I have read about this before and I'd agree that McDonald's were just dicks. It's sad that this story went through the press and nobody ever bothered looking a little closer.
Actually, the vast majority of cases where people sued over hot coffee that was as hot or even hotter than the liebeck case are dismissed as "frivolous". The liebeck verdict was more of the exception, rather than the rule.
We've been hearing the other side's point of view for years in the papers, on commercials, in the news and on talk shows all painting an elderly woman whose genitals were melted off as a parasite trying to take advantage of a large corporation.
This is the first bit of dialogue from the site's video:
HOST: "What do you think of the movie?"
FIGLEY: "I saw it as propaganda. Well done propaganda... But, propaganda."
So says the panel of tort reform supporting lawyers and professors.
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Domain Administrator
Registrant Organization: Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
Registrant Street: 1615 H Street NW,
Registrant City: Washington
Registrant State/Province: DC
Registrant Postal Code: 20062
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.2026596000
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: @uschamber.com
Edited to add: The piece makes the point that the film "Hot Coffee" is propaganda. I believe that gives me leeway to do the same here.
This is a very light treatment of an important case.
It didn't go into the extensive surgery she had, and that her case wasn't for $20K, it was just to pay for her medical expenses.
Also, though maybe not important in this article, was the logic behind the jury's award. They placed the award at 2 days worth of McD's nationwide coffee sales.
But I am glad that they did mention the other 700+ suits filed against McDs, but they should have gone into a little more depth about how McDs used its extensive legal department to squash those complaints. A practice that still continues today.
Edit: And for more interesting reads, check out the Stella Awards site. Now defunct, it was devoted to finding really stupid law suits, and debunking urban legend law suits. The quoted aim was to show that there is a real issue with US law suits, that doesn't need fake "I microwaved my poodle because the instructions didn't let me know that was bad" to let people know there is an issue.
I teach lawyers English, and one of my more fun classes is mixing up a bunch of true and fake lawsuits and watching them try to figure out which is which.
Pro-Tip: The more ridiculous sounding ones are actually real.
Case in point - a couple who lost their 2 year old in a lawnmower accident at day care found out that the day care only had a $100K insurance policy. So they dropped the case against the day care center and sued the manufacturer of the lawn mower.
There was a safety feature that was invented 16 years after the mower was built that the mower didn't have. No recall statement or after action was specified by authorities. The jury awarded the couple a $2M award.
$20,000 x 700 cases = $14,000,000 out of $1,000,000 PER DAY in coffee revenue over decades is also statistically nothing.
McDonald's judged that injuring people and pounding them with lawyers was more cost effective than customers not having hot coffee after they drove to the office.
If you want to re-litigate it in the court of public opinion, fine:
It's not the volume of product sold that matters. It's the damages that one product can have in one specific case.
And besides, if they really had a case, they should have appealed rather than settled and then re-litigate it in the court of public opinion. Winning a case is always a stronger argument than trying to prove you were right afterwards.
Actually, the vast majority of cases where people sued over hot coffee that was as hot or even hotter than the liebeck case are dismissed as "frivolous". The liebeck verdict was more of the exception, rather than the rule.
Source (wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau.... (in "aftermath" section)
So what you're saying is, had they appealed, they would have had a bunch of case law on their side, which may or may not have mattered to the appellate court.
Again, if they felt they would have won, they should have appealed.
A lot of people do not report issues, so the 700 complaints should be treated as very low ball estimate. Similar to how relatively few people report cases of food poisoning, I imagine relatively few people reported burned tongues/limbs/etc.
That's now how statistics works. Like, if were were comparing McDonald's coffee burns to Burger King Coffee burns and the different was only 700 people we might say that there isn't a statistically significant difference between the rate, but you can't just say a rare outcome is statistically insignificant on it's own.
No they aren't. First off nothing can just be statistically insignificant, it has to be statistically insignificant compared to something. So you can say that people are not more likely to be burned by McDonalds coffee then Burger King, or at home. This could be true even if lots of people got burned by McDonalds coffee, so long as lots of people got burned by Burger King or their home coffee. You can also have a statistically significant outcome that's rare. Guillain-Barré syndrome is a rare side effect of some vaccines, but's it's not statistically insignificant.
For me the question isn't about McDonald's being rigid and stubborn and refusing to pay medical bills for one of their customers. It's "the right thing to do".
On the other hand, coffee is hot. Coffee aficionados might quibble on the proper temperature for coffee --but the temp McDonald's served the coffee was not "wrong".
So, I could see them found guilty of providing an inadequate vessel for the coffee .. but she burnt herself trying to open the cup and adding sweetener, or something to that effect. How is that the company's fault?
Granted, if you see one of your customers accidentally hurt themselves, the humane thing is to help them --but how was McD guilty of contributing to her injury when we all recognize coffee is a hot substance. When you make it at home you know you are not to allow it to spill over yourself. I mean, I get that McD was callous in not wanting to pay her bill. I agree they were callous but how were they at fault for her injury?
There are many things which are intrinsically unsafe but we mostly operate safely around such things: gasoline, razor blades, knives, medicines, etc.
Is it believed servers should allow coffee to cool down to a safe temperature before tendering the drink?
So are they supposed to have a "cooling process" to bring the temp down to a standard temp? If there is no such standards, it kind of leaves things undefined and perhaps we should have one, although I imagine a few coffee bars flouting the standard.
The complaints may or may not be relevant, I think because you will have people complain it's not hot enough, or too hot, etc. and in terms of proportion to servings served it was a miniscule percentage. Never the less we all know from experience when we brew at home that coffee is hot. We know to be careful around the stove or range.
They didn't need a cooling process. The coffee was brewed and left in a pot on a warmer. They just needed to turn down the temperature on the warmer. They were literally selling a drink that was hot enough to burn/melt flesh. They were told this practice was dangerous several times and multiple people were injured, yet McDonald's still refused to decrease the temperature. Sometimes a lawsuit is the only way to get a business to stop dangerous behavior.
There's so much disinformation on this case. For instance, I was once told that the McDonald's franchisee was violating even McDonalds policy by keeping his coffee "even hotter"—because he liked it that way. And that one of the outcomes of the case was McDonalds removing the temperature control from their coffee machines to ensure consistency.
No coffee is drinkable for me when served, it's always at a temperature that will burn my tongue and gums. I always have to cool it down.
A lot of people apparently like coffee hot, so they can take it to work or wherever and it's not luke-warm 30 minutes later. I'm not one of them, but that doesn't mean this apparently popular product variant should no longer be offered by any vendor. It's not like McDonald's has an effective monopoly on serving coffee ...
Your argument is missing this concept of degree. They still serve "hot" coffee. Maybe had they sold "scolding hot" coffee they could have got out of it. I could go start selling "cold" drinks (cooling them with liquid nitrogen) but I should probably warn people their fingers are going to freeze and break off.
Ok, so are office Mr Coffees at work serving me coffee the wrong way? Should they serve coffee at lower temps? Or if I use a percolator....
So I agree McD was callous and unsympathetic. I also think they should have looked after their customer... But I still find the argument that McDs was at fault a bit unsettling because we all know that coffee is intrinsically hot. It's not something you gulp down. It gets sipped for a reason.
What you're not understanding is that the Mr. Coffee's and percolators you are using are not serving you coffee that is as hot as McDonald's was at the time of the lawsuit. The coffee scalded the woman instantly--she would have been injured whether it spilled on her or she tried to drink it. Indeed, at the levels served, she could have suffered far worse injuries if she had just tried to drink it, from the coffee scalding her throat and trachea.
Companies changed their behavior after the lawsuit. Now they serve coffee hot, but not scaldingly hot.
A Keurig brews at 192 degrees by default. After dispensing into a room temperature mug, it can fall 10-15 degrees. McDonald's served theirs at 190. 15 degrees may not sound like a lot, but it means the difference in 3rd degree burns is a few seconds vs. 10s of seconds.
When you're up above 80 degC, the difference between 2nd-degree and 3rd-degree burns is measured in tenths of a second. Granted, liquids don't stay that hot for long without a vacuum insulated vessel, but common sense says that you should not serve anything in a restaurant that can cause permanent disfigurement after a spill faster than the victim can possibly react to the situation.
You might as well serve cups of 10 M HCl. It doesn't matter how well you label it as "CAUTION! Strong acid! Do not ingest or touch!" because eventually, everything in a restaurant will get spilled. Logically, you would either serve it diluted to 0.1 M instead, and then keep an open can of baking soda within easy reach, or you would sock something away for the victims' compensation fund every time you sold a cup.
Everything spills in a restaurant. Everything. No exceptions. You absolutely cannot predicate your business strategy on the assumption that one particular thing will never get spilled on a customer. Every engineer knows Murphy's Law, and every last one could have predicted that serving 190 degF coffee will produce a nonzero quantity of hospitalizations.
Brew at whatever temperature you need. But don't let any human near it until the liquid cools to a safer temperature.
I know that the coffee I come into contact with on a daily basis is cool enough, in a 2-minute walk from the machine to my desk, to poke a finger into it without being burned (momentary exposure is uncomfortable, but doesn't result in injury).
Consulting a burn chart [1], I've got to assume that it's a temperature somewhat under 160 degrees by that time. From a coworker's experience, at that point you can dump it on yourself and end up with 1st and 2nd degree burns, rather than the 3rd degree burns from McDonald's coffee. Still, by any reasonable measure, the coffee is certainly "hot".
The problem here isn't accuracy, it's precision. "Hot" might mean > 100F/38C. Or it might mean > 200F/93C. If a temperature isn't specified, you're likely to make a judgement based on the past experiences that inform your intuition.
It follows that a company selling a product, without providing more precise information about its properties, should provide it in a state that matches a reasonable customer's intuition of what they're buying. I don't think that's an unsettling concept. I think it's one that most people would take as a given.
On the other hand, I've never seen a coffee served that was so hot as to be undrinkable within 5 minutes. A 190 degree cup of coffee is much hotter than I would expect, based on past experience.
These are the topics the jury received evidence on, heard from expert witnesses about, and was argued thoroughly during the case. Perhaps your questions will be answered if you look into the case further.
Of course this case is settled. But my question is not about this articular case but rather a more general question. And also assuming that cases and precedents can be overturned. Or simply have different outcomes in different jurisdictions.
Let say I prepared my own coffee at home -and let's say I made it scalding not expecting to have to drink it till I got to the office 5 minutes later... but as I step out my door someone runs by and knocks the coffee out of my hand and spills it onto themselves and me ... Am I at fault, is anyone?
How about you bump into someone at Starbucks who just got his fresh coffee and coffee spills over you? My expectation wouldn't be that the coffee is so hot that I get 3rd degree burns.
Kind of like when I'm cooking at home and I don't expect children to bump into me while I'm cooking hot meals? I mean, accidents happen. I don't expect that to happen but it very well could.
To make a more obvious case, a hotpot restaurant. You cannot get around having a very hot plate. Accidents will happen. People get burned. Should we close them down or else ensure the plates are not sizzling?
If people kept getting serious burns from plates at a hotpot restaurant, I would really hope that the restaurant would get punished. If you cannot safely provide your service/product, you should adjust your service to make it safer. McDonald's was serving extremely hot coffee in flimsy cups, and people were getting seriously burned by their coffee. McDonald's refused to make their product safer and got punished for it.
NO, obviously not. Just like I don't think people should get seriously injured in traffic accidents. But people do and car manufacturers are not liable unless there was a defect or there was negligence somewhere.
I am pretty sure they are liable if there is a known problem and they refuse to address it. I would compare the coffee temperature issue with a car killing you if you bump into another car at low speed. Well known issue and avoidable.
> When you make it at home you know you are not to allow it to spill over yourself.
She was served coffee, they got in a car and drove a few minutes, the car pulled over and she burnt herself so severely she needed several surgeries and her life was at risk.
I suspect that most coffee made at home would be at a lower temperature after the same length of time. Mostly because mugs and metal teaspoons conduct heat better, and people use chilled milk, and mugs don't have lids.
And while we all know "coffee is hot" we don't expect it to cause life threatening injury. That's the thing that really bugs me about this case, is that people don't understand just how serious full thickness burns are.
In England if you get a full thickness burn, especially on any joints or the face or neck or genital regions you make your way to your nearest A&E department or MIU, and that hospital then transfers you, by ambulance, to a more specialist burns unit.
Having been inside several burns units (Bristol Frenchay; Salisbury; Birmingham Selly Oak; and Chelsea & Westminster) I know they're not fucking around when it comes to burns.
> but how were they at fault for her injury?
Several safety organisations had called for coffee to be served at a reduced temperature. That's still too hot to drink, and will still cause burns. It just reduces the risk of severe burns. McDonalds decided to ignore that request to reduce temperature.
And no-one is asking them to stop serving extra hot coffee. They just asking them to only serve it on request.
I think you make a pretty good case for the regulation of the temperature at which coffee is served. And if we had such then yes, McD would be at fault for violating the law. It would make sense to me that if coffee injuries are seriously injurious that we should have such regulation. As it was though, there didn't seem to be such regulation and as such I would imagine that common sense on the side of the producer and consumer would have been expected and in such case we'd have split the fault more 50:50 rather than the 90:10 it was.
The underpinning of your thought process here seems to be something like "People can't be fully liable for harm they cause if they weren't breaking the law in the process." But that's not so. If I wildly wave my arms around in a somebody's house and break their expensive china, that's not against the law, but I can't say, "Oh, I only owe you half the cost since it's your fault you didn't protect yourself against the perfectly legal action of me flailing around the room."
I think the point is exactly that the serving termperature was, in fact, wrong. It was hotter, several minutes after being handed to the customer than the average person's intuition would lead them to expect. And that difference was enough to cause life-threatening injury. That's a reasonable fault, in my opinion.
Then there's the angle of why they did this. Disclaimer: I haven't sourced this, so maybe I'm mistaken, feel free to verify this info. It's been pointed out that McDs benefited from serving coffee hot enough that customers were unlikely to be able to consume it before leaving the store. They were using free refills as a marketing technique and someone figured out that the hotter you served the coffee, the less free coffee was given out, while presumably still getting most of the benefit of offering it. This explains why they wouldn't lower the temperature when told it was unsafe, and also why it makes sense to hit them with a large cash penalty, to counter the financial incentive to continue unsafe but profitable practices until you get caught.
That is how I end up looking at this kind of lawsuit. You can't regulate every single potentially unsafe idea anyone can have. But having a flexible system that makes the risks of getting sued outweigh the financial benefit of potentially unsafe but lucrative practices means we get an overall safer environment, because it aligns the best interests of consumers with the best interests of the big companies.
this article seems to only describe what you can see in the video (already linked in other comments) and does not add any value, apart from advertisement, but that value doesn't go to the reader.
Doesn't add value for you, perhaps. Because of the article, I didn't feel a need to watch the video - and since I strongly dislike watching videos (they tend to be noisy and demand more of my attention for a longer time than I am willing or able to give), it worked out quite well for me.
I upvoted both your comments, as I do believe they contribute to the discussion.
But I do have a question to ask you: When do you feel that statistical significance shouldn't matter? And in what context?
Lets say 171 billion people get a life saving drug, but 700 die. There I can agree with you.
171 billion people get coffee, and 700 are maimed. I think that maybe you should pay their medical bills. And maybe throw a few extra bucks in for good measure. 171 billion people generated a lot of profit. Losing $1.4 billion is not a bad deal
I agree there was a lot of bad reporting on this case, and there are a lot of misconceptions about the case, but I attribute it to bad media than anything else.
So these videos are hosted on Youtube by the U.S. Chamber Institute For Legal Reform, which describes itself as "a national campaign, representing the nation's business community, with the critical mission of making America's legal system simpler, fairer and faster for everyone." The website says "The views expressed in this (these) videos are solely those of the panelists, and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform." Yea, but who setup this slick panel and presumably paid these lawyers, moderator and editors?
Edit:
Looking at their arguments in each episode:
1. Intros and general reactions and opinions. No direct argument here.
2. Definition of tort in the film was incorrect, missing the phrase civil harm. This is myopic as the film does go on to explain plenty of complexities around tort law: negligence, strict liability, punitive damages, etc.
3. The 700 complaints vs. billions of cups of coffee sold.
4. Damage caps: the film portrays damages caps as common when they are rare.
5. Judicial Elections: a) money doesn't only flow from corporations, b) most judges will be fair regardless of how they were elected, only a few 'bad apples'
6. Mandatory arbitration, Franken Amendment: a) amendment didn't change Jones case b) most arbitration is not around tort claims.
Overall I think it's surprising that all panelists are in agreement on each issue. :-)
It's not ad hominem to point out that these videos are being produced by an organization that has historically taken one side on the issue of tort reform.
I edited my comment to include the episodes arguments. I'll post my thoughts here:
3. The documentary does cover McDonalds scale and the fact that they received the same complaint at various levels within the corporate offices (not just franchises) but did nothing. Even a single instance has grounds for a tort case if McDonalds knew about the problem but did nothing.
4. This dances around the issue. Nebraska does have damage caps and those caps are on real damages. The panelists even say that this case is "tragic". Not sure what more to say...
5. This is simply Citizen's United vs. FEC a few years earlier. We probably disagree on this decision. :-) But the film does bring up cases where there is an appearance of influence thanks to donations.
6. Again dances around the issue. Regardless of whether the Franken amendment covers the Jones case, they fail to discuss the problems with mandatory arbitration which is what the documentary finds to be the most troubling aspect of these agreements.
None of these 'arguments' really address the concerns that the film raises. The panel nitpicks on definitions, complains that the film 'missies the point' because these are rare cases [citation needed], etc.
And again, everyone is in agreement on the panel, which usually indicates that the panel was poorly chosen, at least if you want an good presentation of different viewpoints.
I read the article, but can't watch the video right now, so perhaps this is adressed there, but what I don't understand is why selling coffee at 190 degrees should make you liable for people's handling of a known hot product. Heck, if I sell you 212 degree water and it is no secret that it is super hot, what did I do wrong?
Or what about if I sell you coffee at the lower temperatures McDonald's now sells coffee at, and you spill it over a newborn's delicate skin causing severe damage.
Please help me understand the other side of the story.
No. This story has been circulating for 22 years now, there is more than enough information for you to find it on your own. I've literally spent two decades explaining it to people and at this point 'please explain it to me' requests come off as being asked in bad faith.
I'm aware of information out there. I've read other information out there. No, I have not spent hours pouring over the minutiae, but my question is not in bad faith.
This will probably be downvoted too, but, golly gee, I'm just trying to have an open mind here and seeing if someone can convince me that MCD should be at fault. A hot product is hot and inherently carries those sorts of risks. Yes, it was hotter than it needed to be. I get that. So what? How is it some sort of gross negligence? (That's a real question, not rhetorical--I don't understand. 180-190 is not out-of-this world hot, but yes, is extra hot compared to 160 degree coffee).
My newborn example in the grandparent post still applies if served at a cooler temperature. They'll get burned right away. And for adults? The temperature coffee is served at all coffee shops everywhere can be inherently dangerous and cause 3rd degree burns (see page 3 http://www.ameriburn.org/Preven/ScaldInjuryEducator%27sGuide...). While people may not understand the specific number of seconds required, they get the gist--be careful with hot liquids.
OK about the good faith thing, but the relevant facts are laid out in the article for you. Why don't you try disputing their significance instead of just saying 'I don't get it!' over and over?
Sure. All of my questions have been about the product and why serving it should have caused legal liability. So ignoring the parts of the article that simply points out that most people don't correctly know details what happened (whether she was driving, dollar amounts she actually got, etc.) and focusing on what the article has to say about the product and why it might carry liability for MCD we get very little from this article, namely:
- MCD served coffee at up to 190 degrees
- they had 700 previous reports of burns
- MCD claimed customers wanted it served hot
Those are the precious few facts we have about the product from the article. I'm aware of other facts of the case not covered in the article (business reasons MCD chose to serve at that temp and such), but it still doesn't connect A to B; why serving coffee extra hot (at a temp you can get at Starbucks if you request it) should mean MCD is liable for burn injuries if you take the lid off and spill it on yourself. Do you get where I'm coming from?
All sorts of hazards are "grandfathered" in. If cars were invented today, they'd never be allowed.
Now think about stairs. A certain athletic performance is needed to rapidly descend stairs. Get it wrong and you can tumble a long way onto concrete. Life-changing injuries are just one slip away.
I hear it. I feel the severity of the burns, the requirement for skin grafts should come into play, but I can put that aside.
It should also be clarified, it was not 700 previous reports of burns, it was 700 previous lawsuits. That implies that there were far more burns and spills that did not result in lawsuits. On your part though, the lack of infamy implies there were plenty of cases that were settled or where the judge agreed with McDonalds.
In the Too Much Coffee Man comic (if you'll forgive getting some info from a comic) others have posted: http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/ It's important to note the emotionally offensive arguments that were made by McDonalds, that actually helped tilt the case over to Stella Liebeck's side. Mainly, I expect, that she was asking for too much money because she was so old that she wouldn't get much more use out of her ahem parts. The awarding of punitive damages, I expect had to do with the 700 previous lawsuits which resulted in no change in behaviour.
Spilling a bit of coffee, especially when the cup is at its fullest and hottest, especially when in the cramped confines of a vehicle, is a common enough occurrence that I don't consider it unreasonable that McDonalds should have taken earlier action.
The Starbucks approach also highlights the liability - because you must request that temperature, it can more reasonably be claimed that you should know to take extra precaution. Certainly, it can't be claimed that you didn't know just how hot it was going to be.
For what it's worth, I've had to revise a little just how clear cut this is. But I still feel that the legal system was working as intended, that this lawsuit doesn't deserve its frivolous reputation, and that it's important for ordinary citizens to have these methods of recourse against giant corporations.
"please explain it to me" is almost rhetorical - what is there to explain? Was it molten salt, or some other substance besides water? Was it really plain honest H2O just below the natural boiling point at that altitude? How could there possibly be anything to explain? Thus the virality of this story - simple and understandable by anybody.
Your explanation is "the injuries were so bad and McDonald's was so mean" but that should not be a legal justification.
Oh, so the woman was being reasonable, just wanted McDonald's to pay her medical bills - no, that's not reasonable either. I can't buy $1 bag of candy and then get my dentistry bills paid by the manufacturer, even if it was "closer to 100% sugar than is reasonable". Yeah, no metaphor will be exactly the same, but the situation is clear. Here's another one: someone buys a kitchen knife, and then cuts off their finger. Manufacturer has to pay? I'm sure some people in this vast country have said "man these knives are way too sharp" while the manufacturer says "our customers want the knives to be sharp".
McDonald's sold coffee near the boiling point. It was not defective or misleading. Something very unfortunate happened. And here in America someone has to pay for it! But that's not actually fair. If you really want this unfortunate woman to have her medical expenses paid for, have your government give her the money, sharing in the expense via your taxes.
89 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 115 ms ] threadSource (wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... (in "aftermath" section)
This is the first bit of dialogue from the site's video:
So says the panel of tort reform supporting lawyers and professors.https://whoislookup.ninja/whois/hotcoffeetruth.com
Edited to add: The piece makes the point that the film "Hot Coffee" is propaganda. I believe that gives me leeway to do the same here.Also, though maybe not important in this article, was the logic behind the jury's award. They placed the award at 2 days worth of McD's nationwide coffee sales.
But I am glad that they did mention the other 700+ suits filed against McDs, but they should have gone into a little more depth about how McDs used its extensive legal department to squash those complaints. A practice that still continues today.
Edit: And for more interesting reads, check out the Stella Awards site. Now defunct, it was devoted to finding really stupid law suits, and debunking urban legend law suits. The quoted aim was to show that there is a real issue with US law suits, that doesn't need fake "I microwaved my poodle because the instructions didn't let me know that was bad" to let people know there is an issue.
I teach lawyers English, and one of my more fun classes is mixing up a bunch of true and fake lawsuits and watching them try to figure out which is which.
Pro-Tip: The more ridiculous sounding ones are actually real.
Case in point - a couple who lost their 2 year old in a lawnmower accident at day care found out that the day care only had a $100K insurance policy. So they dropped the case against the day care center and sued the manufacturer of the lawn mower.
There was a safety feature that was invented 16 years after the mower was built that the mower didn't have. No recall statement or after action was specified by authorities. The jury awarded the couple a $2M award.
McDonald's judged that injuring people and pounding them with lawyers was more cost effective than customers not having hot coffee after they drove to the office.
McDonalds got off lightly.
It's not the volume of product sold that matters. It's the damages that one product can have in one specific case.
And besides, if they really had a case, they should have appealed rather than settled and then re-litigate it in the court of public opinion. Winning a case is always a stronger argument than trying to prove you were right afterwards.
Again, if they felt they would have won, they should have appealed.
On the other hand, coffee is hot. Coffee aficionados might quibble on the proper temperature for coffee --but the temp McDonald's served the coffee was not "wrong".
So, I could see them found guilty of providing an inadequate vessel for the coffee .. but she burnt herself trying to open the cup and adding sweetener, or something to that effect. How is that the company's fault?
Granted, if you see one of your customers accidentally hurt themselves, the humane thing is to help them --but how was McD guilty of contributing to her injury when we all recognize coffee is a hot substance. When you make it at home you know you are not to allow it to spill over yourself. I mean, I get that McD was callous in not wanting to pay her bill. I agree they were callous but how were they at fault for her injury?
There are many things which are intrinsically unsafe but we mostly operate safely around such things: gasoline, razor blades, knives, medicines, etc.
Is it believed servers should allow coffee to cool down to a safe temperature before tendering the drink?
190 degrees is not at all drinkable (though perfect for out of the brewer) and McDonalds had already received complaints about it being too hot.
The complaints may or may not be relevant, I think because you will have people complain it's not hot enough, or too hot, etc. and in terms of proportion to servings served it was a miniscule percentage. Never the less we all know from experience when we brew at home that coffee is hot. We know to be careful around the stove or range.
No, just a warning label.
I have no idea if that's true, but I suspect not.
A lot of people apparently like coffee hot, so they can take it to work or wherever and it's not luke-warm 30 minutes later. I'm not one of them, but that doesn't mean this apparently popular product variant should no longer be offered by any vendor. It's not like McDonald's has an effective monopoly on serving coffee ...
So I agree McD was callous and unsympathetic. I also think they should have looked after their customer... But I still find the argument that McDs was at fault a bit unsettling because we all know that coffee is intrinsically hot. It's not something you gulp down. It gets sipped for a reason.
Companies changed their behavior after the lawsuit. Now they serve coffee hot, but not scaldingly hot.
You might as well serve cups of 10 M HCl. It doesn't matter how well you label it as "CAUTION! Strong acid! Do not ingest or touch!" because eventually, everything in a restaurant will get spilled. Logically, you would either serve it diluted to 0.1 M instead, and then keep an open can of baking soda within easy reach, or you would sock something away for the victims' compensation fund every time you sold a cup.
Everything spills in a restaurant. Everything. No exceptions. You absolutely cannot predicate your business strategy on the assumption that one particular thing will never get spilled on a customer. Every engineer knows Murphy's Law, and every last one could have predicted that serving 190 degF coffee will produce a nonzero quantity of hospitalizations.
Brew at whatever temperature you need. But don't let any human near it until the liquid cools to a safer temperature.
1. McDonald's knew or should have know that their temperature could cause third degree burns.
2. McDonald's received complaints and did nothing. They did not even put a warning label on the menu.
3. Because there was no warning label, plaintiff did not know she could receive serious injury which may have impacted her decision to not buy it.
You can make the argument that just because there was a warning label doesn't mean she would have read it.
But on the contrary, if the warning label is not there, she has no chance to read it.
1. McDonald's knew or should have know that their temperature could cause third degree burns.
2. McDonald's received complaints and did nothing. They did not even put a warning label on the menu.
3. Because there was no warning label, plaintiff did not know she could receive serious injury which may have impacted her decision to not buy it.
You can make the argument that just because there was a warning label doesn't mean she would have read it.
But on the contrary, if the warning label is not there, she has no chance to read it.
I know that the coffee I come into contact with on a daily basis is cool enough, in a 2-minute walk from the machine to my desk, to poke a finger into it without being burned (momentary exposure is uncomfortable, but doesn't result in injury).
Consulting a burn chart [1], I've got to assume that it's a temperature somewhat under 160 degrees by that time. From a coworker's experience, at that point you can dump it on yourself and end up with 1st and 2nd degree burns, rather than the 3rd degree burns from McDonald's coffee. Still, by any reasonable measure, the coffee is certainly "hot".
The problem here isn't accuracy, it's precision. "Hot" might mean > 100F/38C. Or it might mean > 200F/93C. If a temperature isn't specified, you're likely to make a judgement based on the past experiences that inform your intuition.
It follows that a company selling a product, without providing more precise information about its properties, should provide it in a state that matches a reasonable customer's intuition of what they're buying. I don't think that's an unsettling concept. I think it's one that most people would take as a given.
[1] https://www.armstronginternational.com/files/products/valves...
Let say I prepared my own coffee at home -and let's say I made it scalding not expecting to have to drink it till I got to the office 5 minutes later... but as I step out my door someone runs by and knocks the coffee out of my hand and spills it onto themselves and me ... Am I at fault, is anyone?
To make a more obvious case, a hotpot restaurant. You cannot get around having a very hot plate. Accidents will happen. People get burned. Should we close them down or else ensure the plates are not sizzling?
She was served coffee, they got in a car and drove a few minutes, the car pulled over and she burnt herself so severely she needed several surgeries and her life was at risk.
I suspect that most coffee made at home would be at a lower temperature after the same length of time. Mostly because mugs and metal teaspoons conduct heat better, and people use chilled milk, and mugs don't have lids.
And while we all know "coffee is hot" we don't expect it to cause life threatening injury. That's the thing that really bugs me about this case, is that people don't understand just how serious full thickness burns are.
In England if you get a full thickness burn, especially on any joints or the face or neck or genital regions you make your way to your nearest A&E department or MIU, and that hospital then transfers you, by ambulance, to a more specialist burns unit.
Having been inside several burns units (Bristol Frenchay; Salisbury; Birmingham Selly Oak; and Chelsea & Westminster) I know they're not fucking around when it comes to burns.
> but how were they at fault for her injury?
Several safety organisations had called for coffee to be served at a reduced temperature. That's still too hot to drink, and will still cause burns. It just reduces the risk of severe burns. McDonalds decided to ignore that request to reduce temperature.
And no-one is asking them to stop serving extra hot coffee. They just asking them to only serve it on request.
Then there's the angle of why they did this. Disclaimer: I haven't sourced this, so maybe I'm mistaken, feel free to verify this info. It's been pointed out that McDs benefited from serving coffee hot enough that customers were unlikely to be able to consume it before leaving the store. They were using free refills as a marketing technique and someone figured out that the hotter you served the coffee, the less free coffee was given out, while presumably still getting most of the benefit of offering it. This explains why they wouldn't lower the temperature when told it was unsafe, and also why it makes sense to hit them with a large cash penalty, to counter the financial incentive to continue unsafe but profitable practices until you get caught.
That is how I end up looking at this kind of lawsuit. You can't regulate every single potentially unsafe idea anyone can have. But having a flexible system that makes the risks of getting sued outweigh the financial benefit of potentially unsafe but lucrative practices means we get an overall safer environment, because it aligns the best interests of consumers with the best interests of the big companies.
But I do have a question to ask you: When do you feel that statistical significance shouldn't matter? And in what context?
Lets say 171 billion people get a life saving drug, but 700 die. There I can agree with you.
171 billion people get coffee, and 700 are maimed. I think that maybe you should pay their medical bills. And maybe throw a few extra bucks in for good measure. 171 billion people generated a lot of profit. Losing $1.4 billion is not a bad deal
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13213204 and marked it off-topic.
I agree there was a lot of bad reporting on this case, and there are a lot of misconceptions about the case, but I attribute it to bad media than anything else.
Edit: Looking at their arguments in each episode: 1. Intros and general reactions and opinions. No direct argument here.
2. Definition of tort in the film was incorrect, missing the phrase civil harm. This is myopic as the film does go on to explain plenty of complexities around tort law: negligence, strict liability, punitive damages, etc.
3. The 700 complaints vs. billions of cups of coffee sold.
4. Damage caps: the film portrays damages caps as common when they are rare.
5. Judicial Elections: a) money doesn't only flow from corporations, b) most judges will be fair regardless of how they were elected, only a few 'bad apples'
6. Mandatory arbitration, Franken Amendment: a) amendment didn't change Jones case b) most arbitration is not around tort claims.
Overall I think it's surprising that all panelists are in agreement on each issue. :-)
edit: the message that I replied too got heavily edited after the fact.
I edited my comment to include the episodes arguments. I'll post my thoughts here:
3. The documentary does cover McDonalds scale and the fact that they received the same complaint at various levels within the corporate offices (not just franchises) but did nothing. Even a single instance has grounds for a tort case if McDonalds knew about the problem but did nothing.
4. This dances around the issue. Nebraska does have damage caps and those caps are on real damages. The panelists even say that this case is "tragic". Not sure what more to say...
5. This is simply Citizen's United vs. FEC a few years earlier. We probably disagree on this decision. :-) But the film does bring up cases where there is an appearance of influence thanks to donations.
6. Again dances around the issue. Regardless of whether the Franken amendment covers the Jones case, they fail to discuss the problems with mandatory arbitration which is what the documentary finds to be the most troubling aspect of these agreements.
None of these 'arguments' really address the concerns that the film raises. The panel nitpicks on definitions, complains that the film 'missies the point' because these are rare cases [citation needed], etc.
And again, everyone is in agreement on the panel, which usually indicates that the panel was poorly chosen, at least if you want an good presentation of different viewpoints.
Or what about if I sell you coffee at the lower temperatures McDonald's now sells coffee at, and you spill it over a newborn's delicate skin causing severe damage.
Please help me understand the other side of the story.
http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/
MCD here was routinely serving it at 180-190.
This will probably be downvoted too, but, golly gee, I'm just trying to have an open mind here and seeing if someone can convince me that MCD should be at fault. A hot product is hot and inherently carries those sorts of risks. Yes, it was hotter than it needed to be. I get that. So what? How is it some sort of gross negligence? (That's a real question, not rhetorical--I don't understand. 180-190 is not out-of-this world hot, but yes, is extra hot compared to 160 degree coffee).
My newborn example in the grandparent post still applies if served at a cooler temperature. They'll get burned right away. And for adults? The temperature coffee is served at all coffee shops everywhere can be inherently dangerous and cause 3rd degree burns (see page 3 http://www.ameriburn.org/Preven/ScaldInjuryEducator%27sGuide...). While people may not understand the specific number of seconds required, they get the gist--be careful with hot liquids.
- MCD served coffee at up to 190 degrees
- they had 700 previous reports of burns
- MCD claimed customers wanted it served hot
Those are the precious few facts we have about the product from the article. I'm aware of other facts of the case not covered in the article (business reasons MCD chose to serve at that temp and such), but it still doesn't connect A to B; why serving coffee extra hot (at a temp you can get at Starbucks if you request it) should mean MCD is liable for burn injuries if you take the lid off and spill it on yourself. Do you get where I'm coming from?
Now think about stairs. A certain athletic performance is needed to rapidly descend stairs. Get it wrong and you can tumble a long way onto concrete. Life-changing injuries are just one slip away.
It should also be clarified, it was not 700 previous reports of burns, it was 700 previous lawsuits. That implies that there were far more burns and spills that did not result in lawsuits. On your part though, the lack of infamy implies there were plenty of cases that were settled or where the judge agreed with McDonalds.
In the Too Much Coffee Man comic (if you'll forgive getting some info from a comic) others have posted: http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/ It's important to note the emotionally offensive arguments that were made by McDonalds, that actually helped tilt the case over to Stella Liebeck's side. Mainly, I expect, that she was asking for too much money because she was so old that she wouldn't get much more use out of her ahem parts. The awarding of punitive damages, I expect had to do with the 700 previous lawsuits which resulted in no change in behaviour.
Spilling a bit of coffee, especially when the cup is at its fullest and hottest, especially when in the cramped confines of a vehicle, is a common enough occurrence that I don't consider it unreasonable that McDonalds should have taken earlier action.
The Starbucks approach also highlights the liability - because you must request that temperature, it can more reasonably be claimed that you should know to take extra precaution. Certainly, it can't be claimed that you didn't know just how hot it was going to be.
For what it's worth, I've had to revise a little just how clear cut this is. But I still feel that the legal system was working as intended, that this lawsuit doesn't deserve its frivolous reputation, and that it's important for ordinary citizens to have these methods of recourse against giant corporations.
Your explanation is "the injuries were so bad and McDonald's was so mean" but that should not be a legal justification.
Oh, so the woman was being reasonable, just wanted McDonald's to pay her medical bills - no, that's not reasonable either. I can't buy $1 bag of candy and then get my dentistry bills paid by the manufacturer, even if it was "closer to 100% sugar than is reasonable". Yeah, no metaphor will be exactly the same, but the situation is clear. Here's another one: someone buys a kitchen knife, and then cuts off their finger. Manufacturer has to pay? I'm sure some people in this vast country have said "man these knives are way too sharp" while the manufacturer says "our customers want the knives to be sharp".
McDonald's sold coffee near the boiling point. It was not defective or misleading. Something very unfortunate happened. And here in America someone has to pay for it! But that's not actually fair. If you really want this unfortunate woman to have her medical expenses paid for, have your government give her the money, sharing in the expense via your taxes.
I've declined to explain it. Do not project your straw man arguments onto me.
https://youtu.be/KNWh6Kw3ejQ