Slashdot Mirror

I knew someone would bring up the McDonald's Coffee case.

The knee-jerk reaction to any seemingly stupid/frivolous litigation (or patent) is to assume that the summary = the case, when in fact things tend to be more complex.

There are a lot of details to the McDonald's case that the unwashed masses tend to not know:

Some important points:
"McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle."
"[she] suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas."
"During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks."
"it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. .. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_m cdonalds.htm
http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/Mcdo naldsCoffeecase.aspx

The ad told the story of a guy who collected a $500,000 jury verdict after he was injured using a lawnmower as a hedge clipper. The agency later conceded that it had no factual basis for the story, but that didn't keep it from circulating widely in the media and in conservative political speeches.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/041 0.mencimer.html

(Think about that for a minute - even if you were to try to cut a hedge with a lawn mower, how could you hold it such that it would be your thumbs which were injured?) A quick Nexis search confirmed the story to have been a fabrication.
http://thestoppedclock.blogspot.com/2004_10_10_the stoppedclock_archive.html

Actually McDonald's coffee was designed to cause severe burns. OK, that wasn't the coffee's real purpose, but they had received many complaints (over 700) about it being dangerously hot, and refused to turn the temperature down. http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/Mcdo naldsCoffeecase.aspx

No beverage should be served so hot that it scalds on contact, and especially not fast-food beverages, which are typically served to people on the go.

You are correct about the obesity part. :)

I actually read about that yesterday on a website which listed the Stella awards, so just now I tried to find that page again but instead I found a site which debunked this story and all the others:

http://www.atla.org/homepage/debunk.aspx

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/stella.shtml

From the article:

During the case it was discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.

Testimony by witnesses for McDonald's revealed that:

• consumers were not aware the coffee was so hot that there was a risk of serious burns
• McDonald's did not warn customers of this risk
• they could offer no explanation as to why there was no warning
• McDonald's did not intend to reduce the heat of its coffee

~.

Documents obtained from McDonald's also showed that from 1982 to 1992, more than 700 people were burned by McDonald's coffee with varying degrees of severity.

[Emphasis mine]

Frivolous Lawsuit? Hardly.
Excellent Spin-doctoring on McDonald's Part? Absolutely.

Even in Europe?

"You are all victims. Nothing is your responsibility. Pride yourself in being stupid. Someone else is always to blame."

This has nothing to do with victimization, pride in stupidity, or avoiding personal responsibility. McDonalds acted in a stupid and irresponsible way which they knew was injuring their customers. When a corporation acts in an irresponsible way, the main way to punish them and correct the behavior is through lawsuits. Since you can't put them in jail, fines are the main way that corporations are punished and their behavior corrected.

McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but did nothing to correct this, and they continued to sell the 185-190 degree coffee.

When "Grandma" was injured, the burns were so bad that "Grandma" required two skin grafts. She had 3rd degree burns over 6 percent of her body. "Grandma" initially only asked McDonalds to cover the cost of the surgeries, which they refused, and they fought "Grandma" all the way up through the courts. In the court they admitted their customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee.

McDonalds behaved incredibly unconscionably in this case, and deserved to be fined. Lawsuits are a good thing. Fines against corporations are the only way to punish companies when they behave in a way that injures people. It may be that there are occasional abuses, but they are far less common than the tort reform advocates would have you believe, which is why they keep spewing misinformation, such as misrepresenting the McDonalds case, or the cases in the href="http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp">St ella awards.

Read about the facts behind the McDonalds incident here:
http://www.atla.org/consumermediaresources/tier3/p ress_room/facts/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

Oops. Wrong reference. Here is the correct one.

McDonald's Scalding Coffee Case

You are mistaken about why McDonald's served coffee so hot. It was not to satisfy the request of customers but so that the coffee would keep fresh longer before they would need to make a new pot [1]. Stella Liebeck was scalded because McDonald's wanted to increase profits by saving money on coffee grounds.

I know that in the ligitious society that you live in, it is popular (and probably deserved) to mock lawsuits. However, in this particular case, McDonalds willfully and knowingly did something dangerous in the name of profit. Had Liebeck not filed suit, the number of customers seriously burned would not have stopped at 700.

Big business does a lot of shady, dangerous things in the name of making more money. If anything, more people should sue when it is necessary.

Lawyers suck as they get rich by forcing us to drink cold coffee,smoke overpriced ciggarettes and keep women from installing a realistic giant rack.
If you read the facts about the McDonalds case, you will that the award against McDonalds was clearly justified.

I hate to break this to you but lawyers aren't responsible for the vast majority of lawsuits (except maybe class actions). Plaintiffs are the ones that have grievances and come go to lawyers. Without a plaintiff, a lawyer can't sue anyone. Lawyers are just tools (pun intended) of the legal system. Nearly all lawyers in civil suits work on contingency, they have little reason to file a frivilous lawsuit. The number of lawsuits per capita hasn't changed much in the last 220 years and the average award ($30k) has only risen with inflation according to a DOJ study.

In this case, what makes you think that the IBM employee's case was totally without merit? They have cancer and they work in an environment filled with chemicals - some of which are hazardous and known to increase cancer risks. The facts in the individual cases cited at your link show that the plaintiffs should have lost. They tried to get around CA's worker's comp laws by suing IBM alleging fraud and that it was this fraud that was the proximate cause of their cancer - this is very tough to prove and it seems that they shouldn't have won according to your link. However, the link you provided also is filled with serious errors and biases. This quote "Because of the heart-wrenching anecdotes from cancer victims and relatives, many companies settle such cases out of court - sometimes for hundreds of millions of dollars. Several IBM chemical suppliers initially named in Moore and Hernandez's case reached settlements last year." is completely made up (it's not from the link they provide) and there has never been any civil settlement for more than 8 figures. Many of the cases overlawyered cites are actually very complex and could be decided one way or the other but it's impossible to tell without all the facts. I'm just surprised you didn't provide that list of infamous fabricated frivilous lawsuits.

lies?

During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard. ...

McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

Big government teaches us that we are not responsible for our own actions. Goverment provides the incentive to sue not for justice, but for quick and easy profit.

Personally, I'd substitute the Association of Trial Lawyers of American in place of big government. Government only provides the court system, it's the trial lawyers that abuse it.

Kind of like blaming Napster or Kazaa for the actions of its users.

What, boiling water isn't hot enough to cause serious injuries? Spill some in your lap and find out.

Read the facts of the case. Coffee served at home is typically 135-140 degrees; McDonald's was holding their coffee at 185-190 degrees, which is hot enough to cause third-degree burns. (The woman in the lawsuit was hospitalized for eight days; she had third-degree burns over 6% of her body and required skin grafts.)

The warning printed on the cup is, unfortunately, a classic case of "fix it with documentation": a bad product decision that the writer has to try to protect users from. It's a pity McDonald's didin't let the warning writer tell the truth--Warning: Coffee has been held near boiling point, may cause extensive and excruciating injuries if spilled, which is not unlikely since our own research indicates that most customers drink this stuff in the car immediately after purchase...

Have you ever actually read the FACTS of that McDonald's coffee spill case? Had you done so, you wouldn't be popping off as though it were a frivolous case.

McDonald's had received 700 such complaints, and documented full knowledge and extent of the hazard. Many of the claims were settled for up to $500K.

McDonald's kept their coffee heated to 180-190 degrees (boiling is not far off) to maintain taste. Most other places (and probably your own coffee maker) serve coffee at about 135-140 degrees. Big difference. McDonald's own quality assurance person testified that burns occur from foods heated to temperatures above 140 degrees, so they knew of the potential for injury.

A simple google search will turn up quite a bit of discussion on this case. For example, One such summary.

Repeatedly trotting out this case as an example of frivolous lawsuits is a continuing myth that corporations are happy to encourage.

Corporate American and its minions have been harping on this case for years as an example of lawsuits run amok. Poor Stella has been mercilessly vilified in this campaign to make it impossible for us to protect ourselves against the negligence and outright crimes of large corporations.

This was no frivolous lawsuit. For the facts, see this.

The facts? Certainly NOT to be found on the web site you gave us, which is run by a business that makes lots of money by filing frivolous lawsuits to get blameless people to pay for the clumsiness of others.

If you don't believe a site you accuse of being run by ambulance chasers, would you believe the Association of Trial Lawyers of America? Or are they ambulance chasers as well?