot of the rest of the world think there’s this notion of something called “an accident”.

Nobody meant for anything bad to happen to somebody else–it just happened. A lot of us think that means you don’t get paid–unless it was done to you intentionally.

That’s our problem with the whole concept.

It doesn’t matter what it is–hot coffee, slip and fall, whatever!

It’s an accident.

We’re against the notion of liability unless it was intentional!

250

Um, welcome to the Straight dope and all, but we just 'cause we call them ‘accidents’ when some one did not intend to cause harm (as opposed to an assault), doesn’t mean that no one’s responsible for their actions.

I got in a car ‘accident’ that was some one else’s fault. He was still legally responsible for the damage his negligence caused.

251

Well in that case I would point out that it would have been a bit less confusing had you noted the fact that your source is the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, the major lobbying group opposing tort reform, and of course, in favor of large tort awards.

Not to say that they are outright liers, of course. But if there is some confusion between different sources, I would think they are the weaker link.

252

ok, Izzy how about this one from a company that sells anti scald devices, and says that it takes 5 seconds for a 3rd degree burn at 140 degrees, 3 seconds for a second degree (which pretty well fits with my personal experience)

253

or perhaps a children’s hospital which says the same thing?

or the the Phoenix Fire Department?

shall I go on or do you concede that only a few seconds of exposure to water over 150 degrees to cause significant 2nd and 3rd degree burns?

254

Actually I think your cites undercut your own case somewhat, as they seem to contradict the plaintiff’s claim that the burn would not have happened had the coffee been cooler. From what you are posting, it would seem that she would have gotten third degree burns in any event, though I imagine not quite as severe.

255

byomtoob:
“We’re against the notion of liability unless it was intentional!”

Really?

Well, it’s true, I’ve sort of lost sight of what’s being argued here. Sam had been arguing that the verdict shows that the legal system is “broken”–though just lately he seems to be dodging rebuttals on that score so perhaps he’s changed his mind. If so, more power to him.

Izzy now implies that he’s in favor of tort reform–though prior to this point it hadn’t been clear to me that that was a subtext of this debate. Since tort reform involves much higher stakes than the matter of the temperature at which fast-food coffee is served, I gotta hope that subject deserves a thread of its own.

But as wring has suggested, your own idea–that one must prove intent to prove liability–seems to go further than anyone else has so far suggested. Thing is, last time I looked, harming someone whom one has intended to harm is a crime, subject to criminal as well as civil action.

So, byo, perhaps you’ll want to reconsider the “We” in “We’re”–unless, of course, you’re a reigning monarch using the royal pronoun ;).

In either case, welcome.

Oh and blowero, I think the case for “near-instantaneous” third-degree burns has been made.

256

Izzy - I think that data suggesting that 160 degree liquid can cause 3rd degree burns in 5 seconds suggests that it’s damn near criminally negligent to serve coffee at the 180/185 degree that McDonalds did.

Again, remember, to maintain 150 degree temp, the coffee has to be heated - since air temp is quite a bit lower than that. and I do suggest that you do my little test RE: temp (or Fenris’), seeing how quickly water will drop in temp if it’s poured out of it’s container into the air/onto something substantially cooler.

So, no, I don’t think at all that my sites refute the case. They do, of course, absolutely refute those of the other sides that keep on insisting that 180 degrees is the ‘proper’ temp to serve coffee to humans.

257

We studied this case in first year tort law.

This was a classic example of negligence. To win in a negligent suit requires,

  1. A duty exists and the standard is reasonably prudent.
  2. There was a breach of this duty and there are several ways to prove breach such as Risk vs Utility Burden of Alteration vs. Utility
  3. Cause in Fact-but for test, substantial factor test, negligence per se, Res Ipsa Loquitor
  4. Proximate Cause-Direct or Reasonably Foreseeable and
  5. Damages

Now it is within this framework specifically why McDonalds lost.

First of all it was demonstrated by the plaintiff’s lawyers the standard temperature for boiling coffee by other comparable compeititors was 160 degress. This includes Starbucks, Hardee’s, Burger King, and others.

McDonalds was brewing their coffee at 190 degrees. This is 30 degrees higher than its compeititors and it was known to McDonalds that at such high temperature scalding and third degree burns would result with exposure to skin within 3 seconds.

McDonalds failed the first consideration because the jury believed they were not operating as a reasonably prudent business in their situation should have. According to the jury businesses, aware of how hot their coffee was and McDonalds was aware of the injuries resulting from exposure since 700 other people had already suffered this woman fate in the past, would have provided a specific warning label on the coffee conveying such information to allow the consumer to take precautions rather than placing the cup between their legs(like the woman in this case did) or lowered the temperature of the coffee. Other businesses were called in and testified the reason they kept the temperature at 160 was to minimize the damage if exposure to skin resulted. They also testified if they were selling coffee at such a high temperature aware of the injuries resulting from exposure, and McDonalds was aware having settled 700 prior cases, they would have given a warning label on the coffee to alert the consumer to take precautions.

The plaintiff argued had she been made aware of how hot the coffee was and the injuries likely to result from exposure to skin, she would have taken better precautions rather than placing the cup between her legs. She said exposure to coffee from other businesses had never caused serious injury to her and she believed coffee from McDonald’s was not any different when actually it was much different and the failure of MD to disclose this fact cost them.

Now the heated element of the case was with respect to number 2. McDonalds argued the reason they were the number one seller of coffee, yes they sold more coffee than any other chain selling coffee and this includes Starbucks, was because at or around 200 degrees the full flavor of the coffee bean is released giving their coffee more flavor than their compeititors and hence this is why they sold the most coffee. They argued requiring them to lose this case will result in losing money and consumers by lowering the temperature of the coffee and hence the utility outweighed the burden of changing or the Utility was greater than the degree of risk.

Plaintiff counter-argued by saying they may not necessarily have to lose their consumer base by simply placing warning labels on their coffee indicating to the consumer exposure will result in three degree burns within 3 seconds. This alerts the consumer to the seriousness of the situation and allows them to take precautions in handling the hot coffee. If the consumer gets burned out of their mishandling of the coffee, then this is their fault having been informed of the potential injuries resulting from exposure.

So with this counter-argument McDonald’s lost point number two and the others were easy to prove. Hence, the McDonald’s case was not at all a ludicrous case.

258

Intent is used as an element for some tort claims but not Liability claims under the heading of Negligence. For example, the tort claim of liability for Battery is the following:

  1. An action which results in some Contact with an individual or a reasonable extension of the individual which is
  2. Harmful or offensive
  3. Intent defined as- Knew with substantial certainty their conduct would result in contact with the individual, such as pulling a chair out from a person before they sit down one knows with substantial certainty this will cause the person to hit the ground, or knew with direct knowledge.

Intent is an element of Tort law but only in a few claims but it is not the same in application or definition as criminal law and for the purpose of Negligence claims, which Liability falls under, no Intent is necessary to win a case.

So Maldestrom you were correct in saying in terms of Liability, intent is not necessary in Tort law and part of the reason for Liability is to compensate an individual harmed by anothers negligence when the criminal system cannot do any justice because Intent is lacking.

But as you correctly noted Maldestrom this is of course another issue. Just wanted to let you know, however, your stance on Tort Law Liability was correct.

259

wring, the correct number is 140 degrees, as you said in your first post, not 160, as you say now. Which means that this woman would have suffered third degree burns had she spilled coffee from anyplace on herself.

Frankly it is a bit surprising to see such a wide discrepancy in these estimates of how long it takes for burns - you would think these would be established facts.

I am (unsurprisingly) unclear of Mandelstam’s post saying that “Izzy now implies” etc. - this was in fact the subject of my first post to this thread. What’s more bizarre is that someone could claim that they were unaware that tort reform is a subtext of the coffee verdict debate - the coffee verdict is frequently invoked as Exhibit A in arguments as to why this country needs tort reform. Very simple, really - to the extent that you buy in to the notion that we are being subjected to rediculous court decisions, it would suggest a need for tort reform. To the extent that one believes that we are not being subjected to rediculous court decisions, that need is called into question. Decisions such a the coffee one are evidence, or not.

260

Izzy there are a number of other factors involved which can lead to some small (and 10 degrees is small) variance. the location of the injury (hands have tougher skin than genitalia for example) age of the victime (babies and the elderly have much more sensative skin than the average 30 year old), if it’s bare skin or clothing was involved (the clothing holds the liquid close to the skin, allowing it to continue to cook - or so the ER physician told me).

regardless, McD’s temperature was too damn hot for human consumption.