McDonalds coffee case from years ago...

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Treaty_of_Batum said:
There is not a brightline and that is the beauty of our system.

If someone wants to bring a lawsuit because they cut off a finger while holding a knife, if that case ever got to the jury, the jury would laugh that one out of court.

Are you really so surprised someone spilled coffee on themselves. It happens all the time. Now if McD continued to serve coffee this hot and I knew, of course I wouldn't hold it between my legs. I would treat that coffee like it is a loaded gun without a safety switch and not have it just sitting in my lap. But if I didn't know about McD's coffee I would be OK with holding coffee between my legs figuring worst case scenario I get a burn blister.
Click to expand...

Well, regardless, I'm sure it made every company reconsider their practices about coffee to go.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I get that the coffee was really hot. The problem that I'm hung up on is that she put the cup between her legs, she spilled the coffee, and therefor I do not think the blame lies on McDonalds. If you were to say that she burned the inside of her mouth, that would be a different story. The coffee is intended to be consumed. If someone were to burn the inside of their mouth, and then sue, at that point I think you could argue the case.

Spilling coffee on yourself is not the fault of McDonald's. And if the coffee was at the proper temperature, whatever that is, what kind of burns would you have? 2nd degree? 1st degree? Could you sue if you spilled the coffee and it gave you 2nd degree burns? What's the brightline?
Click to expand...

Again, watch the documentary. You're making assumptions. For instance the jury did assign some fault to the person who spilled the coffee on herself. That was factored into their decision.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Come on Jules, they didn't purposely make the coffee so hot that it would give third degree burns. At what point is coffee so hot that it will give a third degree burn? Was McDonald's like, "bro, set that shit to the third degree burn setting."
Click to expand...

They had complaints. And if you're selling coffee, and it's so hot it burns people (and not just one or two, but hundreds) you probably should look into it.

If you pull the knife out of the sheath and drop it on your foot, is it the fault of the manufacturer that the knife went straight through your foot? It was your fault for mishandling the knife, correct?
Click to expand...

the point of a knife is to cut. the point of coffee is not to burn you severely.

So why is it the fault of the coffee maker that you mishandled the cup and spilled hot coffee on yourself? The coffee is not meant to be spilled on yourself, just like a knife is not meant to be dropped on yourself.
Click to expand...

Because it is more common for coffee to be spilled on you. And you should be able to spill coffee on you and NOT have it burn so bad you have to go to the doctors. Or if it is that hot, you'd hope they'd lower the temp.

That's not what they were designed to do, and when you mishandle them, such as placing the cup between your legs in a moving vehicle, you remove the liability from the manufacturer. Just my two cents.

Is coffee intended to be consumed the second you purchase it? I always wait until my coffee cools a bit before I drink it. It's implied that the shit is hot and I don't want to burn myself. There's no definitive number of degrees, there's just "hot" and then there's "cool enough to drink."
Click to expand...

I'm honestly too tired to respond (not being snarky, honestly I'm just exhausted...so that's why I'm not responding much more)
 
julius said:
They had complaints. And if you're selling coffee, and it's so hot it burns people (and not just one or two, but hundreds) you probably should look into it.



the point of a knife is to cut. the point of coffee is not to burn you severely.



Because it is more common for coffee to be spilled on you. And you should be able to spill coffee on you and NOT have it burn so bad you have to go to the doctors. Or if it is that hot, you'd hope they'd lower the temp.



I'm honestly too tired to respond (not being snarky, honestly I'm just exhausted...so that's why I'm not responding much more)
Click to expand...

The issue that I think we're having is over the temperature of the coffee. The point of coffee might not be to burn you, but it IS to be hot. Nobody wants cold coffee. Nobody wants luke warm coffee. The coffee is hot because people want it hot. If hot coffee is spilled on you, you're going to get burned. It's a byproduct of it being hot. So it's up the individual to wait until the coffee is cool enough to drink.

If people were complaining about the temperature of the coffee, then yes, they should have changed it. I just don't think that someone who spilled the coffee on themselves should be able to blame the company for the damages. It was not intended to be safe enough to spill on yourself.

Anyway, just my thoughts.
 
Natebishop3 said:
The issue that I think we're having is over the temperature of the coffee. The point of coffee might not be to burn you, but it IS to be hot. Nobody wants cold coffee. Nobody wants luke warm coffee. The coffee is hot because people want it hot. If hot coffee is spilled on you, you're going to get burned. It's a byproduct of it being hot. So it's up the individual to wait until the coffee is cool enough to drink.

If people were complaining about the temperature of the coffee, then yes, they should have changed it. I just don't think that someone who spilled the coffee on themselves should be able to blame the company for the damages. It was not intended to be safe enough to spill on yourself.

Anyway, just my thoughts.
Click to expand...

watch the docu
 
jlprk said:
This case was famous because the Republican party set it up as the prime example of America being lawsuit-happy. The party represented its contributors, incompetent doctors who wanted to decrease the cost of malpractice insurance while horrendously screwing up surgeries.

Republicans had caused the very problem they complained about, when they had deregulated industries in the 80s and 90s. Deregulation simply means that with fewer laws governing corporate behavior, corporate (and doctor) offenses will be decided, inconsistently and one at a time, by the judicial branch, instead of the legislative branch's "mass production" "one size fits all" "cost effective" laws.

Deregulation of laws just transfers decisions to lawsuits in the courts, from a more efficient branch of government to a less efficient branch. When Republicans complained about lawsuits, they were both cause and effect.
Click to expand...

It's Bush's fault.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I get that the coffee was really hot. The problem that I'm hung up on is that she put the cup between her legs, she spilled the coffee, and therefor I do not think the blame lies on McDonalds. If you were to say that she burned the inside of her mouth, that would be a different story. The coffee is intended to be consumed.
Click to expand...

Treaty_of_Batum said:
It happens all the time. Now if McD continued to serve coffee this hot and I knew, of course I wouldn't hold it between my legs. I would treat that coffee like it is a loaded gun without a safety switch and not have it just sitting in my lap. But if I didn't know about McD's coffee I would be OK with holding coffee between my legs figuring worst case scenario I get a burn blister.
Click to expand...

I was in this situation. At the drive-up, they handed me my food and dangerous coffee. The cars in line were pressuring me to move on, so I put the coffee, which I could barely hold, into my car's cupholder. It's self-contradictory to move fast while also being careful not to spill by dislodging the flimsy lid (coffee lids are stronger now; back then they were the same as iced drink lids).

Some people will put the cup between their legs because either they are flustered by hurrying, or there's no empty cupholder.

I mentioned a couple of times to the McDonalds outlets that I couldn't drink the coffee till long after I had finished the solid food, which needed something fluid to help me swallow it, so it was miserable eating it. They acted as if they'd heard this complaint before. I was glad this woman changed things, but Republicans were sarcastic for years, saying we live in a litigious society. (Deregulation just kicked the can down the alley from the legislative branch to the judicial branch.)
 
I drank two bottles of wine tonight. I'm just getting started. I feel great, but if I feel like shit tomorrow I'm going to look into filing a lawsuit against the winery. Have some fucking personal accountability people, this type of shit is pathetic. You spill coffee on yourself, you get burned.
 
PHXBlazer1 said:
I drank two bottles of wine tonight. I'm just getting started. I feel great, but if I feel like shit tomorrow I'm going to look into filing a lawsuit against the winery. Have some fucking personal accountability people, this type of shit is pathetic. You spill coffee on yourself, you get burned.
Click to expand...

getting burned, and what happened to this woman isn't exactly the same.

you do know what 3rd degree burns means, right? Did you watch the video?

You're honestly telling me this is normal from having coffee spilled on you?

McDonalds1.jpg


(if that doesn't work, here is the direct link: http://www.fortworthinjuryattorneyblog.com/McDonalds1.jpg)

or this?

mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-2-Copy.jpg

http://plotmistress.com/wp-content/uploads/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-2-Copy.jpg

or this?
images-2.jpeg


http://www.neufeldlawfirm.com.php53....com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/images-2.jpeg

No one, I repeat NO ONE, expects to get this badly burned from spilling coffee. If someone knew that the coffee was this hot, they wouldn't place it anywhere near their legs or body, lid on or off. Let alone near a small child.
 
julius said:
Your article (and point) is a little misleading. That was about the 85-87 #'s..and what Chevy Made car wasn't a piece of shit back then?

I wonder how much of that death rate is related to idiot drivers vs really crappy cars (I'm guessing it was as much lazy/crappy cars by GM more than speed).
Click to expand...

It's true all along, and they knew about it since at least 85-87 cars were made. Sheesh.

I wonder how much of the coffee spills are related to idiot drivers. All of them!
 
Denny Crane said:
It's true all along, and they knew about it since at least 85-87 cars were made. Sheesh.

I wonder how much of the coffee spills are related to idiot drivers. All of them!
Click to expand...

That article was strictly about those 3 years of cars. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are still unsafe now. How do I know that, based on the article you linked?

the article was from 1990.

Also, it's a lot harder to adjust/fix/redesign cars based on crash test results/incidences of death, than it is to lower the temperature of the water used to make coffee (which is just above whats normally safe because they're trying to squeeze as much money out of the coffee grounds).

And besides all that, I'm not sure what your point was. Chevy was wrong to sell a car they knew was performing poorly in the safety tests/accidents. They sold cars that weren't safe. What is your grand point?

link semi related to car deaths

http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver-fatality-stats-by-auto-make/

Corvette not on it, but the Nissan 350Z is #1 (of the era included in this study).
 
Last edited:
Natebishop3 said:
I get that the coffee was really hot. The problem that I'm hung up on is that she put the cup between her legs, she spilled the coffee, and therefor I do not think the blame lies on McDonalds. If you were to say that she burned the inside of her mouth, that would be a different story. The coffee is intended to be consumed. If someone were to burn the inside of their mouth, and then sue, at that point I think you could argue the case.

Spilling coffee on yourself is not the fault of McDonald's. And if the coffee was at the proper temperature, whatever that is, what kind of burns would you have? 2nd degree? 1st degree? Could you sue if you spilled the coffee and it gave you 2nd degree burns? What's the brightline?
Click to expand...

She shares part of the blame for improper use of the cup. However, but not for the fact the coffee was too hot to begin with there isn't a burn. The problem started with McDonalds. They own it 90%.
 
Last edited:
julius said:
That article was strictly about those 3 years of cars. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are still unsafe now. How do I know that, based on the article you linked?

the article was from 1990.

Also, it's a lot harder to adjust/fix/redesign cars based on crash test results/incidences of death, than it is to lower the temperature of the water used to make coffee (which is just above whats normally safe because they're trying to squeeze as much money out of the coffee grounds).

And besides all that, I'm not sure what your point was. Chevy was wrong to sell a car they knew was performing poorly in the safety tests/accidents. They sold cars that weren't safe. What is your grand point?

link semi related to car deaths

http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver-fatality-stats-by-auto-make/

Corvette not on it, but the Nissan 350Z is #1 (of the era included in this study).
Click to expand...

GM disputes Corvette Death Rate (1994): http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...AfIaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pkcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3863,816612

2002 http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/assets/images/2002/Aug-26-2002/SUV-report.pdf

2007 http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf

Really?

Ford Mustang. 280-Z. Whatever. All those sports car makers build cars knowing people will die in them.
 
julius said:
And this absolves McDonalds how, exactly?
Click to expand...

It's OK to make a product that can be harmful if misused. We see it all over the place, be it cars, guns, alcohol, tobacco, cheeseburgers, aspirin, etc.

I don't see why McDonalds needs to be absolved.
 
Denny Crane said:
It's OK to make a product that can be harmful if misused. We see it all over the place, be it cars, guns, alcohol, tobacco, cheeseburgers, aspirin, etc.

I don't see why McDonalds needs to be absolved.
Click to expand...

Whats the point in bringing up other products then?

It's not like the woman poured the coffee over herself, or used coffee improperly or in a fashion that is uncommon.

Like I said before, if she knew that the coffee was so hot it could cause 3rd degree burns ("caution: Hot!" does not implicitly suggest that it was 3rd degree burn hot), she wouldn't have done what she did.

McDonalds holds a responsibility to sell items that aren't unsafe to the consumer.
 
julius said:
Whats the point in bringing up other products then?

It's not like the woman poured the coffee over herself, or used coffee improperly or in a fashion that is uncommon.

Like I said before, if she knew that the coffee was so hot it could cause 3rd degree burns ("caution: Hot!" does not implicitly suggest that it was 3rd degree burn hot), she wouldn't have done what she did.

McDonalds holds a responsibility to sell items that aren't unsafe to the consumer.
Click to expand...

MacDonald's didn't pour coffee on anyone. They hold no more responsibility than GM. Millions of people consumed their coffee, billions of times (likely) without incident. Unsafe isn't a reasonable word in this case.
 
Denny Crane said:
MacDonald's didn't pour coffee on anyone. They hold no more responsibility than GM. Millions of people consumed their coffee, billions of times (likely) without incident. Unsafe isn't a reasonable word in this case.
Click to expand...

So if McDonalds knowingly sold hamburgers that were under cooked, and the consumers got sick, is it the consumers fault?

After all, people consumed their hamburgers billions of times (likely) without incident.
 
julius said:
So if McDonalds knowingly sold hamburgers that were under cooked, and the consumers got sick, is it the consumers fault?

After all, people consumed their hamburgers billions of times (likely) without incident.
Click to expand...

They don't sell undercooked burgers, and didn't sell over cooked coffee.

Yep. Billions served does speak to product safety.
 
Denny Crane said:
They don't sell undercooked burgers, and didn't sell over cooked coffee.

Yep. Billions served does speak to product safety.
Click to expand...

They no longer sell over hot coffee.

That's kind of the proof in the pudding.
 
julius said:
link didn't work.

But are those places the ones we're talking about? Because I'm fairly certain we're talking about McDonalds here, not GM and Corvettes, not other non McDonalds restaurants.
Click to expand...

The link http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...cup-of-joe?-we-put-your-favorites-to-the-test.

How hot is too hot for your morning cup of joe?

While the majority of the coffee was served between 150 and 175 degrees, the hottest cups, at 180, came from the McDonalds at 1905 North Dale Mabry in Tampa, the Dunkin Donuts at 4325 on West Hillsborough Avenue in Tampa and the Krispy Kreme at 8425 on North Florida Avenue.

The coolest, at 122 and 144 degrees came from the same Chick-fil-A where Cynthia claims she was burned. We asked the owner if he'd changed any policy since the alleged incident. Both the owner and his attorney declined to comment due to pending litigation.
 
Also:

But the Director of Tampa General Hospital's Burn Unit says that's hot enough to cause a third-degree burn if you spill it on you. Doctor David Smith says, “There's a time - temperature relationship. The hotter the temperature, the much shorter the time. At 150 maybe 160 degrees, it takes less than one second to have a second or third degree burn."

Read more: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...put-your-favorites-to-the-test.#ixzz2iej9QIbt
 



Bag O Glass . . . best seller. :)

I can't seem to link the direct video. Anyone give a quick explanation of how to properly post a you tube video?
 
Last edited:
Treaty_of_Batum said:



Bag O Glass . . . best seller. :)

I can't seem to link the direct video. Anyone give a quick explanation of how to properly post a you tube video?
Click to expand...


Don't share it with the 'share' option, but instead copy the web address itself. It's weird, but for some reason it won't recognize it as a video
 
Denny Crane said:
Also:

But the Director of Tampa General Hospital's Burn Unit says that's hot enough to cause a third-degree burn if you spill it on you. Doctor David Smith says, “There's a time - temperature relationship. The hotter the temperature, the much shorter the time. At 150 maybe 160 degrees, it takes less than one second to have a second or third degree burn."

Read more: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...put-your-favorites-to-the-test.#ixzz2iej9QIbt
Click to expand...

seems to kind of validate the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Denny Crane
Hey Nik
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
jlprk
jlprk
B
Do You Drink Coffee?
Replies
2
Views
380
BLAZER PROPHET
B
EL PRESIDENTE
"Dumb" Starbucks Coffee Shop
Replies
10
Views
1K
Haakzilla
Haakzilla
B
Experience with smaller cell-phone companies???
Replies
5
Views
662
jlprk
jlprk
mook
Woohoo! My 401k is coming back to life!
Replies
25
Views
2K
Idog1976
Idog1976

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top