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
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
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
 
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.
 

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.
 

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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"


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
 
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"
Click to expand...
 

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
Click to expand...


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?
 

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.
 
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 ?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Julia said:
I cannot think of anything more silly than placing it between your knees.
Click to expand...


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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming there isn't.

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

If there was, one would assume the consumer should have applied some dilligence. SP Trawler
Click to expand...

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.
 
sptrawler said:
I'm assuming there isn't.

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

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.
 
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...