Slashdot Mirror

that one is only to protect Mc Donalds against frivolous lawsuits.

Oh, Lord - not again. Please educate yourself. You need to find a better example of a frivolous lawsuit.

"There's already a good precedent for this kind of thing you know."

I take it you're talking about this?

Btw here are the members of Coffee association of America. You think they know more about some coffee then stupid trial lawyer saying coffee should be servered at 135 degrees which is the temperature that can be reached in death valley.

Here are some of the facts involved in the famous McDonald's coffee lawsuit. That particular lawsuit was not an example of a frivolous lawsuit; there are plenty of others, but that isn't one.

First this article
from a coffee maker states the recomended serving temperature is 75 degrees C (167 fahrenheit). The correct Brewing temperature is 185-195. But rather then nit-pick about temperature. Here's why McDonalds lost: ( Mcfacts snipped from a site, others collected elsewhere)

1: The injured women initially wanted $800 from McDonalds to pay for extra medical bills, to which McDonald's dismissed.

2. Evidence showed that McDonalds served their coffee so hot to save money. This let them get away with a cheaper grade of coffee and cut down on the number of free refills they had to give away. McDonalds executives testified that they thought it would be cheaper to pay claims and worker's compensation benefits to people burned by their coffee versus making any of these changes. (source http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonalds.htm )
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.

It all comes down to, if you are in the business of dealing with materials you know are hazerdous (as was proven in the case, McDonalds knew the coffee was hazerdous), you are responsible for selling such materials in a safe maner because the consumer expects you to do so. If you were "Battery Acid King" and sold sulphuric acid in open topped beverage glasses, people might assume you don't think its dangerous.

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

What do you base this on? The fact that in a lot of these lawsuits there is a verdict and damages are paid? Circular logic, methinks.

No, I base this on the facts of the case, as I mentioned. Let's take the case you mentioned in your cynical comment, "but how could she have known the coffee was hot, the poor dear?", since it was making fun of an incredibly well-known "frivolous" lawsuit, in which Mrs. Stella Liebeck spilled coffee on her lap in February of 1992 and won a $2.7 million settlement from The McDonald's Corporation.

This case was settled in 1994, but remains the poster case for frivolous lawsuits. The main point of this case was that McDonald's had known for years that it's coffee was significantly hotter than other resturaunts. They also knew that it caused severe burns when spilled, and did nothing to correct it because it cut down on the number of free refills given (it took longer for people to drink each cup because they had to wait for it to cool). No "reasonable person" would expect a cup of coffee to cause 3rd degree burns when spilled, but that's exactly what it did. Mrs. Liebeck required skin grafts and retained permanent scars from the incident. When she tried to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses, McDonald's offered her $800. She sued them. During the trial, it was discovered that McDonalds had over 700 claims from people burned by their coffee between 1982 and 1992, and some had third-degree burns similar to Liebeck's. Based on the evidence that McDonald's knew the danger and continued the practice anyway, the jury awarded Mrs. Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. Punitive damages were later reduced to $480,000 even though the trial judge called McDonald's actions reckless, callous, and willful.

References for the above facts are here, and on the pages quoted there.

And as for the hairdryer, you're right. One poorly made hairdryer on a wet counter (which is a perfectly reasonable place to put it, since bathrooms tend to be moist) is not grounds for a lawsuit. However, if the same company made all their hairdryers that way, and knew it hurt people, and still did nothing about it, that *would* be grounds for a lawsuit. Someone has to be the first person to come forward and say, "this hairdryer hurt me when I set it down in a reasonable place." If they win, they get labeled "suit-happy" and written off by a cynical populace who needs soundbytes to fill their day.

Yes, there are frivolous lawsuits. Yes, there are sympathetic juries who try to set an example. Yes, there are obvious abuses of the system. But please don't assume the system is rife with them because of a few isolated and well-publicized cases.

Blah, blah, blah. I guess you're probably trolling, but in case someone falls for it: the McDonald's lawsuit in question is a piss-poor example of a "frivolous" lawsuit. Two quick links explaining why:

Clicky
Clicky

I stand corrected. I looked it up myself and yep, McDonalds was at fault. Obviously, that doesn't overlook the fact that you couldn't rationally provide an argument (um, link?; providing some real info with your offtopic post instead of looking like a scab).

For example:

This page

You're just a coffee lover. A dickhead too for sure, but I can understand the need to defend those who partake of the burnt bean w/water ritual.

FALSE
McDonalds research showed that customers consumed coffee immediately while driving.
http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonalds.htm

Argh. This one bugs me, so I just gotta put in my $0.02, although I'll do it anonymously, since I'm a coward. :)

Please, read up about the McDonald's case before you go on about how ridiculous it was. There really was a valid case. Here's just one link with some info. There's plenty more. Google will help.

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.