Slashdot Mirror

That hot coffee case was far from frivolous and is a good example of how the system works, not how the system is broken. People should be responsible for their actions, true, but corporations shouldn't get a free pass to do what they want, either.

In the Sony case I'm hoping there's some way both companies can lose.

The coffee as-poured by McDonalds is ~82 degrees C. I boil a kettle, immediately pour the water into the cup, add creamer and server. It's likely to be far hotter (close to 100 degrees C) than the coffee at McDonalds. I drink (well, sip) it pretty much straight-away as well. So does everyone I know.

THIRD DEGREE BURNS oughtn't be the issue. Did you know that if you put your hand into a fully-operational blender, your hands will turn into LIQUIDISED FLESH. It's such an unbelievably stupid act that no-one would have much sympathy for you though. As no-one has much sympathy for the woman who puts not-even-boiling-hot coffee between her thighs and (get this!) does so while she's driving.

- From an earlier post on Digg -

I'm sorry, I guess I'm just sick of this "defence" of stupidity, in the case of the McDonald's coffee case.

Coffee is *made* with boiling-hot water. It is *supposed* to be scalding-hot. I don't care whether it's plus or minus a few degrees of the average scalding-hot water that coffee is usually made with - that shouldn't be the issue, it'll still hurt like hell. The issue ought to be "did the defendent do something unbelievably stupid or was the company negligent". The answer is that *yes*, she did something stupid; she put a frail paper-cup of scalding-hot water between her thighs and then (presumably involuntarily) squeezed her legs together.

Yes, she was hurt, badly. Yes, McDonalds could have made the coffee at a lower temperature, and they were making it hotter for commercial reasons. Both of those are true and neither ought to be relevant. The decision ought to have been based on whether what she did was a reasonable thing to do with *any* fresh cup of coffee - basically whether she should have expected to have been able to pour said cup of coffee over her without injury. I invite anyone defending her to make *themselves* a cup of coffee and pour it over their thighs (at your own risk, of course) - it'll scald you just as badly.

That is in fact what the McDonalds lawyer ought to have done. Simply made a fresh cup of coffee in the court, and asked for volunteers (judge, jury if it was a jury trial ?) to have scalding-hot coffee poured over them. Anyone defending her case would presumably consider *normal* scalding-hot coffee to be non-injurious to human skin.

McDonalds only have a "reasonable" burden of care - if the coffee-cup had dissolved and the contents scalded her, I think we'd all be behind her, but it didn't. People have too little sense of personal responsibility these days, it's easier to sue and "donate" the blame to someone else. It's a sad day for society in general when gross stupidity is defended against common sense.

None of this means I don't feel sorry for her, by the way - I do. I just also think it was her fault, and given that she's become the poster-child for incongruous lawsuits, I think a lot of other people feel the same way. I also think it's a travesty when the courts are overflowing with cases, and innocent people rot in jail awaiting their trial while stupid things like this waste court time; I think there'd be a lot less cases like this if the loser-pays-costs model was adopted, as in the UK, but that's another issue.

Simon.

It's somewhat like the McD case, where the woman sued and got about $3 million b/c McD's coffee is hot.

The jurors thought the same thing, and one even remarked "I can't believe I'm here to settle a coffee spill.". They changed their minds very quickly once the evidence came out. Most people do.

Although I agree with your entire idea, you are very much wrong about the McDonalds "hot coffee" lawsuit.

I'll quote one of the articles about this. I'll try to sum it up so the lazy don't have to read the article, but I highly encourage doing some research.

Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years of settling coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one to trial. After all, the plaintiff was a sympathetic figure - an articulate, 81-year-old former department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed suit before. In fact, she said, she never would have filed this one if McDonald's hadn't dismissed her requests for compensation for pain and medical bills with an offer of $800.
This wasn't your typical frivilous suit. McDonalds refused to compensate her for 7 days in the hospital, third degree burns, and skin grafts. They refused to settle for her medical bills. So she decided to take a case to court. For the first time ever.

When the panel reached the jury room, it swiftly arrived at the conclusion that McDonald's was liable. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," says Ms. Farnham. "They were not taking care of their consumers."

Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.

The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million.

POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.

McDonalds had filed over 700 settlements relating to coffee burns in the years prior to this 1994 suit. They served their coffee over 20 degrees hotter than other restaurants. The difference between 180 degrees F and 160 degrees F is rather large. We're talking about whether you'll get a third degree burn in 2 seconds or whether it'll take 20 seconds. Consider how quickly you can react, and how quickly the coffee can cool off, you're fairly likely to stave off severe third degree burns with the slightly cooler coffee. McDonalds said they did this on the advice of their coffee experts, but it seems more likely that they merely wanted to keep the same crappy coffee good longer.

I can't find all my links, but if memory serves right they had already been warned by governmental agencies, burn centers, and lawsuits from previous incidents. McDonald's executive Mr. Appleton even testified that they knew the coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but had never consulted a burn specialist nor did they have any plans to decrease the temperature of the coffee in the future.

Basically, McDonalds was serving their coffee much hotter than the safe temperatures to serve coffee at. Third degree burns like this are extremely painful, require hospitalization, skin grafts, and lead to permanent disfigurement and sometimes disability. Add to that the percentage of these burns being to the groin and buttocks, and I'm sure you'll see why

Maybe it's this http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.ht m grandma.
See, it's another dupe.

Around September 1, 1994

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.ht m

Sorry, wrong again. Look here, and here for instance. In order to PRESERVE, not MASK the flavor, coffee should be served between 175 and 185 degrees Fahrenheit. McDonalds served theirs at 180 degrees, smack dab in the middle of the recommended range. I don't know about you, but I like a GOOD cup of coffee. But that implies a HOT cup of coffee.

The lawsuit was frivolous. People handle dangerous compounds all the time --- gasoline, drain cleaners, etc. People need to learn to BE CAREFUL.

it's the lawyers drumming up new business.

Actually, the lawyers may end up suing the advertising agency or the advertised company for the offending advertisement, so in this case litigation may end up actually doing good by stopping their use. Remember the McDonald's Hot Cofee Lawsuit?

A friend of mine lost the use of her computer which she needed for work because of an email virus a while back. Considering that it was an Outlook Express exploit, it was Microsoft's shoddy programming that resulted in the loss of livelihood. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a class action lawsuit like the one filed against FireStone. If a company distributes a faulty product, they are liable and have to recall the product. I don't understand why someone can sue McDonald's for getting burned by coffee, yet Microsoft's liability with regards to a faulty product affected by viruses and exploits has gone unchallenged for years.

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

Coffee is made by boiling ground coffee beans in (surprise!) boiling water.

Actually, at most restaurants (McDonald's included) it's made by steam. Water is boiled, the steam is collected and when it condenses it drips through the coffee grounds. By the time it's servable, it can have cooled to quite a lower temperature than the 212 F required to boil the water in the first place.

A simple test was done to compare coffee temperatures, and nobody came within 20 degrees F of the 180 McDonald's kept theirs.

She never asked for $3MM, the jury awarded her that amount because of McDonald's stance on the issue. That large amount was a punishment for McDonald's having received numerous complaints and not doing anything about it.

The lady in question only brought the lawsuit after finding out that McDonalds had known about the problems their coffee temp had been causing for over 10 years. The 80 year old woman was a passenger in the car and spilled it while taking the lid off to add cream and sugar. In the strange universe that SCO lives within, they would argue that the cream and sugar were responsible for her injuries...

But she sued for medical expenses for her third degree burns and Mickey Ds didn't settle like they had for the more than 700 coffee related injury reports they had received before this lady was burned. Read the story and see if it seems that McDonalds and SCO have some of the same assholes at the helm.

Bleh, if you're going to use a source, at least make sure it supports your argument . . .

The link answers the question "What is the best temperature to brew coffee?" Not "What is the best temperature to serve coffee?"

According to this study most of the subjects liked their coffee at ~140F.

This review of coffee machines (scroll down to the end of the page and look at "2 Temperature") states "Also, to maintain your coffee at the ideal drinking temperature of 160 degrees, preheat your cup for about ten seconds using steam or hot water." (emphasis added)

So, while you may have a higher pain threshold than many, and like to risk burns, I think it's reasonbale to ask providers not to serve a product which "can cause third-degree burns (the worst kind) in two to seven seconds." (Quotation from the bottom of this article)

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 knew their coffee was hot enough to cause third-degree burns within a few seconds' contact, but said they did not intend on lowering the temperature, because as one juror put it "[McDonald's has a] callous disregard for the safety of the people."

Oh, and by the way, the lady initially asked for compensation for her medical bills but was offered a minuscule amount that wouldn't cover the bills. The jury awarded $2.7 punitive and $160,000 in compensatory damages (the latter reduced from $200,000 because she was partially responsible), but the judge reduced the punitive to $480,000. McDonald's then settled for something much less (sealed to prevent curious eyes from seeing).

That was a valid lawsuit, and had nothing to do with being a dumbass:
http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.ht m

• She only sued after Mcdonalds failed to settle for just the costs of treatment and time lost for work.
• McDonalds had already seen at least 700 complaints about the coffee tempature previously
• The jury awarded WAY more than she initially sued for. ($100,000 plus whatever the jury felt was fair punitive damages)
• The judge dropped the settlement to $640,000, which was still more than the initial suit was for because it was "appropriate to punish and deter" McDonalds

Perhaps some references about the hot coffee case are in order.

Yep. Confirmation:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

She was a passenger, and the car was at a standstill. Also interesting:

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.ht m

People who harp on this as some sort of miscarriage of justice need to stop listening to the media's sensational headlines, and actually look at the facts. McDonalds acted recklessly. They knew they were serving coffee that was much hotter than other establishments, and much more dangerous than most consumers would ever believe. Yet, they did nothing, after 700+ cases of burns. They didn't even consult a burn specialist to ask if perhaps they needed to cut the temperature down.

They were at fault.

Must be nice being so self-righteous - even if you wrong.

McDonalds was told the coffee was to hot, but they ignored that fact and did not lower the temperature of their coffee. The reason? If they kept it hotter, it did not have to be thrown out as often, so they spent less on supplies - like coffee.

McDonalds paid out several claims for burns before the lady in question got burned. Over 700 claims submitted, unknown how many were paid - however one woman was paid over $230,000. They did not lower the temperature, as they expected they would gain more money by not throwing out the stale coffee than they paid out in claims for burns.

McDonalds modified the coffee cups so that the lid was an integral part, providing structural support. The lady in question was burned in a car that was sitting still because she took the lid off to add cream/sugar/something. Taking the lid off weakened the cup enough that it collapsed, spilling hot coffee on her and burning her to the point of needing skin grafts.

McDonalds expert witness, paid $15,000 (only $5,000 less than Ms. Liebeck wanted in the first place!), "Dr. Knaff told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually.

To jurors, Dr. Knaff seemed to be saying that the graphic photos they had seen of Mrs. Liebeck's burns didn't matter because they were rare."

Interviews with the jurors after the verdict show that almost all of them went into the case thinking just like you, that coffee is hot, and if you spill some on yourself, then you deal with it. As the case was presented to them, they went to the side of the plaintiff when they understood the "callous disregard for the safety of the people." The verdict was for $200,000, reduced by 20% as the jury found Ms. Liebeck that much at fault.

The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages.

Some jurors wanted to give punitive damages of up to $9.6M, but settled on $2.7M - the equivalent of 2 days coffee sales by McDonalds. The judge lowered the punitive damages to teh legal limit of three times actual damages, or $480,000. McDonalds and Ms. Liebeck then reached an agreement out-of-court for an undisclosed sum.

Bottom line is she was, with no warning, put in a dangerous situation by McDonalds actions and conduct, and was injured - and a jury held McDonalds liable. In addition, the (excessive? Two days sales of coffee?) award of punitive damages was not enforced as the law already limited punitive damage awards to 3x actual damages.

SURGEON GENERALS WARNING
Living life can be hazardous to your health
If you do not accept these terms please self abort now

I agree, but think it can be summed up better by
"Life is not fair. Get over it."

I was unaware that there were two seperate coffee-spilling suits against McDonalds.

Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

I have counted more than 4 suits mentioned in reports of the procedings of this trial, the others were settled for amounts ranging from $27,000 to $230,000 - so you are correct, there are valid reasons for confusion when talking about "a suit against McDonalds reguarding spilled coffee".

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.