Slashdot Mirror

The idiot who poured coffee in her lap did not and should not have anticipated that the coffee would be served at temperatures that would be dangerous for anyone to handle, and well above what anyone in the food industry should have been serving. In fact, it was even above what the manufacturer of the machines that prepared the coffee intended for use.

The coffee was so hot that when it soaked into the material of her clothing, it stuck to her skin and caused third degree burns over 6% of her body.

Source: http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts

The McDonald's case was in fact completely legitimate, and is not the case-study in frivolous lawsuits that it's so often made out to be.

get the facts.

We have done the rounds on this many times, and someone always provides a link showing that this was a reasonable lawsuit. I'm not sure why there are always a few people who misremember.

The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was reasonable
The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was reasonable
The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was reasonable
The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was reasonable
The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was reasonable

Got it?

Gah, everything else in your comment is spot on but people always bring the McCoffee thing up as an example of a frivolous lawsuit when it actually wasn't. The coffee was very hot, enough to cause serious burns (she needed skin grafts).

First the "facts" of the case as presented by the lawyers state that McDonalds held their coffee ready to serve at 180-190 F. I have found no evidence to substantiate their claim that other establishments served their coffee at 135-140 F prior to the lawsuit. You'll notice the page glosses over the temperature with a couple "factual" statements, then spends the rest of its time describing the burns and what temperatures are required to avoid them completely ignoring any requirements imposed by the coffee. That's the strategy they used during the trial to sway the jury.

The National Coffee Association of the U.S recommends the coffee be maintained at 180-185 F.

The Specialty Coffee Association of America recommends the coffee be held at 175-185 F (you have to buy their guidebooks to see the actual numbers so the link is not to their site).

Bunn, a major producer of coffee brewing and serving equipment recommends a holding temperature of 175-185 F and in fact recommends any coffee below 175 F be re-heated before serving. They also note that many of the aromatics will not evaporate at 150 F, thus depriving the coffee of its characteristic smell. This would appear to contradict the claim that other establishments served coffee at 135-140 F.

Starbucks sells coffee dispensing equipment which puts out coffee at 180 F.

The same manufacturer, DeLonghi produces a unit with a 150-200 F temperature setting, indicating the 155 F recommended by the lawyers' site is at the extreme bottom of preferred coffee serving temperatures, and IMHO unsuitably cool for coffee served at a drive-through which in most cases will not be consumed until after a 5-15 minute drive to a destination.

I'll repeat, this is a product which is meant to be served in a state which is dangerous if mishandled. What's next, airlines being sued because their planes fly at a speed which is fatal if there's an accident? Or power companies being sued because electrical lines can cause severe burns or fatality if mishandled? The lawsuit points out that 700 people were also burned by McDonalds coffee in the 10 years prior. But McDonalds served tens of billions of cups of coffee during the same time, leading to an incident rate of one in 24 million . If I were a safety engineer and my product had an incident rate of one in 24 million, I'd be ecstatic at how safe it was!

mod parent informative

I asked Google about the McCoffee. And it told me 300 contradictory things, including that McCoffee was drunk by whoever was on the grassy knoll and if you look closely at footage of the moonlanding, you can see a McCoffee next to a "moonrock." Then Google showed me crotch shots of celebrities getting out of limmos holding McCoffee. In the corner, an Google ad appeared saying "Buy Hot McCoffee Lap from eBay!"

So I gave up on Google and asked Snopes.com. Snopes is the original urban legends guy from the days when Internet was e-mail and news groups. Think of him as Mythbusters long before beries became unfashionable again. Snopes pointed me at this, which he claims is an accurate summary of the incident:

http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg =facts

As Snopes says, the details of that case were exaggerated, but there's still a strong case for tort reform. I suspect Judge "No Pants" Pearson will be on poster. For an encore Pearson should sue himself for emotional distress for making an ass (no pun intended) out of himself.

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Some types of percolators do this to a very minor degree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_cooker

Your average pressure cooker acheives 15 psi to keep water from boiling under 257. These pressure cookers require pressure release valves to keep the water inside from exploding into steam when that pressure is released. Please note that the cups of coffee that _I_ drink do not come with the pressure release vents that would be required were you to serve water at the 300 degrees you are suggesting is allowed by law.

Pulling numbers out of one's ass cheapens debate for both sides. I encourage you to read this, linked from snopes.com:

http://caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=fac ts

Money quote:
"Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebecks spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn."

Tort reform is a complex issue, with good arguments to be made on both sides. Please use the good ones, and leave numbers pulled out of one's ass for "Wii vs. PS3 vs. XBox 360" threads.

And yes, all temperatures in this post are in F, not C.

Like the McD's coffee lawsuite, this is fucking bullshit

The McDonalds Coffee case was not "fucking bullshit". Please read:

Know the Facts: The McDonalds Coffee Case: No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding - capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here is the whole story.

The TRUTH behind the McDonalds coffee case: To get more coffee per pound of beans and increase profits, McDonalds served its coffee up to 40 degrees hotter than other fast food eateries. The coffee was so hot that if spilled would cause 3rd degree burns.

This is almost as bad as the old lady who spilled hot coffee on her lap or the asshole woman suing nike for shoelaces coming untied.

Well, I'm not familiar with the shoelace lawsuit you reference, but the coffee lawsuit (Liebeck vs. McDonalds) was a lot more justified that many people seem to think. Tahe a look at what the Consumer Attorneys of California have to say about the case. Another good reference is at http://www.quellerfisher.com/liebeck.html.

Basically, the woman was awarded $200,000 to cover her medical bills (she suffered third-degree burns, acquired in three seconds), but that amount was reduced to $160,000 because she was deemed to be partially at fault. She was also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, because McDonalds' statements showed that they knew they were putting people at risk for severe burns, but continued to serve the coffee at high temperatures. McDonalds was also able to get the punitive damages reduced to $480,000 in appeals court.

Just a quick note on frivolous lawsuits:

people suing because they spilled hot McDonalds coffee on themselves, would be laughed out of court in Germany.

The "McDonald's coffee case" is frequently held up to ridicule as a classic example of a frivolous lawsuit. After all, old lady spills coffee on herself and gets burned, then sues - what's more to know?

The coffee one gets out of a home coffee machine is about 140 degrees F. A really hot cup of coffee out of a commercial device might hit 160. During the trial, a McDonald's QA manager testified that company policy dictated that their coffee be maintained at not less than 180. That's enough to cause a third degree burn in less than five seconds.

Which is what happened. Stella Liebeck was handed a cup of this coffee in a styrofoam container. When she spilled it, the burns were bad enough to necessitate the use of skin grafts. I refer you to the Consumer Attorneys of California pages, where they lay out a pretty good summary of the proceedings.

If you want to make fun of the US judicial system, go ahead, we can take it. But don't make fun of a poor old lady who got handed a little coffee grenade. Some people screw up, but she just got screwed.

Regards, Ralph.

Submitted for your approval, the facts about the McDonald's coffee suit.