# The $2.7m McDonald's hot coffee judgement



## basilio (1 April 2014)

I' m pretty sure almost everyone has heard of the $2.7million McDonalds hot coffee law suit.

The bare bones of the story are that a women bought a cup of coffee from McDonalds and  it spilt in her lap. She ended up suing McDonalds and was awarded  $2.7 million.

The case is probably one of the most widely known and talked about legal stories around.

So. What do people on this forum know/believe about the case ? What are your thoughts now about the legal system ? The jury that awarded these damages ? The media that reported the case ? The person who was burnt ?

Just interested ...


----------



## galumay (1 April 2014)

basilio said:


> What do people on this forum know/believe about the case ? .




As someone who is passionate about coffee, I know/believe that MacDonalds should be sued for calling their dishwater 'coffee'.


----------



## CanOz (1 April 2014)

I'm going to reply before i look it up so you get my laymen s position on it. I had a discussion of the litigious society the US has last weekend. 

It didn't surprise me when i heard the story/myth. Their medical care is so expensive because the courts award these crazy judgements, someone has to pay for the insurance and its passed on to the patient.. Their lawyers are just groomed to go after the big payouts and really they're likely the only ones who benefit. Australia and Canada really have much more reasonable settlements. There needs to be a balance..

Liability settlements should be enough to compensate the victim and make the defendant think twice about doing it again or preventing the injury from happening again wherever possible...

Now i'll go look it up and see if i come up with a different opinion once i learn the facts...


----------



## SirRumpole (1 April 2014)

galumay said:


> As someone who is passionate about coffee, I know/believe that MacDonalds should be sued for calling their dishwater 'coffee'.




This site allegedly gives the "facts", believe it or not.

https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=McDonaldsCoffeeCaseFacts

If true, MacDonalds is grossly negligent imo serving coffee that hot, given that accidents happen, and McDonalds has been sued before for the same offence.

Apparently, even paying out $3 million hasn't changed their practice.


----------



## CanOz (1 April 2014)

Having read the article i can see why you've asked the question Bas...i'll refrain mentioning anything more until a few people respond...

Hopefully others will respond on what they know at the time of reading your post rather than looking it up...


----------



## trainspotter (1 April 2014)

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced to $160,000 because she was deemed to have been 20 percent at fault. Liebeck also was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, about two days' sales of coffee by McDonald's, although the judge ultimately reduced that amount to $480,000.

She originally wanted to settle for $20,000 but Maccas declined the offer. 

My view is that accidents happen but unfortunately we live in a very litigious society whereby just about anyone can bring legal demands onto another for their own stupidity.


----------



## DB008 (1 April 2014)

I saw the pictures of the person involved.

Pretty bad burns.

If l can dig up the pictures, l'll post back.

It certainly changed my mind around the payout.

*Edit*
Have found pictures. I won't post, as they are pretty graphic, but involves pretty bad burns between the legs

And here is some more to the case - 

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

and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBKRjxeQnT4


----------



## Ves (1 April 2014)

It must be the 20 year anniversary of this case this year.   Fairly certain it was 1994.  She died about 10 years after this happened I believe in her early 90s.

The Stella Awards (which was her surname) are dedicated to finding court decisions on circumstances just as outrageous as her case.

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

This is a summary of the case with all of the court facts.     It doesn't seem as absurd after you have read through them as to why she took them to court.    The whole area of negligence can be incredibly grey.

Her injuries were horrific.  Two years of rehab and treatment.

By the way,  the jury assessed $2.7m in damages,  but the judge reduced this to $640k, comprised of $480,000 punitive damages and $160,000 for compensation.  Apparently on top of this there was another confidential settlement amount (to avoid an appeal case?) if I understand correctly which was obviously never released to the public.


----------



## basilio (1 April 2014)

Thanks for the responses and in particular Can Oz for picking up why I was raising the subject in the way I did.

TS outlined a number of the more salient points of the story - the original request by the women which was to simply cover her medical costs (rejected twice by McDonalds) the fact that in the end the final payout was far less than the reported $2.7m, the reasons behind the jury's  judgment.

DB also noted just how horrific the injuries were.  They was unbelievably ugly.

Just for interest check out following video which outlines the case in detail.

I'm still interested in peoples responses before they see the story and if/how their thoughts have changed.

Cheers

http://www.upworthy.com/ever-hear-a...n-herself-at-mcdonalds-then-sued-for-millions


----------



## sptrawler (1 April 2014)

Why did the cup split in her lap?

Was it because the cup was damaged?
Was it because it wasn't rated to the temperature of the coffee?
Was it due to damage inflicted after the coffee was dispensed and the customer had taken ownership?

If it was after the customer had taken ownership, why hadn't other cups split?

It wouldn't be the first time in history, that self harm has been done, in order to obtain financial gain. I'm not saying that is the case but I have heard of that being done.

I know it sounds heartless, but in a dog eat dog society like the U.S, it would appear to be a viable option.

The U.S doesn't have a welfare system like ours, therefore litigation for financial gain seems to be prevalent.

Once our welfare system is weighed down to the point of being unaffordable, we will adopt the same model.

Just keep funding the unaffordable, untill you can't fund the basics. Because you've run out of money.lol


----------



## SirRumpole (2 April 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Just keep funding the unaffordable, untill you can't fund the basics. Because you've run out of money.lol




McDonalds could well afford the payout. They could have got off with $20,000, but they were greedy. Tough luck to them.


----------



## Judd (2 April 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Why did the cup split in her lap?
> 
> Was it because the cup was damaged?
> Was it because it wasn't rated to the temperature of the coffee?
> ...





Possibly it's due to evolution not giving us brains to know that hot things can burn you or eyes to prevent us from being clumsy and tripping over things. :dunno:


----------



## basilio (2 April 2014)

> Why did the cup split in her lap?
> 
> Was it because the cup was damaged?
> Was it because it wasn't rated to the temperature of the coffee?
> ...




It would be worth seeing the video I referred to to answer your questions.

Paper cups are fragile and unstable.  There is always a risk of spillage.  The coffee was *scalding* hot. the temperature was such that contact with skin would cause immediate severe burns.

McDonalds knew the coffee was very hot. That was their policy.

There had been over 700 complaints made to Mcdonalds about burns caused by spills from hot coffee. This wasn't a one off incident.

As I said worth seeing the the whole story.


----------



## Trentb (2 April 2014)

This can be summed up with these two question

1. When does a person have a responsibility to look after their own safety?
2. When should another entity be responsible for another persons safety?

Where you lay blame will depend on your answers to those questions. You can argue McDonalds should have known better and provided better safety/warning or you can argue that it's common sense that a hot liquid can cause severe burns so be extremely careful with it and don't open it where you can spill it on yourself. 


My personal belief is that no-one should be held directly accountable for someone else's stupidity.  Blame and compensation from an individual/company should only be given when an injury occurs through negligence, incompetence or with fraud/malicious intent. I do feel that the society overall has to be compassionate and should take responsibility for healthcare, recovery and/or disability support of the person.


----------



## McLovin (2 April 2014)

Interesting. I had heard of the case but never actually read up on it. 



			
				Trentb said:
			
		

> My personal belief is that no-one should be held directly accountable for someone else's stupidity.




What element could be described as "stupidity"? The company owes a duty of care to its customer. This isn't ambulance chasing it's the foundation of the tort of negligence. It seems somewhat obvious to me that if you are going to serve something that if spilt or even consumed in the normal way can cause 3rd degree burns you have a responsibility to make your customer aware of the danger, especially given where customers may be consuming it. Compounding that is that McD's knew of the dangers but chose to ignore them (which in itself has shades of Ford Pinto).

Seems a fair judgement.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 April 2014)

Trentb said:


> My personal belief is that no-one should be held directly accountable for someone else's stupidity.  Blame and compensation from an individual/company should only be given when an injury occurs through negligence, incompetence or with fraud/malicious intent. I do feel that the society overall has to be compassionate and should take responsibility for healthcare, recovery and/or disability support of the person.




One of the points of this case was that even if the coffee was used as intended, ie drunk, it would be so hot as to cause burns to the mouth & tongue, and was therefore not in a fit state to be served. The company (imo) could be seen to be negligent in that it provided a product that was not safe for the normal use of the product.

Although you can't say the company was malicious, it seems to be a case of gross negligence without thought for the outcomes.


----------



## CanOz (2 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> One of the points of this case was that even if the coffee was used as intended, ie drunk, it would be so hot as to cause burns to the mouth & tongue, and was therefore not in a fit state to be served. The company (imo) could be seen to be negligent in that it provided a product that was not safe for the normal use of the product.
> 
> Although you can't say the company was malicious, it seems to be a case of gross negligence without thought for the outcomes.




Ok, fair point but what if they lowered the temperature and got too many complaints from the people that handled it carefully, only to drink it later when it was the perfect temperature, i.e. we they got to thier office etc...


----------



## SirRumpole (2 April 2014)

CanOz said:


> Ok, fair point but what if they lowered the temperature and got too many complaints from the people that handled it carefully, only to drink it later when it was the perfect temperature, i.e. we they got to thier office etc...




All they need to do is market it as  "ready to drink" and let the customer get an instant fix.


----------



## McLovin (2 April 2014)

CanOz said:


> Ok, fair point but what if they lowered the temperature and got too many complaints from the people that handled it carefully, only to drink it later when it was the perfect temperature, i.e. we they got to thier office etc...




Just put a warning on it that the contents are extremely hot and can cause severe burns. There is nothing wrong with selling something at that temperature as long as the customer is warned of the danger.


----------



## trainspotter (2 April 2014)

McLovin said:


> Just put a warning on it that the contents are extremely hot and can cause severe burns. There is nothing wrong with selling something at that temperature as long as the customer is warned of the danger.




It seems that this is all that is necessary to avoid a lawsuit now the dust (or coffee in this case) has settled.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2014)

I don't drink coffee (actually I've never drunk it, the smell is enough to put me off but each to their own) however I've never seen anyone make a cup of coffee without using boiling water.

I've always considered it to be common knowledge that coffee is hot. Just like it's common knowledge that petrol is flammable and that ice on the ground is slippery. I wouldn't have thought it necessary to tell anyone other than a young child that this is the case.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 April 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> I don't drink coffee (actually I've never drunk it, the smell is enough to put me off but each to their own) however I've never seen anyone make a cup of coffee without using boiling water.
> 
> I've always considered it to be common knowledge that coffee is hot. Just like it's common knowledge that petrol is flammable and that ice on the ground is slippery. I wouldn't have thought it necessary to tell anyone other than a young child that this is the case.




I think it's a matter of degrees


----------



## Julia (2 April 2014)

McLovin said:


> Just put a warning on it that the contents are extremely hot and can cause severe burns. There is nothing wrong with selling something at that temperature as long as the customer is warned of the danger.



Oh my goodness!  Who would possibly have guessed that a product purchased as hot coffee will actually be hot?
Seems about as silly as putting a label on a packet of sugar saying "people who are allergic to sugar should use caution in consuming this product".

The nanny state in extremis.  We are becoming so accustomed to dumbing down everything that people will increasingly decline to take personal responsibility about anything.
As usual, it's the lawyers who are the winners, again.


----------



## sptrawler (2 April 2014)

Julia said:


> Oh my goodness!  Who would possibly have guessed that a product purchased as hot coffee will actually be hot?
> Seems about as silly as putting a label on a packet of sugar saying "people who are allergic to sugar should use caution in consuming this product".
> 
> The nanny state in extremis.  We are becoming so accustomed to dumbing down everything that people will increasingly decline to take personal responsibility about anything.
> As usual, it's the lawyers who are the winners, again.




It will end up where you can only buy luke warm drinks.

The world has gone mad.


----------



## McLovin (2 April 2014)

Julia said:


> Oh my goodness!  Who would possibly have guessed that a product purchased as hot coffee will actually be hot?
> Seems about as silly as putting a label on a packet of sugar saying "people who are allergic to sugar should use caution in consuming this product".
> 
> The nanny state in extremis.  We are becoming so accustomed to dumbing down everything that people will increasingly decline to take personal responsibility about anything.
> As usual, it's the lawyers who are the winners, again.




There is a difference between hot and scalding. 

I would imagine that applying the reasonable person test would not yield someone believing that spilling a cup of coffee would cause third degree burns requiring skin grafts, maybe a slight burn, but if a product is intended to be ingested it's not unreasonable to believe that what you buy will be "ready to drink"; a product that will cause third degree burns is most certainly not that.  

I understand why they would deliver the product as scalding if it's intended to be drunk when the customer gets to work etc, by which time it has cooled, but equally it seems like warning a customer of the danger isn't asking a lot.


----------



## CanOz (2 April 2014)

Julia said:


> Oh my goodness!  Who would possibly have guessed that a product purchased as hot coffee will actually be hot?
> Seems about as silly as putting a label on a packet of sugar saying...




...Caution, Sweet.


----------



## sptrawler (2 April 2014)

McLovin said:


> There is a difference between hot and scalding.
> 
> I would imagine that applying the reasonable person test would not yield someone believing that spilling a cup of coffee would cause third degree burns, maybe a slight burn, but if a product is intended to be ingested it's not unreasonable to believe that what you buy will be "ready to drink". A product that will cause third degree burns is most certainly not that.
> 
> I understand why they would deliver the product as scalding if it's intended to be drunk when the customer gets to work etc, by which time it has cooled, but equally it seems like warning a customer of the danger isn't asking a lot.




My wife always asks for an extra hot latte, if it comes just hot, she takes it back and asks for a hotter one.

I can see there will be some problems coming up, I'll be asking her to order.


----------



## McLovin (2 April 2014)

sptrawler said:


> My wife always asks for an extra hot latte, if it comes just hot, she takes it back and asks for a hotter one.
> 
> I can see there will be some problems coming up, I'll be asking her to order.




You think? The case was settled 20 years ago. I'd say any changes were done years ago.


----------



## skc (2 April 2014)

This case made headlines because of the seemingly excessive $3m damages as much as the context of the case itself. 

However, the judge only awarded $160k as compensatory damages... which doesn't seem too outrageous for 3rd degree burns to 16% of the body, 8 days of hospitalisation and 2 years of disability. Think of it the other way, if someone pay you $160k would you let them do this to you? 

The rest of the sum, $2.7m, was for punitive damages. i.e. as punishment to McDonald, and not because the victim deserved it. You can argue that punitive damages should be paid to the State rather than the plaintiff. But seeing that the State is the one who determines such amount it opens up all sorts of potential conflict of interest. According to the link from Bas, this was reduced to $480k subsequently.

But the McDonald coffee case wouldn't be nearly as viral if we included all the facts and details.


----------



## McLovin (2 April 2014)

skc said:


> But the McDonald coffee case wouldn't be nearly as viral if we included all the facts and details.




If you want a really fun abuse of negligence law...



> A pimp is suing Nike for $100 million -- and says that its Air Jordan shoes failed to include a warning on them that they could be used as dangerous weapons after he used his own pair to beat a man.




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ce-refusing-pay-prostitute.html#ixzz2xjWqJPM8


----------



## basilio (3 April 2014)

Interesting to hear peoples reactions to this case.

To go back to where I started the question.


> What are your thoughts now about the legal system ? The jury that awarded these damages ? The media that reported the case ? The person who was burnt ?




Anyone like to offer thoughts on the above questions ?

Cheers


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2014)

basilio said:


> Interesting to hear peoples reactions to this case.
> 
> To go back to where I started the question.
> 
> ...




We can't comment too much on the legal system of another country, but based on the limited facts that we have I think overall McDonalds got what they deserved. The woman only asked for $20k originally, which seems reasonable considering her injuries. Her payout was reduced in part due to her own responsibility. McDonald's had a callous view of the woman's suffering and did not want to change their practises even though it was shown there was a public risk in consuming their product in normal use.


----------



## McLovin (3 April 2014)

basilio said:


> Interesting to hear peoples reactions to this case.
> 
> To go back to where I started the question.
> 
> ...




On the question of whether McD's was negligent, it seems to me that the facts taken at face value, ie that they knew the coffee could cause serious burns and did nothing to either (a) serve the coffee at cooler temperatures or (b) warn customers of the danger was negligent.

On punitive damages, I don't think these should be awarded by juries. They are members of the public who are there to make findings of fact. They don't have the necessary experience or knowledge to award punitive damages. Virtually all civil cases in Australia are judge only and punitive damages are pretty rare. So a jury awarding punitive damages here is not at all common.

The media was half arsed as per usual.

The woman had a legitimate claim, IMO, for actual damages. The punitive damages awarded seem to be arrived at in such an arbitrary way (ie two days worth of coffee revenue) that it's not much better than sticking your finger in the air and coming up with a number, which is again why I think juries should not be able to award punitive damages.


----------



## CanOz (3 April 2014)

How did McDonald's get what they deserved? They served " hot coffee " .... The lovely little old lady spilled the coffee...

I'm guessing that McDonald's eventually settled to avoid a bad public image. If that had been a 300lb truck driver, I don't think the public would have been so concerned. 

If McDonald's are guilty of one thing, it's likely that they underestimated the possible public reaction to the little old lady being burned by coffee from the big bad corporation. They should have settled for an undisclosed amount right away....


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2014)

CanOz said:


> How did McDonald's get what they deserved? They served " hot coffee " .... The lovely little old lady spilled the coffee...
> 
> I'm guessing that McDonald's eventually settled to avoid a bad public image. If that had been a 300lb truck driver, I don't think the public would have been so concerned.
> 
> If McDonald's are guilty of one thing, it's likely that they underestimated the possible public reaction to the little old lady being burned by coffee from the big bad corporation. They should have settled for an undisclosed amount right away....




The word "hot" in this case is so broad as to be meaningless.

 100 deg is hot 180 deg is a lot hotter. One is comfortable to drink, the other is not. That should have been made clear by the vendor.


----------



## trainspotter (3 April 2014)

Who would have thunk it? McDonald's makes you fat ... so what do you do?



> A Brazilian court has ordered McDonald's to pay a former franchise manager $US17,500 ($18,000) because he gained 29kg while working there for 12 years.
> 
> The 32-year-old man says he was forced to sample food products each day to ensure that quality standards remained high because McDonald's hired "mystery clients" to randomly visit restaurants and report on the food, service and cleanliness.
> 
> The man also says McDonald's offered free lunches to employees, adding to his kilojoule intake while on the job.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/die...onalds-wins-20101029-176kx.html#ixzz2xmI3vecj

What's next ... a warning on the wrapper it comes in saying over eating will make you fat?





As for basilio asking the question of what the jury thought in awarding that much in punitive damages? Outrageous and the judge restricted the payout to a smaller sum.

As for the media hype that went along with it I think as per usual the press love to target large companies when the smallest incident arises but when a major problem occurs it is swept under the carpet for fear of losing advertising dollars. As per what the other ASFers have posted already a little old lady with burns on her body is newsworthy. 

Speaking of redonkolous claims I can't wait for the Lara Bingle and papparazzo to hit the courts !!!


----------



## DB008 (3 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The word "hot" in this case is so broad as to be meaningless.
> 
> 100 deg is hot 180 deg is a lot hotter. One is comfortable to drink, the other is not. That should have been made clear by the vendor.




I don't know if back then, the lids had the warning label 'caution hot' on it either.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2014)

trainspotter said:


> Who would have thunk it? McDonald's makes you fat ... so what do you do?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Seems to me that there is a lot of difference between scalding coffee which can cause serious burns by accident and obesity caused by long term deliberate over ingestion of un nutritious food.


----------



## CanOz (3 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Seems to me that there is a lot of difference between scalding coffee which can cause serious burns by accident and obesity caused by long term deliberate over ingestion of un nutritious food.




The coffee must be boiled in order to be 'safe' by McDonald's food safety standards, hopefully you can accept that part... In addition to this people actually expect coffee to be HOT unless its Ice Coffee, in the three or four countries I've lived in anyway. 

So how is anyone going to control the temperature of the coffee delivered to the customer that expects HOT coffee? Well McDonald's likely answer is to control the temperature that its held at, as high to boiling as possible, without boiling, so the customer gets a consistent experience and they don't evaporate too much coffee. After all, the consistency in experience is what they are after, they want as little variation as possible...

I don't think warnings and signs are the answer, as studies prove that people tend to ignore these after the first or second sightings...

There is an element of due care to be assumed by the customer. The warnings will only release the vendor from the responsibility...and ultimately the penalty of having to pay for another person's mistake.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2014)

CanOz said:


> The coffee must be boiled in order to be 'safe' by McDonald's food safety standards, hopefully you can accept that part... In addition to this people actually expect coffee to be HOT unless its Ice Coffee, in the three or four countries I've lived in anyway.




<sigh icon>

People expect coffee that is hot enough for them to be able to drink immediately without burning their tongues off.

That was not the case when the woman got burned, and the 700 before her.


----------



## CanOz (3 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> <sigh icon>
> 
> People expect coffee that is hot enough for them to be able to drink immediately without burning their tongues off.
> 
> That was not the case when the woman got burned, and the 700 before her.




Ok, lets assume that McDonald's did a survey and indeed people want to be able to drink the coffee immediately versus take it away and drink it when they arrive at the place of consumption. How do you suggest they control the temperature of the beverages to be 







> hot enough for them to be able to drink immediately without burning their tongues off




They need to quantify it and put in place an automated control for this, they cannot rely on people to make this decision qualitatively as everybody has different tolerance levels for HOT. So the easiest way is to control the holding temperature. It needs to be hot enough to travel, yet not evaporate while on the holding burner. 

If people are concerned its too hot, they should do as they do at home and add more milk, let it cool etc. That's likely the expectation that they have in regards to the consumer. To take some responsibility. 

When i make my coffee at home, it comes out of the pot boiling hot. Now if i'm using my french press, its has the time to cool before i drink as its sits and steeps. If I'm using my Italian espresso maker, i need to allow the coffee to cool even after i put the milk in, because its bloody hot and i know this from experience.


----------



## McLovin (3 April 2014)

CanOz said:


> If people are concerned its too hot, they should do as they do at home and add more milk, let it cool etc. That's likely the expectation that they have in regards to the consumer. To take some responsibility.




Here's a chart of time taken to produce 3rd degree burns...





McD's was serving coffee at between 82 and 88 degrees. Burning would be virtually instantaneous. So how would someone determine its too hot without burning themselves? If McD's wants to serve coffee at that temperature then they should be warning their customers that the contents are not safe to be drunk immediately and that contact with the skin can cause severe burns, more than just putting a "caution contents hot" warning. That, to me, is the salient point.


----------



## CanOz (3 April 2014)

McLovin said:


> Here's a chart of time taken to produce 3rd degree burns...
> 
> View attachment 57449
> 
> ...




I accept that its bloody hot:burn:, I've likely burnt my tongue a couple times on it, or others like it. 

My point is though that simply putting a warning on the cup is only to benefit the vendor, as the 'human' that drinks it will likely not pay attention to the warning. Further to that, they'll likely get customer complaints once they lower the temperature down. This can only happen by taking the coffee off the boil, then allowing it to cool or staging the drinks so they have time to cool before serving them. The fact remains the coffee MUST boil to be micro-biologically safe, then cooled to be burn safe. Inevitably there will be servings that are too cool for customers.


----------



## basilio (3 April 2014)

It's probably a digression but the question of dealing safely with hot to scalding water has been recognised and  addressed in the hot water industry for many years now - but not before thousands of babies, older people, and those just unlucky or careless got 3rd degree burns.

For a long time domestic hot water systems could heat water to 80 plus C. Obviously its hot, clearly one should be "careful" and so on. In reality accidents/incidents happen regularly. 

In the end governments and health authorities regulated to ensure that hot water systems were kept to 50-55Cc to prevent forseeable injuries. Would we ever consider going back to scalding hot water systems ?

__________________________________________________________________________

Any way my point with the topic was exploring how public perceptions of events can be shaped by media which in many cases just doesn't give a full picture. In some cases certain interests will distort or omit important facts to create their own version of the events.

I was also wondering if actually seeing the full picture changes peoples minds even after 20 years of "being certain"  about something.

____________________________________________________

I was wrong....

It seems as if UK didn't have  legislation to prevent scalding from home hot water systems until at least 2005. And guess what ? It was the Conservatives who protested that such steps were simply part of the nanny state and an unnecessary cost to industry.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3318578/So-Mr-Prescott-how-hot-should-my-bath-be.html


----------



## CanOz (3 April 2014)

Anyway, I've enjoyed this discussion as its been interesting. I feel really bad for the poor old lady and quite happy that they paid her medical bills and bit for pain and suffering etc... or whatever they called it, but at the same time i feel the frustration that the vendor would have felt too. My point of view is coming from a customer focused food business back ground.


----------



## McLovin (3 April 2014)

CanOz said:


> I accept that its bloody hot:burn:, I've likely burnt my tongue a couple times on it, or others like it.
> 
> My point is though that simply putting a warning on the cup is only to benefit the vendor, as the 'human' that drinks it will likely not pay attention to the warning. Further to that, they'll likely get customer complaints once they lower the temperature down. This can only happen by taking the coffee off the boil, then allowing it to cool or staging the drinks so they have time to cool before serving them. The fact remains the coffee MUST boil to be micro-biologically safe, then cooled to be burn safe. Inevitably there will be servings that are too cool for customers.




I don't have a problem with them serving it at 100c if they want. I do think that they have a duty of care to warn their customers that the coffee is bloody hot, beyond generic warnings like "caution hot", especially when the company knew that 6-7 people/month were getting burnt or scalded to varying degrees. If the customer chooses to ignore those warnings then they only have themselves to blame.


----------



## basilio (3 April 2014)

Seems the McDonalds coffee burn story has had a number of reviews recently.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-hot-coffee-McDonalds-lawsuit-The-truth.html


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2014)

basilio said:


> Any way my point with the topic was exploring how public perceptions of events can be shaped by media which in many cases just doesn't give a full picture. In some cases certain interests will distort or omit important facts to create their own version of the events.
> 
> I was also wondering if actually seeing the full picture changes peoples minds even after 20 years of "being certain"  about something.




A quick read of the case changed my mind. Like most people I originally thought "stupid woman", but getting the facts of the temperature the coffee was served, and the previous complaints changed my mind.


----------



## trainspotter (3 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> A quick read of the case changed my mind. Like most people I originally thought "stupid woman", but getting the facts of the temperature the coffee was served, and the previous complaints changed my mind.




If I ruled the world EVERYTHING would have a warning written on it "Stupid people deserve what they get and are not allowed to litigate in case of injury"



> Mrs. Liebeck was not driving the car at the time the coffee spilled on her. Actually she was seated in the front passenger seat and the car was stopped in the parking lot. She had the *coffee between her knees* and was attempting to take off the top so she could pour cream and sugar into it.




http://www.higherlegal.com/the-famous-McDonalds-coffee-product-liability-case.html

Sooooooooo she was holding the cup between her knees (worlds best industry practice) sitting inside a parked vehicle (best spot to put sugar and cream in your coffee) attempting to take the lid off and it spills. 

I had a gas leak the other day and the lights were out so I went and got my cigarette lighter .... you know the rest


----------



## basilio (3 April 2014)

Gee your rough TS.. 

Take away coffee.  One would expect that most of these would be drunk in cars wouldn't they ?  Or would you take them home to drink?

Adding sugar and cream while seated in car ? I can see how it seems more practical to do so with the coffee between your legs rather than trying to hold it with one hand and take the top off with the other hand. These were flimsy paper cups remember. When you take off the top the sides have little strength

The top sticks. The coffee spills.  This is a hot mess if the coffee is at 55-60c.  At the temperature that McDonalds served it it was a certain to cause serious burns. 

These are all quite forseeable events. And the coffee did not have to be at the temperature they served it. If you checked out the story the main point Stella wanted changed was reducing the coffees temp to save other people the tragedy that she had suffered.

And yet your take away view is that 


> Stupid people deserve what they get and are not allowed to litigate in case of injury"


----------



## trainspotter (3 April 2014)

basilio said:


> Gee your rough TS..
> 
> Take away coffee.  One would expect that most of these would be drunk in cars wouldn't they ?  Or would you take them home to drink?
> 
> ...




There you have it ... an accident. Nothing more and nothing less. Coffee is HOT... so what do you do with it in a flimsy cup? Place it between your knees of course. Did she not feel the heat through the flimsy cup? 

In your own words 







> These are all quite foreseeable events





Stella got what she wanted ... coffee from Maccas now has a warning sign on the cups saying "Caution HOT" as per my previous post with pretty picture and they now serve it at a greatly reduced temperature. -10 degrees I believe?


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2014)

basilio said:


> For a long time domestic hot water systems could heat water to 80 plus C. Obviously its hot, clearly one should be "careful" and so on. In reality accidents/incidents happen regularly.
> 
> In the end governments and health authorities regulated to ensure that hot water systems were kept to 50-55Cc to prevent forseeable injuries. Would we ever consider going back to scalding hot water systems ?




A key point there however is that the current regulations require the tank to be kept at 60 degrees or higher then diluted down to 50 before reaching the tap. 

It needs to be over 60 for a long time to ensure that bacteria doesn't grow in the tank, or raised to 70 to kill them instantly.

Back to the coffee, I've never seen a kettle with a thermostat that turns off below boiling point. So people would always be using water at very close to 100 degrees to make coffee with. It would cool somewhat due to the cup, coffee and milk being cold but at a guess it would still be somewhere around 80 once they are added.


----------



## Julia (3 April 2014)

basilio said:


> In the end governments and health authorities regulated to ensure that hot water systems were kept to 50-55Cc to prevent forseeable injuries. Would we ever consider going back to scalding hot water systems ?



Once again we have governments interfering in our personal lives.  I do not want the government in my bathroom.  Prior to the current regulated temperature, it was up to the individual family to take responsibility for setting the temperature to what they wanted on the cylinder.  I liked mine very hot to allow for more cold water to be added and thus provide a greater volume of water.

Surely people are going to test the temperature with the tip of a finger before immersing their whole body in it?

Just sick of the nanny state telling us what is best for us.



trainspotter said:


> There you have it ... an accident. Nothing more and nothing less. Coffee is HOT... so what do you do with it in a flimsy cup? Place it between your knees of course. Did she not feel the heat through the flimsy cup?



Finally someone has made the basic common sense point.  If you pick up a hot cup of coffee, do you not perceive via your hand on the outside of the cup that it's too hot to drink if that's the case?  I cannot think of anything more silly than placing it between your knees.


----------



## sptrawler (3 April 2014)

Julia said:


> I cannot think of anything more silly than placing it between your knees.





The courts need to draw up a matrix, that tests the responsibilities of both parties, with regard duty of care, and personal responsibility.

The matrix may have put the onus on the consumer, for not adding the extra ingredients before entering the vehicle.
If they had placed the cup on a stable platform before removing the lid, the spill wouldn't have happened.


----------



## Ves (3 April 2014)

sptrawler said:


> The courts need to draw up a matrix, that tests the responsibilities of both parties, with regard duty of care, and personal responsibility.
> 
> The matrix may have put the onus on the consumer, for not adding the extra ingredients before entering the vehicle.
> If they had placed the cup on a stable platform before removing the lid, the spill wouldn't have happened.



Do you know for a fact that there is not something similar in place now or are you just assuming that there is not?


----------



## sptrawler (3 April 2014)

Ves said:


> Do you know for a fact that there is not something similar in place now or are you just assuming that there is not?




I'm assuming there isn't.

If there was, one would assume the consumer should have applied some dilligence.


----------



## basilio (4 April 2014)

sptrawler said:


> *I'm assuming there isn't.*
> 
> If there was, one would assume the consumer should have applied some dilligence.   SP Trawler




In the McDonalds case (like all similar cases) the court does look at the liabilities of each party. Stella was judged to be 20% liable and the payment was reduced by 20%.

Julia your comment about "the nanny state" is interesting.  I suggest it reflects the  language used by a conservative  political party that says people should take responsibility for themselves and that  business and the government  can't be expected protect people from all sorts of things. The use of the phrase itself is intended to simply dismiss the proposed idea with as little discussion as possible. 

I see the phrase used whenever  some sort of consumer protection  idea is raised which will curtail  a free market unfettered right to  do what it likes and maximise its profit. 

The rationale behind anti scald taps is hundreds/thousands of children and older people who end up with very serious burns as result of accidents . On a purely selfish note when you see the cost to society of treating these burns there is an economic case for the action.

50 years ago the same argument was used to decry the fitting of seat belts to cars and making it compulsory to wear them.


----------



## Ves (4 April 2014)

sptrawler said:


> I'm assuming there isn't.
> 
> If there was, one would assume the consumer should have applied some dilligence.



If there is anything that negligence and other common law cases teach you in my somewhat limited experience with them at university it is that just assuming that something is the case can lead to a lot of problems.


----------



## Julia (4 April 2014)

basilio said:


> Julia your comment about "the nanny state" is interesting.  I suggest it reflects the  language used by a conservative  political party that says people should take responsibility for themselves and that  business and the government  can't be expected protect people from all sorts of things.



Alternatively, you could suggest that I'm actually capable of thinking for myself and am not restricted to parroting any comments by any political party.



> The use of the phrase itself is intended to simply dismiss the proposed idea with as little discussion as possible.



So now you are able to interpret the opinions and language of others?   You may like the State running your life but I don't.  Therefore what I say simply reflects how I feel about an issue.  If you want to endlessly discuss any issue and promote government intervention in your personal existence, you can go for your life.



> The rationale behind anti scald taps is hundreds/thousands of children and older people who end up with very serious burns as result of accidents .



All those families had the option of setting the temperature of their hot water cylinders to what was suitable for them.  No one insisted on it being extremely hot.  Again, simply asking individuals to take responsibility for themselves.


----------



## McLovin (4 April 2014)

basilio said:


> I see the phrase used whenever  some sort of consumer protection  idea is raised which will curtail  a free market unfettered right to  do what it likes and maximise its profit.
> 
> The rationale behind anti scald taps is hundreds/thousands of children and older people who end up with very serious burns as result of accidents . On a purely selfish note when you see the cost to society of treating these burns there is an economic case for the action.
> 
> 50 years ago the same argument was used to decry the fitting of seat belts to cars and making it compulsory to wear them.




Aren't you overreaching a bit now? The case in question was about whether McD's was negligent in its duty of care toward its customers, not whether they should or shouldn't be serving scalding hot drinks. The jury seems to have arrived at its verdict because of the lack of warning given to customers, not because the drink was excessively hot. Selling something that is too hot to drink is not in itself negligent anymore than selling Drano could be considered negligent because of what it can do to exposed skin. The difference is that Drano has big warnings on it about burns on contact with skin.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 April 2014)

Julia said:


> Again, simply asking individuals to take responsibility for themselves.




Do you have car insurance ? Why not take financial responsibility yourself for damage you cause ?

I'm sure McDonalds had public liability insurance too.


----------



## trainspotter (4 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you have car insurance ? Why not take financial responsibility yourself for damage you cause ?
> 
> I'm sure McDonalds had public liability insurance too.




You are not really getting the gist of this thread are you? Public Liability is there for a reason in case of "accidents"  and not for vexatious litigation as Stella was originally lumped into. It was not until the seriousness of her injuries and the FACT that over 700 complaints over a 10 year period had occurred which led to the damages being awarded.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 April 2014)

trainspotter said:


> You are not really getting the gist of this thread are you? Public Liability is there for a reason in case of "accidents"  and not for vexatious litigation as Stella was originally lumped into. It was not until the seriousness of her injuries and the FACT that over 700 complaints over a 10 year period had occurred which led to the damages being awarded.




One persons "accident" is another persons stupidity. Stella was found to be 20% responsible, so that was taken into account. Virtually every traffic accident I would say is forseeable to a degree, and yet we all have insurance in case we are dreaming while driving, not watching where we are going or get distracted by the kids at the wrong moment. Give it a break, people are not robots.


----------



## trainspotter (4 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> One persons "accident" is another persons stupidity. Stella was found to be 20% responsible, so that was taken into account. Virtually every traffic accident I would say is forseeable to a degree, and yet we all have insurance in case we are dreaming while driving, not watching where we are going or get distracted by the kids at the wrong moment. Give it a break, people are not robots.




There is a huge difference between being inattentive behind the wheel and sticking a boiling hot cup of coffee between your legs. Check out the Darwin Awards for degradation of the gene pool. 

I was inferring that the thread was originally posted to invoke a response as to what "culpable" meant to the fellow ASFers and you have gone off on a tangent that we should all be self funded insurance companies so that when a stupid accident occurs the monetary shift is towards the plaintiff.

Also huge difference in "public liability" and "damage" insurance. For instance did you know if you employ a contractor to work on your home and you do not have contractors insurance (not public liability) attached to your home insurance, you are personally responsible if the contractor injures themselves whilst working on your property.  Even if they have their own personal insurance !!

http://www.higherlegal.com/the-famous-McDonalds-coffee-product-liability-case.html

It was McDonald's defense that let them down .....



> McDonald’s had over 700 coffee burn claims filed against it before this claim and was well aware that its coffee was burning people all over the country. It had already paid out over $500,000 due to prior burn injuries.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 April 2014)

trainspotter said:


> There is a huge difference between being inattentive behind the wheel and sticking a boiling hot cup of coffee between your legs. Check out the Darwin Awards for degradation of the gene pool.
> 
> ...




Whatever, but it's all over now and maybe the publicity has resulted in a few less people burning themselves.


----------



## basilio (4 April 2014)

When I started the thread I was interested in peoples initial understandings of the McDonalds hot coffee case because  it has become so infamous. When the details of the case come out  it becomes clear that the assumptions  that this was a frivolous, money hungry attempt to  squeeze McDonald's just weren't true.

_( Stella initially only wanted enough money to pay for her medical bills - this was refused ;the injuries were extremely severe ; McDonalds had 700 prior complaints about burns from hot coffee; the final payout was far smaller than initially suggested.)_

My interest was seeing if/how any people changed their attitudes to Stella, the Courts and McDonalds after learning all the facts. 

Thanks for your responses. It was a good discussion.

Cheers


----------



## Ves (4 April 2014)

basilio said:


> My interest was seeing if/how any people changed their attitudes to Stella, the Courts and McDonalds after learning all the facts.



For all of the pretense of humans,  controlled studies have shown that they change their minds much, much less often than they actually think they do.


----------

