Is McDonalds Selectively Killing Americans?
- Thread starter SteveGrenard
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mcdonalds
...whilst being a passenger in a moving vehicle, yes.
That, too. Maybe even worse since you aren't in control of the vehicle and don't know what the driver is going to do.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
I think what some people are missing is the degree. Perhaps an analogy is in order.
First, let's take an extreme case. Let's say an auto manufacturer makes a car that includes 6 inch spikes protruding from the dash board (it's targeted to punk rockers). When wearing a seatbelt, they produce no additional danger. So, a person gets into a fender-bender while not wearing a seatbelt. INstead of minor bruising, they now have a person with punctured lungs and/or heart. We can say the person was an idiot for not wearing the seatbelt, but doesn't part of the fault fall on the auto manufacturer?
To tone it down a bit, say the vehicle is manufactured with an all-stainless steel dash. None of the foam padding or break-away features that are standard. Again, a minor fender-bender can result in serious damages far more easily than other vehicles. Again, part of the fault lies with the manufacturer, regardless of the foolishness of the person who didn't wear the seatbelt.
ANd that's the issue here. Was the victim an idiot? Yes, to a degree. She should have known better than to place the coffee between her legs in a moving car, as it would likely spill. However, I'm sure she was aware of this, and evaluated the risk based on the temperature of coffee served pretty much everywhere else. Coffee spills typically result in nothing more serious than some reddenning, perhaps a blister. McDonald's coffee was served at a temperature that signifigantly increased the risk from spills, and McDonald's made no effort to inform the customer of that fact. This, in turn, deprived the customer of the information needed to make an informed risk calculation.
Yes, she was stupid for taking off the lid and putting it in her lap. However, McDonald's was negligent for serving coffee at a temperature that could cause third degree burns, a temperature at which it is not able to be used in it's intended manner. You can't drink thier coffee that hot without severe burns to lips, mouth, and throat. Imagine a product, say a power saw, that has a safety device that must be released before use. Trying to use it without first removing this safety device will cause the saw to overheat and catch fire. They make no effort to draw attention to this fact (perhaps it's listed all the way at the back of the manual, in the fine print). The issues here are that this does not follow the practice of any other manufacturer, and the company, fully aware of the possibility of risk, made no effort to inform customers of this "feature". That's the case here.
First, let's take an extreme case. Let's say an auto manufacturer makes a car that includes 6 inch spikes protruding from the dash board (it's targeted to punk rockers). When wearing a seatbelt, they produce no additional danger. So, a person gets into a fender-bender while not wearing a seatbelt. INstead of minor bruising, they now have a person with punctured lungs and/or heart. We can say the person was an idiot for not wearing the seatbelt, but doesn't part of the fault fall on the auto manufacturer?
To tone it down a bit, say the vehicle is manufactured with an all-stainless steel dash. None of the foam padding or break-away features that are standard. Again, a minor fender-bender can result in serious damages far more easily than other vehicles. Again, part of the fault lies with the manufacturer, regardless of the foolishness of the person who didn't wear the seatbelt.
ANd that's the issue here. Was the victim an idiot? Yes, to a degree. She should have known better than to place the coffee between her legs in a moving car, as it would likely spill. However, I'm sure she was aware of this, and evaluated the risk based on the temperature of coffee served pretty much everywhere else. Coffee spills typically result in nothing more serious than some reddenning, perhaps a blister. McDonald's coffee was served at a temperature that signifigantly increased the risk from spills, and McDonald's made no effort to inform the customer of that fact. This, in turn, deprived the customer of the information needed to make an informed risk calculation.
Yes, she was stupid for taking off the lid and putting it in her lap. However, McDonald's was negligent for serving coffee at a temperature that could cause third degree burns, a temperature at which it is not able to be used in it's intended manner. You can't drink thier coffee that hot without severe burns to lips, mouth, and throat. Imagine a product, say a power saw, that has a safety device that must be released before use. Trying to use it without first removing this safety device will cause the saw to overheat and catch fire. They make no effort to draw attention to this fact (perhaps it's listed all the way at the back of the manual, in the fine print). The issues here are that this does not follow the practice of any other manufacturer, and the company, fully aware of the possibility of risk, made no effort to inform customers of this "feature". That's the case here.
OK, they didn't inform their customer that the coffee would be hot, and therefore, shouldn't be placed between the thighs wit the lid off, while the car was driving.
Negligence. Oh, yes....
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,892
Step right up! Prove a negative here!
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
I agree that 2.9 mil is too much (although she did not recieve that, they settled for an undisclosed sum). That's the result of punative damages, which is something I disagree with (well, they way they are handled).
She was actually awarded a reasonable figure for medical expense and lost wages ($120,ooo, IIRC). The additional funds were to punish McDonald's, so they'd take notice and change thier practice. While I can see the necessity of doing something to make McDonald's take notice, I disagree with $2.7 million being awarded to the plaintiff.
My thought has always been that punative damages should be allowed, but not awarded to a plaintiff. The plaintiff should be limited to recieving compensation for actual expenses, and a certain amount for pain and suffering (say, an additional amount equal to the actual damages). Punative awards should be given to something else, say some sort of government funding or charity or something similar. The idea would need work, but I think it would lower the amount of frivolous lawsuits if the plantiffs knew there was a limit on thier awards.
However, I can't say I disagree with the figure itself. As someone else posted, that $2.7 million was what McDonald's made in two days on coffee sales. IF all they'd had to pay was damages, it would be cheaper for them to keep paying the lawsuits than to change thier practices (which is what had occurred in the 700 or so cases before this one, that were settled).
She was actually awarded a reasonable figure for medical expense and lost wages ($120,ooo, IIRC). The additional funds were to punish McDonald's, so they'd take notice and change thier practice. While I can see the necessity of doing something to make McDonald's take notice, I disagree with $2.7 million being awarded to the plaintiff.
My thought has always been that punative damages should be allowed, but not awarded to a plaintiff. The plaintiff should be limited to recieving compensation for actual expenses, and a certain amount for pain and suffering (say, an additional amount equal to the actual damages). Punative awards should be given to something else, say some sort of government funding or charity or something similar. The idea would need work, but I think it would lower the amount of frivolous lawsuits if the plantiffs knew there was a limit on thier awards.
However, I can't say I disagree with the figure itself. As someone else posted, that $2.7 million was what McDonald's made in two days on coffee sales. IF all they'd had to pay was damages, it would be cheaper for them to keep paying the lawsuits than to change thier practices (which is what had occurred in the 700 or so cases before this one, that were settled).
What "lost wages"? She was 79 at the time, and retired.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
OK, they didn't inform their customer that the coffee would be hot, and therefore, shouldn't be placed between the thighs wit the lid off, while the car was driving.
Negligence. Oh, yes....
No, what I'm saying is this.
She could reasonably be expected to know the coffee was hot. She could not reasonably be expected to know the coffee was much hotter than any other coffee purchased at a restaurant, or that it was so high in temperature as to cause third degree burns. In case you don't know, third degree burns means both layers of the skin are burned, as well as underlying muscle tissue. That's quite a bit more of a burn than one would reasonably expect to recieve from coffee.
One should know that coffee spilled will be hot, and can cause burns. The issue here is the degree of "hot". You seem unable to tell the difference between hot coffee (as typically served at practically every other restaurant in existence) and coffee hot enough to burn through skin and into muscle tissue. IF they are going to step outside of the norm and serve their coffee at a much higher temperature, they need to let the customers know this, so that customers understand that spilalge will not result in mild scalding, as it would with most spilled coffee.
Consider allergy medication that includes the label "may cause drowsiness, do not drive or operate machinery." You can easily say it would be foolish to take this medication while driving. However, if the medication actually causes you to immediately fall into a deel sleep withint three minutes of taking it (regardless of other factors), then this difference in degree needs to be pointed out, or the company packaging and selling the medication is megligent. "may cause drowsiness" is not the same as saying "will knock you out in three minutes".
Likewise, anyone purchasing coffee should expect a possiblity of burns. I don't believe anyone would expect coffee to be able to cause sever burns that require hospitalization and several months of rehab.
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,892
You made the claim; you know the drill...
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
And blowing on McDonald's coffee, you'd run out of air before it is at a drinkable temperature.
Seriously. I'm a avid coffee drinker, and you just can't drink McDonald's coffee as served. I'd have to let mine sit for several minutes before I was able to take a sip without burning my lips.
It's a matter of degree, CF. Coffee should be hot, yes, but it's unreasonable to expect it to be as hot as McDonald's served it. They are serving a product (coffee) that is intended for a specific use (drinking) at a temperature that precludes that specific use.
Seriously. I'm a avid coffee drinker, and you just can't drink McDonald's coffee as served. I'd have to let mine sit for several minutes before I was able to take a sip without burning my lips.
It's a matter of degree, CF. Coffee should be hot, yes, but it's unreasonable to expect it to be as hot as McDonald's served it. They are serving a product (coffee) that is intended for a specific use (drinking) at a temperature that precludes that specific use.
How hot should it be, exactly?
HarryKeogh
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 11,319
Luke: She wasn't behind the wheel.
Claus: It wasn't a moving vehicle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
There's no set temperature, that I know of. However, as others have stated, the industry standard is about 165 degrees. I can give some other figures, as well. For example,t eh little coffee cup hotplates you can buy to keep your coffee warm run at about 120 degrees, max, which is considered drinkable temperature. FOr serving temperatures, how anout this from Bunn (http://www.bunnomatic.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html)
"Ideal serving temperature: 155ºF to 175ºF (70ºC to 80ºC)
Many of the volatile aromatics in coffee have boiling points above 150ºF (65ºC). They simply are not perceived when coffee is served at lower temperatures."
Or from http://housewares.about.com/od/majorappliances/p/lglcrm1240micro.htm:
"Coffee Maker Features:
The coffee maker has 760 watts of power, a replacable carafe, an automatic timer with auto shut-off, coffee strength feature, and three temperature settings: High: 179F degrees; Medium 165F degrees; and, Low 147F degrees - so you can choose your preference of serving temperature."
Notice all are ten degrees or more below McDonald's serving temperature.
What you're telling me, here (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that the customer should expect any coffee served them to be hot enough to cause third degree burns? That's a bit extreme.
Claus, you're falling into an Either-Or fallacy here. This is not a clear-cut her fault-or-their fault issue. Was she negligent for putitng the coffee in her lap? Yes, she was. However, McDonald's served their coffee at a much higher level than the industry standard, had had many issues arise before of injury due to thier coffee, and had consistantly refused to either changed thier practice or provide any sort of warning or notice.
It is not reasonable to expect third degree burns from coffee. That's the issue here (as I see it). If she had opened the coffee cup and poured it over her head, McDonald's shoudl still be responsible for part of the incident, due to the extreme temperature.
Try this from http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm:
"At that point, Mr. Goens and the other jurors knew only the basic facts: that two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit, filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective" because it was so hot.
What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror Jack Elliott.
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. "
Also from the same source:
"The trial lasted seven sometimes mind-numbing days. Experts dueled over the temperature at which coffee causes burns. A scientist testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third-degree burns, so it didn't matter whether Mc Donald's coffee was hotter. But a doctor testifying on behalf of Mrs. Liebeck argued that lowering the serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees. "
3 seconds for third degree, compared to 12 with a 10 degree drop. That's likely enough time that the spilled coffee would cool before reaching third degree burns. I don't think there's a set standard for coffee temperature, but when it can cause severe burns in three second, it needs a warning.
"Ideal serving temperature: 155ºF to 175ºF (70ºC to 80ºC)
Many of the volatile aromatics in coffee have boiling points above 150ºF (65ºC). They simply are not perceived when coffee is served at lower temperatures."
Or from http://housewares.about.com/od/majorappliances/p/lglcrm1240micro.htm:
"Coffee Maker Features:
The coffee maker has 760 watts of power, a replacable carafe, an automatic timer with auto shut-off, coffee strength feature, and three temperature settings: High: 179F degrees; Medium 165F degrees; and, Low 147F degrees - so you can choose your preference of serving temperature."
Notice all are ten degrees or more below McDonald's serving temperature.
What you're telling me, here (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that the customer should expect any coffee served them to be hot enough to cause third degree burns? That's a bit extreme.
Claus, you're falling into an Either-Or fallacy here. This is not a clear-cut her fault-or-their fault issue. Was she negligent for putitng the coffee in her lap? Yes, she was. However, McDonald's served their coffee at a much higher level than the industry standard, had had many issues arise before of injury due to thier coffee, and had consistantly refused to either changed thier practice or provide any sort of warning or notice.
It is not reasonable to expect third degree burns from coffee. That's the issue here (as I see it). If she had opened the coffee cup and poured it over her head, McDonald's shoudl still be responsible for part of the incident, due to the extreme temperature.
Try this from http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm:
"At that point, Mr. Goens and the other jurors knew only the basic facts: that two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit, filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective" because it was so hot.
What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror Jack Elliott.
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. "
Also from the same source:
"The trial lasted seven sometimes mind-numbing days. Experts dueled over the temperature at which coffee causes burns. A scientist testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third-degree burns, so it didn't matter whether Mc Donald's coffee was hotter. But a doctor testifying on behalf of Mrs. Liebeck argued that lowering the serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees. "
3 seconds for third degree, compared to 12 with a 10 degree drop. That's likely enough time that the spilled coffee would cool before reaching third degree burns. I don't think there's a set standard for coffee temperature, but when it can cause severe burns in three second, it needs a warning.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Huntsman:
Your posts #144, 148, and 151 further convey what my argument is. Frankly, I'm astounded that both Mr. Larsen and zaayrdragon cannot or will not see this simple matter for what it is. Such is life.
(Edited to fix spelling of the gentleman's name.)
Your posts #144, 148, and 151 further convey what my argument is. Frankly, I'm astounded that both Mr. Larsen and zaayrdragon cannot or will not see this simple matter for what it is. Such is life.
(Edited to fix spelling of the gentleman's name.)
Last edited:
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Regnad:
Well, I can see where they are coming from. I used to have the same opinion of the case as CFL. However, after learning more of the details (such as the degree of tmeperature difference, the extent of the injuries caused, etc), I changed my mind. While the woman is partially at fault, there was no indication given to her that the coffee could cause such severe injuries. In fact, prior experience at other restaurants or at home should lead one to the conclusion that severe burns from coffee spills would be almost impossible. The degree of risk involved is enough of a change in quantity to make a change in quality.
Heck, if McDonald's had included warnings on thier coffee cups at the time, I'd be inclined to agree with CFL again. However, they didn't.
Well, I can see where they are coming from. I used to have the same opinion of the case as CFL. However, after learning more of the details (such as the degree of tmeperature difference, the extent of the injuries caused, etc), I changed my mind. While the woman is partially at fault, there was no indication given to her that the coffee could cause such severe injuries. In fact, prior experience at other restaurants or at home should lead one to the conclusion that severe burns from coffee spills would be almost impossible. The degree of risk involved is enough of a change in quantity to make a change in quality.
Heck, if McDonald's had included warnings on thier coffee cups at the time, I'd be inclined to agree with CFL again. However, they didn't.