I just saw this on Facebook, and thought I'd share. It's a pretty interesting review of what really happened with the infamous "Hot Coffee" lawsuit from several years ago.
Short version: Our media/news system is screwed up.
"Hot Coffee"
- Thread starter DuctTapeJedi
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I just saw this on Facebook, and thought I'd share. It's a pretty interesting review of what really happened with the infamous "Hot Coffee" lawsuit from several years ago.
Short version: Our media/news system is screwed up.
Interesting to see how the media ran away with the story.
I still think it was a stupid thing for the woman to do though. Even putting hot coffee between your thighs in a stationary car is not 100% safe. So she doesn't get any sympathy for that.
I still think it was a stupid thing for the woman to do though. Even putting hot coffee between your thighs in a stationary car is not 100% safe. So she doesn't get any sympathy for that.
'Retro report' more like 'retard report'. My Ice Cream was so cold I got brainfreeze, can I sue for that? I guess I'm not American so probably not, we don't have such a culture of complaining.
I don't drink coffee, I don't eat at McDonalds, and I don't have any sympathy for people who aren't careful with their coffee. They don't serve it cold unless you get it iced ON PURPOSE. Nobody should sue anybody for your butter fingers.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 9,030
- 3,712
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Yes, the coffee was hot, yes the woman received bad burns for it, but you know what happened in between the coffee being handed to her by a staff member and the coffee ending up on her lap? She spilled it. Her clumsiness caused her to burn herself with the coffee. It shouldn't have mattered that the coffee was "too hot" considering she asked for "hot coffee" and didn't specify an exact temperature range for what she considered appropriate for that statement, and McDonalds shouldn't have had to assume that their patrons with pour the coffee all over themselves and set the temperature according to that assumption.
She was clumsy, she badly burned herself, but McDonalds got found liable because people felt bad for her injuries (which really were severe). I (and most Americans) don't think she should have gotten anywhere near the amount of money she did. McDonalds should maybe have paid her hospital bill, but that's it, they shouldn't have been liable for their customers' clumsiness.
Also, I'm kind of miffed that I can't get a cup of coffee or tea that's above lukewarm anymore because of that. I like my coffee scalding damn it.
She was clumsy, she badly burned herself, but McDonalds got found liable because people felt bad for her injuries (which really were severe). I (and most Americans) don't think she should have gotten anywhere near the amount of money she did. McDonalds should maybe have paid her hospital bill, but that's it, they shouldn't have been liable for their customers' clumsiness.
Also, I'm kind of miffed that I can't get a cup of coffee or tea that's above lukewarm anymore because of that. I like my coffee scalding damn it.
She had third degree burns, and a $10000 hospital bill. That's a little more than brain freeze.Tom_green_day said:
EDIT: Also, there had been over 700 reported injuries from their coffee, which they already knew to be at unsafe temperatures.
Interesting how I've kept the same position for years on this, that McDonalds wasn't liable for the person's own lack of coordination. But most of the time I've said anything about this I've been met with derision or "you're not sympathetic" tripe from people (and on this site even). Its nice to see there are a few others who see the same thing I do.
It had nothing to do with being unsympathetic, my position was clearly that while it sucked and probably hurt like hell it wasn't the fault of the people serving the coffee. Hot coffee is dangerous, and painful when spilled on oneself as I can attest. But I wouldn't sue Black and Decker for burning myself with clumsiness. Neither should have McDonalds been held liable for it. I could have seen McDonalds in an effort of good will offering to pay her medical bills, but they weren't obligated to do shit for her. This is why I feel that the bleeding hearts of the world are not suitable for making rational logical decisions because they tend to live in the emotional realm which precludes logic.
I'll stop myself here for various reasons, mostly because I don't want to get into any more discussions on my views. Except that I'll say this much, I am capable of sympathy, empathy and emotions but I don't let those things rule me so much I can't see logical answers to things and it burns me up when I see people who make large-scale decisions without being unbiased by emotion.
It had nothing to do with being unsympathetic, my position was clearly that while it sucked and probably hurt like hell it wasn't the fault of the people serving the coffee. Hot coffee is dangerous, and painful when spilled on oneself as I can attest. But I wouldn't sue Black and Decker for burning myself with clumsiness. Neither should have McDonalds been held liable for it. I could have seen McDonalds in an effort of good will offering to pay her medical bills, but they weren't obligated to do shit for her. This is why I feel that the bleeding hearts of the world are not suitable for making rational logical decisions because they tend to live in the emotional realm which precludes logic.
I'll stop myself here for various reasons, mostly because I don't want to get into any more discussions on my views. Except that I'll say this much, I am capable of sympathy, empathy and emotions but I don't let those things rule me so much I can't see logical answers to things and it burns me up when I see people who make large-scale decisions without being unbiased by emotion.
To my knowledge, McDonald's was heating its coffee well above what was considered the industry's safety standard, and had ignored multiple complaints earlier. So the multimillion dollar amount they ended up owing was mostly from punitive damages, which is basically the court's way of punishing a civil defendant (in this case McDonald's) for being a douchebag. It's not even related to the old lady's clumsiness or liability; she's just lucky that the money for the punitive damages had to go somewhere.Dirty Hipsters said:
- Feb 7, 2011
- 9,030
- 3,712
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
There is no industry safety standard for how hot coffee can be served. During the trial the attorney compared the temperature of the McDonald's coffee to some of its competitors and found that most of the competitors served their coffee 30 to 50 degrees colder. There wasn't any law that said that coffee had to be served at a certain temperature that McDonalds wasn't following.dyre said:
As far as other complaints go, it's more people just like this old woman burning themselves from their own uncoordinated and nothing more. It's not like McDonalds employees were splashing them with coffee and burning them, these were people who received their coffee, took it, and burned themselves with it. Once the coffee is out of the hands of a McDonald's server it is no longer McDonald's responsibility to make sure that the customer uses that coffee properly. If the person burns themselves with coffee that they specifically ordered hot then that's their fault.
The jury decided that McDonalds was negligent in serving coffee that could cause burns, but I disagree with them considering the coffee was only causing burns when consumed improperly. Millions of people were drinking this coffee every day, and only 700 people complained of getting burned by it over 4 years (that's less than 1 person every 2 days), which is statistically insignificant. I'm more likely to believe that a couple of people a week are injured because they're doing something wrong or stupid than that millions of people are miraculously unscathed from coffee that's incredibly dangerous and likely to burn you.
I'm only vaguely familiar with the case so you might be right about the industry standard vs industry averages thing. Perhaps the plaintiffs were just very eloquent when they argued that point.Dirty Hipsters said:
Yes, spilling coffee on yourself is no one else's fault, but that was never the argument. IIRC the jury actually assigned a portion of the blame to the plaintiff for the actual spilling of the coffee (partial blame is common practice in civil cases, in which case they just give you a percentage of the damages). The money that the old lady actually won wasn't from the fact that it was spilled on her (x%, let's say 40%, of the blame was assigned to her. We'll call that spilling blame); it's from the fact that upon spilling it, it burned her really fast and really hard (we'll call this 60% burning blame).
"It only hurts you if you do it wrong" is not a fair counterargument and would not hold up in court against the "temperature was too high argument," because when we say "hurt," we're not talking about reasonable expectations. If an average person (or rather, your average juror) spills coffee on himself, he might expect to spend the next few minutes swearing and the next few days with a vague aching pain on whatever spot of my body he spilled it on. He might not expect to be hospitalized with third degree burns and need skin grafts. You'll find that the word "reasonable" is used in court cases a lot; it's a subjective term but that's the best people can do. Laws and courts need a certain element of human judgment; that's just the way it is. So if there's possible injury beyond reasonable expectation, then the defendant needs to warn people about that sort of thing. If there's a reasonable possibility, though unlikely, of the situation, it's enough to warrant a proper warning. And I think it's not unreasonable to assume that drinks can occasionally be spilled. unless you think spilling coffee on oneself is physically impossible without gross negligence.
By the way, your complaint statistic is disingenuous. That's like a congressman saying "hmm, I received seven hundred letters complaining about the exact same thing. That's a statistically insignificant minority of my voters, so throw those letters out." Seven hundred people were pissed off enough to file formal complaints.
All that said, I actually don't think that she should have won the case. I don't think the "temperature too high" argument is convincing enough, because if I spill a great amount of fresh hot coffee on myself, I DO expect it to be really, really bad. Maybe even hospital bad. But maybe that bias comes from the cultural impact that the case made, I dunno. In any case I nonetheless believe the case isn't as simple as people portray it, and I also believe that the "this case just shows that bleeding heart jurors are stupid and irrational" crowd need to chill the fuck out (that last part wasn't directed at you though).
Got Netflix? Watch the documentary [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1445203/], and then read some fact checks [http://www.forbes.com/sites/docket/2011/06/30/cup-half-full-hot-coffee-serves-up-slanted-view-of-liability-system/] on it. Slanted as the documentary is, it's right about at least one thing. The way that one case was used to change the law in favor of corporations over people is rather sickening. There is another side in overzealous litigation against small businesses... but the severity of the destruction of lives and livelihoods caused on each side of the argument is probably out of reach of any statisticians.
Complicated issue, but you can be sure the people most affected by it are always the little guys, be they wronged individuals or small business owners. The big corporations and the lawyers always make out like the bandits they are in the end. McDonalds does not deserve your sympathy... and they still keep their coffee entirely too hot for no good reason.
Complicated issue, but you can be sure the people most affected by it are always the little guys, be they wronged individuals or small business owners. The big corporations and the lawyers always make out like the bandits they are in the end. McDonalds does not deserve your sympathy... and they still keep their coffee entirely too hot for no good reason.
I think it's reasonable to expect to be served something that is safe. Accidents are accidents, they are uncontrollable.
When you expect perfection from people and point a finger, naming them less intelligent than you, you are behaving foolishly and being a hypocrite. You indeed have the same flaws.
Often times it takes being the actual victim to understand the plight, unfortunately my words fall on deaf eyes.
When you expect perfection from people and point a finger, naming them less intelligent than you, you are behaving foolishly and being a hypocrite. You indeed have the same flaws.
Often times it takes being the actual victim to understand the plight, unfortunately my words fall on deaf eyes.
As an Englishman, you need the added temperature to keep your insides from freezing. It gets up to what, 2 in the UK? >.>SourMilk said:
Then why are you complaining?Tom_green_day said:
While I do feel for the old lady I'm not really convinced that McDonalds should have paid out. Yea maybe the coffee is too hot but come on We all have jugs to make coffee at home, mine has a selectable temp and I know it hits 100c before I pour it and yet miraculously I remain unburned.
The thing that bugs me is that it comes with a lid to prevent any such spills. If you are dumb enough to take the lid off then its really your own fault. Seriously she couldn?t have waited a few minutes to let it cool before popping the lid, its common sense really.
The thing that bugs me is that it comes with a lid to prevent any such spills. If you are dumb enough to take the lid off then its really your own fault. Seriously she couldn?t have waited a few minutes to let it cool before popping the lid, its common sense really.
It seems rather difficult to accuse someone of filing a frivolous lawsuit when, assuming the video tells the truth, she tried several times to settle out of court for medical bills after writing them letter.
These kinds of lawsuits exist sure, but it doesn't quite seem like one of them in this case.
These kinds of lawsuits exist sure, but it doesn't quite seem like one of them in this case.
The media warps stories ALL THE TIME. Always keep this in mind as you view any news story, check the facts and use your head.
The thing is McDonalds shouldn't be held liable for what, in the end, was the ladies own fault. I have read the full story behind this, and know she wasn't out for a big jury award, but if McDonalds pays out then lots of people looking for pay days are going to come out and try to go after McDonalds.BQE said:
Their coffee was hot but not hotter than some other places serve their coffee. It sucks she got burned but at the end of the day she spilled the coffee, not McDonalds.
It's coffee, People serve it really hot so that it's still warm when they get to work. You can't really expect something like that to be safer than a large knife which could very well cut several fingers off if your clumsy. Which is why you should take the proper precautions when using it just like how you shouldn't set a hot coffee on your lap, get a portable cup holder or just sit it on the dashboard. Sure accidents are unavoidable but it is common sense to not set something as hot as coffee on your lap. But sometimes we're really stupid and do things like that.michael87cn said:
... Also deaf ears, Eyes can't be deaf