Slashdot Mirror

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

McDonald's Frivolous Lawsuit

I always thought the McDonalds case was frivolous till I read the facts. Check out McFacts about the case.

Pasted here.

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.

Some McNuggets about the Coffee Lawsuit. I agree with your general sentiments, but I really hate to see this lawsuit used to show how screwed up our legal system is. The case really resulted from a calculation on the part of McDonalds: make the coffee hotter, so they could purchase lower-quality beans, thereby earning more than enough to pay off the potential lawsuits.

Get the facts, dittohead.

--grendelkhan

totally out of proportion to the actual damage done (e.g. the McDonalds coffee lawsuit)

Ah, this myth again...this was not a frivolous lawsuit. Perhaps you should check out the facts.

If I were representing some of the larger fish in the suits, I'd be looking for a way to pay for representation for Brianna and help her beat the suite.

Why? Her case has the best chance of beating the RIAA suit. Her family probably had a dial-up connection, making it unlikely that they could have served up many files. By their own admission, they were only previewing the files. And lastly, the mother is being sued for the actions of her 12 and 9 year old children. Lastly, a New York jury may be pretty sympathetic to a mother in subsidized housing being sued by multi-billion dollar companies.

Remember, McDonald's lost their famous coffee burn case not on the merits of the plaintiff's complaints but because of the jury's disgust at their obvious callousness and disregard of the 81 year old plaintiff. The RIAA may very well be stupid enough to take a single mother to court.

The group of fat people was thrown out of court because it lacked merit.

Too bad that despite the media frenzy, McDonalds was clearly in the wrong.

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

The "McDonalds Cofee Lawsuit" is an example of the law working as intended. McDonalds knew they served coffee too hot. They settled upwards of 70 cases a year for a decade before it came to light in the press, and then it was the called the victim's fault. Because obviously we should expect coffee to be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns within seconds of touching skin, despite the fact that the majority of restaurants do not serve it that hot, and the majority of people would not believe that coffee would ever be served that hot [/sarcasm]

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.

Worst Example Ever.

The "McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit", as it has become known, was vastly misrepresented by the press. If you look at the actual facts, McDonalds deserved what happened. For more information:

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


Please, stop using this as an example of a specious lawsuit. It is, in fact, a case of the judicial system working as it is supposed to work.

It appears they were serving coffee at 185 degrees, which is almost 30 degrees away from boiling and only about 20 degrees hotter than other restauraunts.

Handing a person a styrofoam cup of boiling coffee is kind of fscked up if you ask me

Again, it definitely wasn't boiling. Yes, it was hot. Coffee is like that. You can consult burn specialists and call in experts blah blah blah, but in the end most adults know that coffee is hot and whether it's 165 degrees, 185 degrees, or 212 degrees we all treat it carefully so we don't get burned. No-one in their right mind says "Well, this coffee is 185 degrees and can give me third degree burns, I'd better be careful! Because I assume my coffee is served at 165 degrees which I know only causes first and second degree burns and which I don't have to handle so carefully because I don't care if I receive first or second degree burns."

The fact is everyone knows coffee is hot. Very few people know HOW hot and how much any given coffee or liquid can burn us. SO WE ARE CAREFUL.

McDonald's was ordered to pay $2.7 million dollars (2 days of coffee sales) but, since even the judge knew that was completely rediculous, he later reduced the fine to $480,000. Still a lot of money because someone can't handle their coffee, but at least the rediculous multi-million dollar judgement was thrown out.

Actually, I don't quite have my facts straight either (someone on /. with a casual approach to the facts? Can't be!).

This site gives a slightly more accurate version. The gist of what I said above is correct, but follow the links for actual facts.

It wasn't such a stupid lawsuit. Go read about it.

Drinkable coffee is 140 degrees or cooler. McDonald's coffee was 180 degrees, enough to cause third-degree burning of skin. The lady who sued McDonald's initially sought only to recover her medical costs plus legal fees, a fraction of the half-million USD that the courts awarded her.

Read more facts about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

What the hell are you ranting about? Must be some other case, as the facts are pretty much agreed upon:

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

So the TRANSFER was complete, she was not distracted by driving, she was not rolling up her window, she was not (that we know of) jostled, she just klutzed out and spilled it on herself through (your words) nothing but her own incompetence.

More stuff:
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 ... ) The award was later reduced to ~480,000, and she accepted a check for less than that - but I can't find a definitive final amount. :(

Stella Liebeck, age 79, was a passenger in the car.
The car was at a full stop so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. [She was not the driver and the car was not moving.]
The cup tipped and spilled over her lap.

I have to assume you are thinking about this case - "[The attorney]planned to introduce photographs of his previous client's injuries and those of a California woman who suffered second- and third-degree burns after a McDonald's employee spilled hot coffee into her vehicle in 1990, a case that was settled out of court for $230,000." but, as it is not the case being discussed, your rant is also irrelevent to the discussion.

I realize you were trying to be funny, but you're also perpetuating a myth that the McDonald's coffee incident was somehow an unreasonable lawsuit. In fact, McDonald's was seriously in the wrong, and deserved a judgment against them. See this site on lawandhelp.com for the truth.

McFacts abut the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

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.

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.

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.)

On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

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.

Re: smoking, I agree. But I can't stand people who use this as an example of a frivolous lawsuit.

McDonalds was serving dangerously overheated coffee. They had documented over 700 serious injuries themselves. Despite giving hundreds of people 3rd degree burns requiring surgery and skin grafts, they did the math and refused to change their practices. They intentionally traded human suffering for profits.

The victim in this case was 81 years old, had never sued anyone in her life and required skin grafts on her genitalia for God's sakes. She only sued after McDonald's refused to cover the medical bills.

You misunderstood the nature of the original McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, as did most people. See the very informative site here for details, but basically it boils (no pun intended) down to the fact that McDonalds keeps it's coffee at 185 degrees F. Standard restaurant coffee temperature is around 165 degrees, but the coffee stays fresher (hence having to be re-made less often) at 185. At 165 degrees, a spill will probably cause first degree burns, but nothing serious. At 185 degrees, it causes third degree burns in under two seconds. You know, the kind that leave you with scar tissue for the rest of your life? McDonald's probably wouldn't have been found negligent if it was just the temperature, but prior to the famous lawsuit they had settled over 700 scalding claims relating to this practice. They admitted they knew it was a hazard. And the 81 year old woman only sued them because they refused to pay the medical bill for the skin grafts and 7 days in the hospital she suffered.

There are problems in the system. Major problems. But you need to find a new example to throw around. (That, or specify which case you're referring to. Feel free to refer to this coffee case instead of the famous one that got the labels put on. :)

Propaganda at it's finest.

How much do you really know about the McD's lawsuit?

people sue restaurants for serving too hot coffee

I thought as you did on this issue until I read the details of the case. The coffee was over 180 degrees Fahrenheit capable of causing third degree burns; well over commonly accepted safe temperatures. It was also not the first complaint McD's received on this issue, yet they did nothing about it. McD's was malicious in many other areas and deserved to lose (see here for details).

This case gets perpetuated over and over as a "frivilous" lawsuit, when in fact it was not frivilous at all. People hear the headline "millions for spilled hot coffee" and don't look further than that. According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation. Here's a great link telling the facts in the hot coffee case...

Well I _have_ read many facts about this case (and the others that have been spawned in its tradition since then), and I think it's absolutely frivolous! Lawyers are paid to be masters of using bullshit facts to win an argument. Let's look at some of these tidbits of "overwhelming evidence" from the link you posted:

• 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.

  McDonald's has known for years that they way they serve their coffee is overwhelmingly popular with the consuming public. That's right, they've done consumer research and found that most of their customers prefer their coffee at that temperature. And they HAVE KNOWN that in a BILLION instances a year, someone buys a cup of their coffee, handles it properly, and enjoys its taste -- without incident. And then of course there are will be a couple schmucks who can't keep themselves from pouring it over their heads, or down their pants, or drinking the whole thing in one big gulp and burning their throats. But honestly, if every manufacturer insisted on pandering to the safety needs of the lowest common denominator, nothing would ever be made. Because with anything more dangerous than a plastic bottle of water, some idiot is going to figure out a way to hurt themselves with it.

• 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.

  This is just the same shit over again. Once a week (every 5.2 days) some marginally functional moron spills hot coffee on themselves, suffers burns, and tries to get some money out of McDonald's. During that same week, McDonald's sells nearly 20 MILLION cups of coffee to people who have no such problems. Now clearly, McDonald's is knowingly endangering the public with their reckless behavior, and should be made to alter their business practices to accommodate that one-dipshit-out-of-20-million. Come on, you have better odds of winning the lottery in some states than you do of accidentally spilling McD's coffee on yourself and going to the hospital for it. And the payoff for hitting the lotto is a lot better too...

  And why the hell should they have to go around consulting experts about the possible negative side effects of not using Coffee for its intended purpose?? Hot Coffee is supposed to be drank slowly. Hot Coffee is not supposed to be poured on your crotch. There are an infinite number of MIS-uses of a product that can cause harm to people or damage to property, and it's ridiculous to claim that manufacturers should launch investigations into all of them. That's like saying "I manufacture ballpoint pens. We should hire an expert in anal probing to find out what negative effects might occur if our customers shove our product up their asses. And some eye doctor experts too, to see how much damage could be caused if they stick them in their eyes. And some physicists and doctors to see what would happen if they climbed up a utility pole and stuck their pen into one of the high-voltage power lines. Etc..."

  McDonald's Coffee will always be hot. No amount of whining pussies and their FRIVOLOUS lawsuits are going to change that. As the great Seanbaby put it: "Let me tell you why McDonald's coffee is so hot. Because you have oily children simmering fluid in glass containers for hours at a time. If you lowered the temperature down a few degrees, that's not making coffee -- that's bacteria farming. Something tells me I'd rather wait for my drink to cool down than buy a cup of coffee-flavored cholera."

• 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.

  Yeah, that's what happens when you pour very hot matter onto your skin. It reacts, violently. Try pouring the hot grease out of the frying pan onto your crotch next you're cooking. You'll get those same 3rd degree burns. There's a small leap of logic that has to be comprehended in order to understand this phenomenon. It goes like this:

  • 1. Coffee is ALWAYS served hot.
  • 2. Hot liquids poured/spilled on your skin will cause BURNS.

  Now I know not everybody went to college, but even preschoolers are able to learn fairly quickly which things are fun to play with and which things will hurt like hell if you rub them over your body. Anyone who can't grasp this simple two-step logic train, and take appropriate action to avoid spilling said liquid on themselves, deserves to have the gonads-set-on-fire that results. The evolution of species does not occur by forcing the stupidest monkeys to stop sticking their genitals into a lava pit.

  Let's see if I can put this another way for people who don't respond well to complicated logical theories... IT'S COFFEE! IT'S HOT! DON'T PUT IT BETWEEN YOUR LEGS! Do you need to be told to not put lit firecrackers between your legs? Do you need to be told not stick sharp knives in your lap 'just to hold them there'? Would you stick a rattlesnake in a fragile container between your legs to hold it there while you drive it to... wherever you might be taking a snake? So why would you need to be told to not put boiling water between your legs?

• 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.

  Hey guess what, I've never filed a lawsuit either. And neither have 99% of all the people I've ever met. It's good that she's not a career lawsuit filer, but if she had been, that would have been pointed out early on, and you wouldn't have seen much jury sympathy. And the fact that she only filed the lawsuit after McDonald's didn't roll over and ask how much to write the check for doesn't mean they were being unreasonable. OF COURSE they didn't agree to compensate her, that's the whole point of filing a lawsuit! To force action on another party when you can't come to an agreement. Exactly how long do you think it would take for a line a mile long to form outside McDonald's headquarters once word got out that they will hand out money to any schmuck he says he spilled his coffee on himself? They HAVE to say no to that on principle, lest they turn into a workers comp clearinghouse.

• 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.

  This sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense. Most customers wouldn't think WHAT is possible?? Not possible to turn down the heat? Not possible to post warnings about burns? Not possible for McDonald's to consider doing these things? Not possible for you to burn yourself with boiling water? WTF are you saying??

  I'm sure this is probably a badly paraphrased version of something that originally sounded like a good argument, but it still sounds stupid. Of course they have no plans to change anything they're doing. They've done the analysis (similar to what I've already said above) and found that it's well worth the risks (of removing the ability to breed from retarded people) to keep serving their delicious coffee at the temperature that their customers most enjoy. Another non-point shot down. Keep 'em comin!

• 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.)

  I've sat on a civil lawsuit jury before. There are always mounds of documents that they throw at you, knowing full well that you, the jury members, are not going to sift through all of it for your $15 a day jury pay, when you should be at work or taking care of your kids, etc. They know that you will only remember and consider the carefully worded emotionally charged words that they plant in your head specifically to persuade you to buy their argument instead of looking at the situation completely objectively. Is it possible that they could find 12 people who could be convinced that McDonald's is "willfully" serving flaming death in a cup to MILLIONS of people and "maliciously" trying to harm them? Absolutely. There's 700 such candidates that McDonald's has on file already. And out of 12 random people, you're going to have at least 2 people who will side with the "innocent victim" in any situation. And probably at least 1 person who will side against any large corporations because they're "evil". People like that can keep the rest of the group from making a quick dismissal based on the fact that the plaintiff is a fucking imbecile. And the longer the deliberation drags out, the more likely the "rational" people are to just side with the "sympathy" people at whatever dollar amount just to get the damn thing over with. I've seen it happen, and I'm sure it happens quite regularly, even maybe in this case.

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

  That's fine and all. But it doesn't change the fact that this old woman should have been learning how to safely carry dangerous materials instead of feeding the lawyers with this FRIVOLOUS lawsuit.

• 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.

  I agree that pouring hot liquids on your skin WILL harm you. That's why humans have developed an automated muscular reaction when our skin touches something hot. The nerve signal doesn't even travel all the way to your brain and wait for your brain to make a decision about what to do. It gets intercepted half way and your arm (or leg or whatever) automatically jerks away from the source of heat. This reflex movement normally pulls your arm out of the fire, or splashes the coffee you spilled on it all around the room, in less than half a second. For someone to sit there with the hot coffee on themselves for up to SEVEN seconds means either they sat there, watching the coffee burn their bodies and couldn't figure out what to do, or they managed to spill it on themselves in such a way or place that they couldn't get it off of themselves for a (relatively long time). In either case, at best, they showed an extreme lack of planning, and at worst it's only a matter of time before the mental police find them and take them back to their padded rooms and jackets that let them hug themselves ALLLLL DAAAAAAY.

I don't drink coffee anymore, but when I did (and mostly McDonald's coffee at that), I never poured it on my crotch without at least sipping it first to make sure it wasn't too hot. But if some day I did start drinking coffee again, or some other "dangerously hot" beverage, and I do happen to destroy my genitals because of own ignorance, I sure as hell wouldn't publicize the event and record it on public record with a lawsuit. That's just shouting "Hey, I may be physically deformed now, but I'm also admittedly STUPID too!"

"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."

This case gets perpetuated over and over as a "frivilous" lawsuit, when in fact it was not frivilous at all. People hear the headline "millions for spilled hot coffee" and don't look further than that. According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation. Here's a great link telling the facts in the hot coffee case...

Its similar to the stupid McDonalds Coffee incident.

Hey, that poor lady needed skin grafts, they shouldn't have been serving coffee that damn hot. If they just offered to pay for her medical bills they could have avoided the whole thing.

McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

Aside from that, I agree that this roller coaster law is stupid, but if you know the facts of the coffee case its a bad example.

Its similar to the stupid McDonalds Coffee incident...

This is somewhat off topic, but please read up on the facts on the McDonald's Scalding Coffee incident. Look here or do a quick search on Google. I can't find it, but there's a great site out there that talks about all the highly publicised lawsuits (like the guy who got 300 million dollars for a bad paint job on his bmw), and debunks the myths around each case. Fun read. Media loves twisting these and other so-called frivilous lawsuits to boost their ratings. Pass it on. Thanks.

That said, I do agree with you that people should be held accountable for their own actions. I don't like being parented by government.

But McDonald's _was_ liable in that case. They were serving their coffe at scalding temperatures, well above what is needed to keep it "hot". Info on the case is here. Many people think this was a bogus lawsuit, but it really wasn't. It actually effected positive change in a corporation benefitting the consumer. The british judge probably didn't bother to read the case.

Hell, I'll give your two for the price of one. CLUE 2

Next time you post to /. try getting your facts straight.