This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The $2.7m McDonald's hot coffee judgement

Jump to new
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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.
 
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...
Click to expand...

...Caution, Sweet.
 

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

Anyone like to offer thoughts on the above questions ?

Cheers
 
basilio said:
Interesting to hear peoples reactions to this case.

To go back to where I started the question.


Anyone like to offer thoughts on the above questions ?

Cheers
Click to expand...

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.
 
basilio said:
Interesting to hear peoples reactions to this case.

To go back to where I started the question.


Anyone like to offer thoughts on the above questions ?

Cheers
Click to expand...

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


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 !!!
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

<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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...