Or, let's say she earned her living as a porn star! How's that for loss of income and pain and suffering claims.
McDonalds Coffe Burn
- Thread starter Gregadd
- Start date
Or, let's say she earned her living as a porn star! How's that for loss of income and pain and suffering claims.
Pain and suffering claims wouldn't change. Loss of income could be substantial.
Tim
Look, it’s sad this woman suffered severe burns. It’s also sad anytime anyone is burned. But because you do stupid things and become injured as a result, it doesn’t mean it was necessarily anyone’s fault but yours.
Let’s say you throw a can of hairspray into a burn barrel and wait for it to blow up and take off like a rocket. When it doesn’t take off as fast as you thought it should and you stick your face over the barrel to see what is going on and the can blows up in your face, is that the hairspray manufacturer’s fault? This actually happened to a kid in my grade school. The answer is no by the way.
If you play with fireworks and you end up blowing off some appendages because you held on too long before you let it go, is it the fault of the company that made the fireworks? No.
People are confusing sympathy for liability. Everybody thought the poor old woman was a dolt for what she did before they saw the pictures and then they felt sorry for her. Everybody knows that coffee is hot. It’s brewed at 180 degrees. She didn’t buy iced coffee. She did something very stupid. She took a cup of hot coffee and placed it between her legs and pulled the top off. It was an accident waiting to happen and it did happen. It was predictable and preventable. She should have sued the family member for having a cheap car with no cup holders; but no, the deep pocket theory states that McDonald’s had to be sued. It wouldn’t have mattered at what temperature McDonald's brewed its coffee at, she was getting burned and it wasn’t going to be pretty.
Bottom line is that I feel sorry she was burned, but I don’t blame McDonald’s for causing her burns.
Let’s say you throw a can of hairspray into a burn barrel and wait for it to blow up and take off like a rocket. When it doesn’t take off as fast as you thought it should and you stick your face over the barrel to see what is going on and the can blows up in your face, is that the hairspray manufacturer’s fault? This actually happened to a kid in my grade school. The answer is no by the way.
If you play with fireworks and you end up blowing off some appendages because you held on too long before you let it go, is it the fault of the company that made the fireworks? No.
People are confusing sympathy for liability. Everybody thought the poor old woman was a dolt for what she did before they saw the pictures and then they felt sorry for her. Everybody knows that coffee is hot. It’s brewed at 180 degrees. She didn’t buy iced coffee. She did something very stupid. She took a cup of hot coffee and placed it between her legs and pulled the top off. It was an accident waiting to happen and it did happen. It was predictable and preventable. She should have sued the family member for having a cheap car with no cup holders; but no, the deep pocket theory states that McDonald’s had to be sued. It wouldn’t have mattered at what temperature McDonald's brewed its coffee at, she was getting burned and it wasn’t going to be pretty.
Bottom line is that I feel sorry she was burned, but I don’t blame McDonald’s for causing her burns.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
You make some good points Mark but in the long run it was McDonald's cavalier and brazen attitude that only 750 people were burned from hot coffee when they serve millions of cups a day and thus statistically insignificant.
Knowing the whole story here Mark 'should' change people's feelings that this was a frivolous law suit. IMHO it wasn't
*Frivolous* is a legal term with a specific definition. In no uncertain terms was it a frivolous lawsuit. Now politically, one is free to espouse anything one wishes, including calling this case frivolous; after all, don't politicians always tell the truth?
Before forming an opinion on this case, wouldn't it seem necessary to actually learn about those pesky little things called facts? Such a pursuit might lead one to discover the truth. On a consistent basis I'm amazed with people who form opinions about legal matters without doing any (or almost none of the) legwork to discover the truth.
Seriously, watch the news, read the papers, read on-line snippets, or in this case watch that video. These are all sound bites. How about reading the testimony given under penalty of perjury in this (or any) case? Too much to ask? How about reading documentary evidence? Too much to ask? How about scrutinizing expert opinion? Too much to ask? And heaven forbid, how about ascertaining what is the law governing this (or any) case? Too much to ask? Do these things, and then whatever conclusion one derives is at least a knowing and intelligent one. Don't do these things and, well ...
Before forming an opinion on this case, wouldn't it seem necessary to actually learn about those pesky little things called facts? Such a pursuit might lead one to discover the truth. On a consistent basis I'm amazed with people who form opinions about legal matters without doing any (or almost none of the) legwork to discover the truth.
Seriously, watch the news, read the papers, read on-line snippets, or in this case watch that video. These are all sound bites. How about reading the testimony given under penalty of perjury in this (or any) case? Too much to ask? How about reading documentary evidence? Too much to ask? How about scrutinizing expert opinion? Too much to ask? And heaven forbid, how about ascertaining what is the law governing this (or any) case? Too much to ask? Do these things, and then whatever conclusion one derives is at least a knowing and intelligent one. Don't do these things and, well ...
Sounds like McDonald's lawyers took the wrong tact. I would never have argued over the number of people who burned themselves (through ignorance) compared to the number of cups of coffee sold. I would have argued the plaintiff placed herself at risk through her unsafe actions. You can't protect people against stupidity. If the defense could have proven that McDonald's coffee cups were at fault because they melted at the temperature of the coffee that was poured into them, I would jump on the injured party's bandwagon. But that is not the case.
Bad lawyering aside by acting "caviler and brazen" because the number of stupid people who do stupid things with their coffee is very low compared to the number of cups of coffee they sell everyday doesn't change the facts of the case in my mind. You don't put a cup of freshly brewed coffee between your legs, remove the top, and hope nothing bad happens. If we were all that stupid, they would have to outlaw selling hot coffee in order to protect the hapless masses.
I saw a video on You Tube called "butt rocket" before. This poor sap's *friends* talked him into laying down on a driveway on his back naked from the waist down and sticking a bottle rocket up his butt and firing it off. Of course bottle rockets were designed to be shot out of bottles and not in the grasp of a sphincter muscle. One of the sap's friends lit the bottle rocket for him and of course a shower of sparks descended upon his gonads causing him to jump up and scream with the bottle rocket still firmly in place. The funny part was when the bottle rocket blew up.
So the question is, should he have sued his *friends* or should he have sued the bottle rocket manufacturer for not clearing stating on the package "Do not stick this bottle rocket in your rectum and attempt to light it"?
Bad lawyering aside by acting "caviler and brazen" because the number of stupid people who do stupid things with their coffee is very low compared to the number of cups of coffee they sell everyday doesn't change the facts of the case in my mind. You don't put a cup of freshly brewed coffee between your legs, remove the top, and hope nothing bad happens. If we were all that stupid, they would have to outlaw selling hot coffee in order to protect the hapless masses.
I saw a video on You Tube called "butt rocket" before. This poor sap's *friends* talked him into laying down on a driveway on his back naked from the waist down and sticking a bottle rocket up his butt and firing it off. Of course bottle rockets were designed to be shot out of bottles and not in the grasp of a sphincter muscle. One of the sap's friends lit the bottle rocket for him and of course a shower of sparks descended upon his gonads causing him to jump up and scream with the bottle rocket still firmly in place. The funny part was when the bottle rocket blew up.
So the question is, should he have sued his *friends* or should he have sued the bottle rocket manufacturer for not clearing stating on the package "Do not stick this bottle rocket in your rectum and attempt to light it"?
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Mark
believe it or not I found it and it's even funnier than what you describe. What was he thinking
believe it or not I found it and it's even funnier than what you describe. What was he thinking
Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defend the lawsuit by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee after the suit. Morgan has since brought other lawsuits against McDonald's over hot-coffee burns.[21] McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[22] relying on more sternly-worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[22][23] The Specialty Coffee Association supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served.[21] The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[24]
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 °F (82 °C) in this case) is not "unreasonably dangerous".
The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 °F [93 °C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 °F [66–71 °C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 °F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
So much for the right decision. On any other day the verdict could have been different. Corporate arrogance is alive and well in America. I doubt McDonalds has changed their culture. General Motors was one too,most arrogant bunch of jerks I ever met. Also I never met a lawyer who told the whole truth,but that's their job. YMMV
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 °F (82 °C) in this case) is not "unreasonably dangerous".
The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 °F [93 °C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 °F [66–71 °C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 °F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
So much for the right decision. On any other day the verdict could have been different. Corporate arrogance is alive and well in America. I doubt McDonalds has changed their culture. General Motors was one too,most arrogant bunch of jerks I ever met. Also I never met a lawyer who told the whole truth,but that's their job. YMMV
carolkoh
[Industry Expert] Member Sponsor
Original case: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm 1992 was the Liebeck case. Ms. Liebeck has since passed on.
New suits: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...9881/mcdonalds-hit-with-2-hot-coffee-lawsuits
New suits: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...9881/mcdonalds-hit-with-2-hot-coffee-lawsuits
Steve-I don't care what language you speak, that video will split your sides!
