Slashdot Mirror

It still drives me nuts when people point to that case as evidence that our legal system is broke. It is broke, I don't deny but that case is not one to use. Here are some facts about that particular case and why the jury awarded such a large fine (that was later reduced by a judge): (from http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm in case you want to look yourself).

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

Why is it when people get indignant about law, they bring up the McDonald's coffee case? Here, read about it.

For those of you that are "tl:dr", here's the case in a nutshell. McDonald's knew it had a problem with coffee temperature, thought that it would be cheaper to settle potential cases rather than fix the problem. The jury awarded punitive damages (which the plaintiff did not ask for) which amounts to the total of two days worth of profit McDonald's makes on their coffee sales. The plaintiff, who suffered third degree burns, would have not filed suit if McDonald's would have compensated for her medical issues which included skin grafts to her groin, thighs and buttocks and her stay in the hospital.

Being indignant is so much easier when you are ignorant about the facts.

In her defense, she was calling 9-11 because she was robbed, not because they ran out of nuggets. They usually don't show the whole clip, because then it's not as "funny". She went to a store, paid for something, then after her money was taken, they refused to provide what she paid for. She asked for her money back and they refused to refund her money. Whether she was robbed of $3 or $3,000,000 is qualitatively irrelevant.

Yeah, I completely agree that she needed to call the police under that situation. I'm not sure if 911 is the right number to call (you need to call the police, but it's not an emergency). I remember having a similar thought when my car was broken in to. I had been robbed, but it's not like my life or anyone else's was in danger, the thief was long gone. So I called information and asked for the number of the local police station instead of helping to tie up the emergency lines.

I'm not sure what the correct procedure is, for all I know calling 911 would have been fine. I do agree that if you pay for something, you don't get what you paid for, and they refuse to give the money back, the police needs to be involved.

That's the same smear job that was done to the "coffee" incident: http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Ok, that's a different story, and it's not the same thing. As any coffee drinker would know, coffee is actually supposed to be that hot. I typed ""coffee serving temperature" -mcdonalds" on google (to avoid bias from people specifically trying to argue for or against mcdonalds), and the very first link will tell you that the ideal holding temperature for coffee is 175-185 degrees. Feel free to search anywhere else, you're going to find the same answer for non-espresso coffee.

Your link claims that McDonalds was holding coffee at 185 degrees, which is 20 degrees hotter than most other restaurants, but this doesn't mean McDonalds was keeping the coffee too hot. It means the other restaurants were keeping coffee about 10 degrees colder than is acceptable.

I'm an avid coffee drinker, been drinking the stuff since I was about seven actually (my family's cultural background doesn't have the stigma with children and coffee), and one thing I know is that coffee is supposed to seriously burn you if you let it spill over on your body and can't get it out of your skin immediately. So it annoys me when people say the mcdonalds coffee was too hot. It was at the high end of the acceptable temperature, but it was at the acceptable temperature. I'm not saying the woman was faking her injuries, I'm not saying the coffee didn't burn her...I'm saying that she should have known she was holding something that was dangerously hot (even back then they wrote that on the cup), and it was her responsibility to be careful with it.

If you admit the cup is fragile - then you have as much as said that spills and burns are inevitable in the fast food and take-out service.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible. McFacts About The McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit

People always bring up the McDonalds coffee suit as an example of frivolous lawsuits, but if you read up on it - it is anything but. Here, read this.

Here are some noteworthy bits from the link:

For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

So the lawsuit actually did make sense, McDonalds really did screw up. They knew they were hurting people, they had a history of hurting people, and they didn't care. And the lady in question had third degree burns around her genitals from a cup of coffee. Dunno about you, but $480k minus hospital bills isn't *nearly* enough to have someone do burn grafts around my genitals.

I'm not meaning to stomp on you, and I hope it doesn't come off that way. Honest. It's just that the McDonalds coffee case is always quoted as an example of frivolous litigation, and it absolutely isn't. I used to say the same thing you did and someone (in fact, it happened here on /.) corrected me about it. So I do the same whenever it seems appropriate.

Are these the same lawyers that gave several million dollars to a McDonalds' customer who rather stupidly put a hot cup of coffee between his legs (while driving)??? ;-)

obligatory debunk

Next time you take the pot off the warmer and pour yourself a cup of coffee, and while you're waiting for it to cool off enough to drink, why don't you stick a thermometer in there and check the temperature? (Do be mindful of where the thermometer has been previously, though...!) Then you can compare it to the temperature of the McDonalds coffee...

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm: (all temperatures are given in degrees F)

A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds[...]

(To avoid confusion, I'll point out that Kathleen Gilliam isn't the 81-year-old who suffered 3rd degree burns from McDonalds' coffee.)

Also consider that excessively hot water from your home's hot water heater can be dangerous. Notice in particular that in the "tips to keep in mind" they recommend setting the thermostat to 120 degrees (several other places in the article indicate that the "safe" range is between 120 degrees and 125 degrees). Furthermore, the highest temperature listed on the chart (140 degrees) still isn't anywhere near as hot as the 185-degree coffee.

>> If you spill hot coffee on yourself, it's not your fault it's the fault of the company that provided it because they didn't warn you that it was hot.

Why do you anti-government types keep bringing up this widely misrepresented example?

Here's what happened:

Woman buys coffee. Woman spills coffee. Woman gets severe burns. Woman gets saddled with a few thousand in medical bills. Woman asks McDonalds if they would kindly reimburse her medical expenses. McDonalds tells woman to jump in lake. Woman launches investigation in preparation for lawsuit. Woman finds out that McDonalds serves their coffee way hotter than most places, to mask the fact that they use crap beans. Woman also finds out that McDonalds has settled several hundred scalding cases, and considers those injuries a cost of doing business.

Why is it that, according to the anti-government crowd, only the woman (81 years old, never had a prior litigious moment in her life) showed a lack of personal responsibility? If it's such an obviously bogus case of a woman refusing to take responsibility for her own mistakes, why did twelve jurors go along with it? If the system is rigged in favor of frivolous lawsuits, why did the award come out to the profit McDonalds makes from a few days of coffee sales?

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

After all, the woman who filed suit for burning herself crotch with a cup of coffee won (McDick's was found 80% responsible).

"The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200. (Conventional home brewers heat water until it boils up to coffee basket.)"

Your argument from authority is a coffee machine advertisement. Another claims the brew is better-tasting long and cold.

I worked for McDonald's in the 90's. If you don't mind my saying, the suggestion their coffee came fresh off the drip after 5:45 AM is as ludicrous as debating its quality (at any temperature).

Google third-degree burns. As I understand the case, legal action was justified, even if I weren't politically inclined to hope an old lady with crotch blisters can have her day in court with a billion-dollar international business.

The problem is, given some of the outrageous lawsuit amounts given (McD's coffee anyone?)

Read up on the Facts of the case

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

        McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

        McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

        McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

        McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

        McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

        McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

        McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

        McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

Well Joe, anti-piracy lawsuits, and the fear that goes with them, are actually a healthy part of the Media Ecosystem. You see, there exists a test bed for new shows, where they are usually created, and then individual market players can get all sue-happy, or whatever they like, confined in the test-bed known as the 'united states of america'.

Because you see, my dear Joe Pirate, nobody of consequence (eg. me, in calm Canada) gets sued. It's all these imaginary "americans", who as you know from watching television, are a make-believe people that couldn't possibly exist in real life. I mean, just imagine some of the whacky hijinks these "americans" get up to every week. They're ridiculous, really only a Corporate-Media creation for our entertainment.

This allows the consumers, you and me, to download all the shows we like in peace, secure in the knowledge that immoral copyright lawsuits and whatnot will only happen in fictional programming, where it belongs.

Mod parent up, he's correct, and therefore not trolling (similar to the fact you can't be libelous if you speak in fact), in that the McDonald's coffee case is often incorrectly dragged out as an example of the need for tort reform:
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Can we freaking kill the spilling coffee thing? Read: http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm and get a clue. The woman had third degree burns and needed a skin graft. McDonalds knew there was a problem - 700 prior incidents of scalding. So GET A CLUE before spouting a meme.

Please stop the fud.

The woman was not driving, she was in the back seat.
The car was at rest when she was burned.
Given that the car was at rest, I doubt (but have no reference for) your supposed 'fact' that she kept going for 20-30 minutes.

Sites that support my version of events:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1107089

If you have contradicting sites, I'm all eyes.

Get YOUR facts straight. She did not put it between her legs, she was opening the coffee to add cream and yes, spilled it on herself. The fact of the matter is that the coffee was so hot as to cause third degree burns which required skin grafts. The coffee was simply too hot to be drinkable, so hot that it was dangerous. McDonalds had many, many previous complaints which were ignored. This woman simply wanted her medical expenses paid off but when that didn't happen she sued, was awarded a huge sum which was later dropped way down to a figure that has not been disclosed. Google the case sometime. Here's just the first link: http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

shut the fuck up

"I still blame the McDonalds 'Hot Coffee' incident."

"And that Lady who sued Mcdonalds she lost on Appeal."

You're wrong. There was no appeal made. A settlement was made between Liebeck and McDonalds.

Here, here, and here all point out that you are wrong. It's odd that someone who is trying to claim to know "the real facts" makes such false claims.

Get your McFacts straight.

McDonalds made the coffee to hot. Hotter then any of the national standards, hotter then what they had been told was safe. So hot it was unsafe to drink. If the woman had attempted to drink it she would have burned her mouth. They did this despite being told about it, despite being warned about it.

It's risky to buy coffee?

In this case the jurors were much brighter then you. They recognized that McDonalds was going to cause lots of burns on their customers and that they showed no regard for the safety of their customers. They chose to punish MCDonalds in the hope that the corporation would change it's behavior. It worked. Since we are unable to imprison corporations that's all we can do.

You are correct, however the reason this case went to court in the first place is because the injuries caused were NOT minor. One expects hot coffee to be hot, perhaps too hot to drink immediately, however you also have the expectation that it shouldn't severely injure you if spilled or consumed immediately. When coffee causes third degree burns, as in this case, that is a severe injury. It caused deep tissue damage to the woman's crotch area. That would indicate the product was dangerously hot. Incidentally the damage would have been the about the same regardless of location, sure the crotch is more sensitive nerve-wise but the skin there has the same burn tolerances as other uncalloused skin.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but making coffee, tea or any hot beverage requires boiling water, i.e. 100C (212F), shouldn't common sense dictate that it isn't a good idea to splash that liquid on yourself before checking to see if it's ok?

One, coffee is not brewed with boiling water by most modern devices, older percolating devices used boiling water, it is in fact recommended by the Nation Coffee Association that coffe be brewed at a temperature no higher that 185F. Also, as was testified by burn specialists in this case, water at 190 degrees F (which was the temp McDonalds was serving at) causes third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds. In this case the temperature was so high that it would have caused immediate injury. The woman didn't splash it on herself to test the temperature, she spilled it. Now in this case the woman did a stupid thing by placing the cup between her legs. But what if it hadn't been the case? Let's alter the scenario slightly and say that a toddler in the seat next to her knocked the cup from the cup holder and into her lap. The temp was the same and she would have received the same injuries. The product was dangerously hot. There is a range in which coffee can be served hot but not be extremely likely to cause injury, McDonalds was knowingly operating above this range. (They had received over 700 complaints about the temp being too hot, they were aware they were 15 to 25 degrees above industry standard, and had not consulted an industry specialist to confirm the safety of this higher temperature.) Two links for you. A google search will find more information that corraborates these links as well.

"Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. McDonalds knew its coffee was exceptionally hot but testified that they had never consulted with burn specialist. The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees."
quoted from here

The standard to which I was referred byt he sites that broke down this case was the internation coffee association website which states guidelines and best practices, although it is by no means an industry standard in the sense that many industries produce hard guidelines. While McDonalds was certainly within their rights to turn the temp up, most restaurants were below what McD's was serving at.

Here's a novel idea for you. Brew some coffee at 190 degrees, pour a cup and maintain the rest at 190. Now let the poured cup cool to 160 or 165, try it. You'll find that's a fine 'hot' temperature, not too cold as you claim. Now try to drink the other coffee at 190 degrees and notice how you burn the shit out of your mouth. And as to her "deep pockets" gold digging, the original suit asked only for $20,000 in medical expenses, which you also conveniently glossed over. It was only upon all denial by McDonalds for settlement that the amount was raised. The final settlement value, by the way, WAS released and was $480,000. There are well-established laws that punish companies for knowingly engaging in behavior or practices that are considered unsafe. Thus despite the fact that the woman played a role in her injury, McDonalds was considered partly at fault and found guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct".

Unlike your unsubstantiated rebuttal I have provided two links that support my facts. If you google for "mcdonalds + coffee + lawsuit" you will find many other sites that repeat these same facts, and if you look hard enough you'll probably find the court documents from which these sites got their information. It's completely tracable and you are dead wrong. A product intended for immediate human consumption should be able to be consumed by humans without causing third degree burns. I would say that a food or drink that causes immediate and severe injuries (requiring a skin graft is certainly severe!) is an unsafe product. How can you argue otherwise?

Do we really have to go over this, again, on Slashdot of all fucking places? Does every fucking lawsuit article on Slashdot really need someone whos been living in a cave for the past decade to pop up and mention the McDonalds coffee lawsuit?

I can't be bothered to even rant at you properly. Just go educate yourself and never mention it again.

People have been citing the McDonalds coffee lawsuit since it happened as an example of stupid lawsuits, and I don't know how many times I've had to point this out to people: McDonalds' had been very negligent about the way they delt with their coffee. http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm has a list of facts about the case which you would be well-advised to read, including that McDonalds keeps their coffee significantly hotter than other restraunts and that they had privately settled more than 700 cases like this in the past, but had taken no action to prevent it happening again.

"Lawsuit is the first word spit out after a car accident, or after someone burns themselves with boiling coffee that didn't include a flashing warning label." In the most famous coffee lawsuit case the woman in question didn't first sue. She first asked for compensation for medical bills. Only when McDonald's refused did she sue.

I notice the article also doesn't list the result of Esther Walker's lawsuit against Nintendo. That's a big deal. If Esther lost, it dramatically reduces the importance of her claims.

We are a litigious society, but the situation isn't as bad as the article suggests.

The earliest sign I know of is the well-known McDonald hot coffee case. AFAIK, this is the case that made suing everyone else for one's own stupidity and total lack of common sense into common practice.

[embed type="rant" content="Why the Coffee Lawsuit was JUSTIFIED"]

This is another "i spilled hot coffee on my self now im going to sue you!" deal.

Okay, have you even seen the whole case of the hot-coffee lawsuit? Or checked the facts?

That was an old woman, and the coffee was spilled down her lap and other surrounding areas causing third degree burns on that required skin grafts and a hospital stay for seven-days.

She had approached them first for medical compensation and was refused, at which point she sued them. And incidentally, a judge later lowered the awarding amount to merely $480,000, which the media never publicized.

And btw, McDonalds serves their coffee at 185 degrees, a good 20 degrees more than other restaurants - there have been cases of folks with first degree burns because of that.

At the temperature that McDonalds serves their coffee, it just takes about five seconds for first degree burns to occur - which would require skin grafting.

Next time you shoot off your mouth without knowing the facts, you might want to look at the reasons why some lawsuits may have been won. I hate frivolous lawsuits too, but that doesn't mean I walk around talking nonsense.

In our finger-in-the-chili, burned-by-hot-coffee, neighbors-dog-barked-at-me-and-scared-me, overly litigious, self-serving, money-hungry society...

That was only one of the extenuating circumstances of this case too. See http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm for more info.

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

Why even bother to make such a long post as AC? Additionally you obviosuly didn't read any of the facts that were linked for you, I mean how easy can I make it. This article provided by wormbin(537051) is especially easy to read, with a nice numbered list. I suggest you go read it since you got the facts you claimed to know incorrect.

Now let's break down your arguments in manner that follows logic and reason rather than off-the-hip emotional analysis as you attempted with my first post.

A) I routinely boil up some water in the kettle, pour it into a cup, [...] and hand it to someone. I expect a sane, mentally competent adult to realize that hot drinks may be hot at first. Somehow, for thousands of years, adults have managed to deal with the concept of hot drinks. The McDonalds incident wasn't even boiling -- it was *colder* than what I'm talking about.
Yes, because as we all know, water colder than boiling is incapable of harming people. You're trying to set up a straw man argument; only stupid people ever spill hot drinks on themselves, therefore this woman is stupid and it's her fault. I argue that there is no one alive who has never spilled a drink for any reason. I'd wager even you have spilled some of your delicious hot chocolate. The point here is that drinks will be spilled, and whether the person is aware of it being hot when given to them is irrelevant (also impossible to miss, I'm sure this woman was aware her hot coffee was hot). However since drinks do on occassion spill, it would be prudent for them not to be at an unreasonably dangerously hot temp. Key phrase here is 'unreasonably dangerously' as all hot liquids are to some degree dangerous, but we can mitigate that by keeping the temp a bit lower. In your example the person knew for a fact the cocoa they were given was just at the boiling point, this woman had no idea precisely hot hot her coffee was. I think a consumer given a hot drink can have a reasonable expectation that it is drinkably hot, not barely sub-boiling.

B) There are a ton of people that eat at McDonalds who *didn't* find the coffee "way above what any reasonable person would consider acceptable" -- including this woman, if she'd ever had a McDonald's coffee before.
First, I don't understand how this woman having had McD coffee in the past somehow waives her right to ever declare it too hot. And once again you are marginalizing the point here by saying if X people didn't have a problem then X+1 will not have a problem. A fallacy. Just because Joe Citizen likes his coffee a scalding 185, doesn't make that temperature any safer for consumption.

C) They had received numerous complaints about it prior to the incident
They're McDonald's. They're enormous. They have complaints about coffee being too hot, meat not being kosher, coffee being too cold, a lack of Italian buns, and so forth. It would be unusual if they had *nobody* mentioning it.
True, this is perhaps your best point, but again here you show your lack of actual facts of the case. It wasn't just that some trivial subset of people had made this complaint, there were in fact over 700 incidents of coffee burns on file. That's just burns, I'm sure the number of 'too hot' complaints are therefore well above 700. I'd say 700 burn cases easily eclipses the other trivial complaint statistics. And by-the-by, no one needed medical treatment for the food being not kosher or no italian buns. Obviously the company cannot please everyone but potential injuries should rank high on the to-fix list.

And if you were familiar with the case and were being honest, you would have mentioned that all the *other* coffees from the *other* fast-food places caused the same burns -- it's just that McDonald's, being the hottest of the temperature range by ten degrees, did so faster.
I bolded the being honest bit above because it per

Here are some facts about the case. I'm amazed at how many people continue to use this as an example of a frivolous lawsuit.

There is also a really good Too Much Coffee Man reference to the lawsuit but I can't find it.

If this is true, then explain why McDonald's can be found liable for burns suffered by certain customers from coffee spills? And how True.com will avoid the same problems?

More likely scenario: Someone who hasn't trimmed their fingernails down to the quick accidentally breaks it open, causing crippling third degree burns. After finding out that the company knew that this was a problem (from countless other similar accidents) but decided that keeping a corporate legal team was cheaper than redesigning the container, the customer managed to find a lawyer who hadn't sold their soul to a corporation. After that lawyer somehow manages to get the case into court despite the well-practiced tactics of the corporate team, a jury examines the evidence and awards the customers enough to pay their medical bills, plus a punitary award that seems large for an individual but is corporate pocket change. After multiple appeals by the corporate team, the settlement is whittled down to enough for the medical bills and free coffee for a year.

Meanwhile, politicians whose re-election coffers are fattened with corporate checks make a big deal about how "lawsuit happy" the country is, and -- once enough gullible people have bought into grossly exaggerated "examples" -- push for "tort reform". For some reason, "responsibility" isn't seen as a concept that should apply to corporations.

Forgot a link.

The broken thermostat looks like it came from some newsgroups with no linking sources, I will no longer use that as part of the discussion.

but, here are a list of facts, about the case just incase you still think it was frivilous.

here

This is not one of those McDonalds Hot coffee lawsuits

True. It is less McDonald's coffee and more Chevrolet Corvair. It's about selling a knowingly faulty product.

This is not one of those McDonalds Hot coffee lawsuits

Neither was the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuite


-Colin

A few facts about the McDonalds coffee lawsuit.
The main thrust was that McDonalds held their coffee about 20F above most other restaraunts and numerous complaints had already been filed. It wasn't the frivolous lawsuit that many believe it to be. It actually had merit.

Sugar is an obvious ingredient (not necessarily listed directly as sugar) on the package. Your flippant remark about diabetics isn't relevant.

"Being in contact with peanuts" doesn't have an associated ingredient listing. It just means they've reused some machines that at one point had nuts in them and the oils or actual physical pieces of nut may have made its way into the unrelated product. Check candy some time that has that warning; not all of them actually have a nut listed as an ingredient.

What, do you want me to say "oh, this candy bar was manufactured in.. New York. Let's see if that factory ever made a product that had nuts in it."

I don't think so.

Coffee containers: Warning: Hot. C'mon, you'd think they knew.

Please go do some research before touting the McDonalds coffee incident as "common sense." McDonalds was in the wrong and the woman received third degree burns.
A cursory google for "McDonalds Lawsuit" brings up:
McFacts
Liebeck lawsuit

Actually, the famous hot coffee case had merit, but must believe choose to believe the myth instead. Here's a link with info.

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Oh you mean this? She was an 80-something year old woman who had third-degree burns that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay. She did not receive "millions" either. This is just another one of those facts that people use to try to push tort reform. It's a bad example as are most of the ones that are usually given. Read about these cases before you make another stupid comment.

We don't have the problems you do because we don't have the culture of 'sue' for stuff like 'my coffee is too hot and it burnt me' and 'these scissors stabbed me when I ran with them'.

The hot coffee law suit is used to describe frivolous lawsuits, truth is, the coffee was hot enough to create 3rd degree burns, too hot for normal consumption. The person didnt even sue for damages, just the medical bills, the court awarded monetary damages to punish mcdonalds.

Read about the facts, its not what you think.

I hate whenever this is brought up by people who don't know what really happened in the McDonalds Coffee case. Read the facts here. It's really helpful if you know what you are talking about before you rail against it.

Please stop about the McDonald's coffee lady.

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Everyone thinks the McDonalds lawsuit was an example of how litigation has gotten out of control. Read the site and then tell me how frivolous third degree burns are.

No, it was necessary (the customers prefer it this way), and not dangerous

Wrong. They knowingly kept there coffee as much as 20 degrees higher than other restaurants. On average 185 degrees, at which temperature third degree burns take as little as 2 seconds.

Millions of cups drank, no problem

Wrong again. McDonalds had been sued successfully over 700 times prior to her suit. I don't give a shit about what percentage of customers that is, after 5 people getting third degree burns it's time to rethink your policy.

just like you can get burns from pouring hot coffee on your 'nads.

She was over 80 years old at the time of the incident. Maybe you could cut her a little slack for spilling her drink. I'm assuming that you've done so at some time in your life too.

The problem with these frivolous suits is that Person A is made to pay for the actions/guilt of Person B.

That's true, but I think given an accurate view of the facts, this one hardly counts as frivolous. She only asked for coverage of her medical bills. In fact, she only sued because they ignored her request that they cover her bills, and the jury awarded her a grandiose settlement to drive home the point that McDonalds needs to wisen up. The judge, on appeal, lowered the settlement to less than half a million.

Here's the list of hits on google.

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

Excerpt from: Courtesy Legal News and Views, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers

Also see Van O'Steen and Partners

Newsaic : Mirrow Law