If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Consumerist)   Woman sues McDonalds over hot coffee. This actually is a repeat from 1992. Just different players   (consumerist.com) divider line 194
    More: Dumbass, coffee, pain and suffering  
•       •       •

18110 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2010 at 11:40 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



194 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-02-07 04:00:56 PM
Ikimasen: I know I read that the lady from the first case got 3rd degree burns, and those in a rather sensitive area. A lot of similar cases had been thrown out, but that lady got her case through for similar reasons, medical bills and lost wages. And I also know that McDonald's had been serving their coffee at 180 degrees, which is like 20 degrees hotter than any other fast food restaurant. And that they stepped back on the heat after the lawsuit, but have since steadily stepped it up to 180 again. So, I mean, if they didn't learn anything from the first one where they burned up some old lady's crotch, screw 'em.

See I knew someone had more energy than I.

/Corporations care not
//ask Monsanto
 
2010-02-07 04:16:26 PM
There's far too much Fahrenheit being thrown in this thread to read without damaging my brain.
 
2010-02-07 04:43:44 PM
"as it was being handed to her by an employee of the defendant, the plaintiff took the cup of coffee and the plastic top fell off and spilled very hot coffee on plaintiff's upper right leg..."

Since when do we allow centaurs to sue?
 
2010-02-07 04:48:58 PM
StreetlightInTheGhetto: NannyStatePark: So you think "a jury of your peers" is corrupt and morally bankrupt. I guess you live in the woods with some guns and large dogs. I'm not hating, I'm considering it myself...so the evil corporations can't exploit my ass anymore than they already do

I think juries are probably statistically lower on the IQ scale than the general populace, since the smarter folks are more likely to have jobs they can use as an excuse / are smart enough to get out of it some other way.

My professor got called up for jury duty when I was in his class. He made arrangements, got other profs to take over lectures, etc., just in case he was chosen, even though he could have easily got out of it. Have to give him props for that.

Never have gotten a notice myself.


You know, I haven't ever considered that particular angle. Food for thought! I'm SOL because my kid turned 8. And they must be stupid because they aren't nullifying weed convictions in TX, for instance.
 
2010-02-07 04:56:04 PM
Hot coffee?

www.ripten.com

/hot like....coffee
 
2010-02-07 04:58:51 PM
Sorry I wasn't more polite, accelerus! I have a love hate relationship with my fellow humans and their institutions myself.
 
2010-02-07 05:02:44 PM
$7,500? They'll settle with her.

Years ago I had a friend that was management at some supermarket and she told me that virtually any claim $10k or under was a guaranteed settlement provided it held a shred of truth.
 
2010-02-07 05:44:18 PM
SHE IS NOT SUING MCDONALD'S.

She's suing a franchisee of McDonald's. There is a huge difference between suing a giant corporation, and some guy that owns a couple of stores.

We don't know if he owns 1 store or 20 stores. If he has just 1 store, the guy is probably taking home less than $100,000 a year. It might be worth it for him to try and fight the $7800 lawsuit.
 
2010-02-07 05:48:37 PM
McD's is VERY litigious themselves.
Go ahead go on television and say you won't eat their nasty burgers. They WILL sue you!

Still this lady is clearly a money grubbing mouth breather.
Mc'Ds should give her the money then make her sign a settlement stating she cannot ever visit any Mc'Ds again.
The biatch would probably starve to death.
 
2010-02-07 06:09:17 PM
I'm wondering--is there *ever* such thing as a case where pain and suffering compensation is justified?
 
2010-02-07 06:14:44 PM
kutsuke:
By mixing my saliva with the dink I can roughly gauge the temperature of the rest of the contents...


Heh.

Also, a helpful tip for everyone: If you are expecting quality, competence, or an overall positive dining experience... why are you at McDonald's. You know better than that.
 
2010-02-07 07:36:54 PM
KidneyStone: $7,500? They'll settle with her..

Which is what they are looking for... just to have money thrown at them. It's a real shame that the trial-lawyer hucksters actually encourage this.

Sue if your coffee is too hot
Sue if your coffee is to cold
Sue if your neighbor's cat looks at funny

Call the offices of Shyster and Shyster... call now, or we'll sue YOU
 
2010-02-07 07:42:26 PM
Narrator: A fresh cup of coffee brewed by my company is served to a 79-year old woman sitting in a car. The 180F coffee spills on her lap. She instantly receives 3rd degree burns to her legs and genitals and is in the hospital for a week.
Now, should we lower the serving temperature? Take the number of cups of spilled coffee in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of 3rd degree burns, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of lowering the serving temperature of our coffee, we don't do it.
Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman on plane: Which fast-food company do you work for?
Narrator: A major one.
 
2010-02-07 07:46:50 PM
Pemulis: Before complaining about the original coffee case, read up on it. It's funny how I've barely met a single soul who has ever said that the plaintiff in that case was entitled to anything, yet somehow they found 12 jurors who did. Seems to me that either McDonalds had terrible lawyers (unlikely) or there might have actually been some merit to the claim.

The jurors were shown graphic pictures of the burns on Stella's crotch. That turned off their logic and kicked them into 'pity mode'.
 
2010-02-07 07:52:39 PM
Ikimasen: I know I read that the lady from the first case got 3rd degree burns, and those in a rather sensitive area. A lot of similar cases had been thrown out, but that lady got her case through for similar reasons, medical bills and lost wages. And I also know that McDonald's had been serving their coffee at 180 degrees, which is like 20 degrees hotter than any other fast food restaurant.

FALSE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants (new window) Check out the 'other lawsuits' section:
"Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.[18]"
and
"Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.[19] "
and
"The National Coffee Association of U.S.A.
instructs that coffee should be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91-96 °C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit".[20]"

And that they stepped back on the heat after the lawsuit, but have since steadily stepped it up to 180 again.

FALSE.

"Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defend the lawsuit by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee after the suit. Morgan has since brought other lawsuits against McDonald's over hot-coffee burns.[21] McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80-90 °C (176-194 °F),[22] relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[22][23] "


So, I mean, if they didn't learn anything from the first one where they burned up some old lady's crotch, screw 'em.

"They" didn't burn anything. Stella dumped the coffee on herself.
 
2010-02-07 08:05:10 PM
EngineerAU: I like to ask them to explain to case to me, acting like I never heard of it before. They almost always have all the facts wrong... she was on her cell phone, speeding down the road, got only minor burns, etc. I love busting them with the facts and seeing how they come up with dumber and dumber justifications why it was totally her fault and McDonald's was the helpless victim

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49¢ cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.
She wanted $20,000 to caver her $11,000 medical bills. McDonalds refused. She upped the demand to $90,000, then $300,000. It went to trial.
Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 °F (82-88 °C). Which is right where the National Coffee Association says it should be. It is also where McDonalds own market research shows it should be.
Stella's lawyer showed that McDonalds had had 700 previous cases of burned (of ALL degrees). Of course, this number sounds like a lot until you realize it was over the previous 10 years, and Nationwide. If you do the math, it turns out there was one burn for every 24,000,000 cups of coffee sold. For everyone who burned themselves, 23,999,999 didn't. This is hardly "unreasonably dangerous" or "defectively manufactured". (More people get hit by lightning than get burned by McDonalds coffee.)
The jury, after being shown graphic pictured of the old ladies burned crotch, pitied her and awarded her awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.


There's the story. What facts in it do you beleive are 'wrong'??
 
2010-02-07 08:26:50 PM
Theaetetus: Hey, look... more industry standards for tbyte:

Calculating the optimum temperature for serving hot beverages.
Brown F, Diller KR.

The preferred drinking temperature of coffee is specified in the literature as 140+/-15 degrees F (60+/-8.3 degrees C) for a population of 300 subjects. A linear (with respect to temperature) figure of merit merged the two effects to identify an optimal drinking temperature of approximately 136 degrees F (57.8 degrees C). The analysis points to a reduction in the presently recommended serving temperature of coffee to achieve the combined result of reducing the scald burn hazard and improving customer satisfaction.


Hey, look, The National Coffee Association (Who better knows how to properly prepare and serve coffee??):
Link (new window)
"Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction."
"Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately! "
"If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit."

Now, please explain why the National Coffee Association, which exists to promote coffee, would give deliberately bad instructions on how to prepare the product they are trying to promote. (A: They wouldn't. The instructions are correct. Therefore: McDonalds did not have their coffee 'too hot'.)

Also, the Specialty Coffee Association of America has documentation that says "The water should be freshly drawn and brought to approximately 200degrees F at the time it is poured into the ground coffee."

etc.
 
2010-02-07 08:45:06 PM
::sigh::

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who biatch and moan about other people not fully understanding something, while quoting incorrect data and 'facts' themselves.

FACT: Stella spilled the coffee on herself. She placed the cup between her pointy knees and then PULLED the far side of the lid to remove it. This pulling caused the cup to pivot between her knees, and dump its contents in her lap. It is not McDonalds fault she handled the cup carelessly.

FACT: The coffee was NOT 'too hot'. It was right in line with the temp other establishments served it at, it was right in line with what home coffee makers produce it at, and it was right in line with the recommendations of the National Coffee Association.

FACT: there were 700 other burns documented. Oh, some people love to point this number out. 700. 700 burns (with the implication that all were as severe as Stellas). BUT, those 700 burns were of ALL degrees, from First Degree (red skin, like a sunburn) to Second Degree (blistering) to Third Degree (loss of tissue). Those 700 burns were over 10 years. And those 700 burns were nationwide. When you look at the number of burns vs the number of cups sold, you find another interesting number- 24,000,000. That's how many cups were sold for each burn. Or, to put it another way, for every idiot who burned themselves on a cup of McDonalds coffee, McDonalds safely sold 23,999,999 other cups of coffee.

These FACTS show that the burns were Stells fault, that the coffee was Not too hot, and that the supposed 'history' of burns is a statistical non-entity. And there goes the entire case.
 
2010-02-07 08:47:48 PM
$318 in damages AND lost wages?

I hope she wins, but for just that amount and no pain and suffering. Then her insurance takes her $223 for restitution, and the attorney gets paid only $95 for his services (30%, assuming he's working on contingency).
 
2010-02-07 10:03:07 PM
fredklein: And there goes the entire case.

... says Fred Klein, Corporate Product Liability Attorney.
 
2010-02-07 10:12:00 PM
Fark her. She's should be thankful she's not drinking the spit-laden crap she was served.
 
2010-02-07 10:12:09 PM
fredklein: FACT: The coffee was NOT 'too hot'. It was right in line with the temp other establishments served it at, it was right in line with what home coffee makers produce it at, and it was right in line with the recommendations of the National Coffee Association.

What you claim is a fact: "It was right in line with the temp other establishments served it at", is contradicted by
this account:

"ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.-When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year
that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at
other local restaurants for comparison.
After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found
that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured
,
about 180 degrees."

Furthermore, the "National Coffee Association" is a trade organization representing the interests of the coffee industry. The fact that they make a brewing recommendation to maximize flavor has no bearing on whether their recommended temperatures are safe, or whether it is in the public interest for restaurants to serve coffee at those temperatures.
 
2010-02-07 10:24:11 PM
Blade Danger: -The coffee was not hot. It was retardedly hot. The coffee was around 85°. Normal household coffee is about 60°.
During discovery, more than 700 claims from other people burned by McDonald's scalding coffee were produced.


Folgers is crap. Home coffee makers brew coffee below its optimum pressure. It can do this because it brews coffee bean dust. 135 F isn't sufficient for even white tea.

McDonalds also had served 2 billion cups of coffee. Their complaint rate was 1:24,000,000. You have a 1:6,000,000 chance of being struck by lightning.
 
2010-02-07 10:26:20 PM
Aunt Crabby: Even if you convince me the entire industry does as you do (and maybe you are right), I would still think it inherently dangerous to serve coffee at temperatures that can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds. 135 degrees is still hot. Why not go with the safer, non scalding hot?

If you cook a steak to 180 degree internal, there's no risk of any bacteria surviving.

You tell me how that steak tastes.
 
2010-02-07 10:34:21 PM
brush_between_meals: Furthermore, the "National Coffee Association" is a trade organization representing the interests of the coffee industry. The fact that they make a brewing recommendation to maximize flavor has no bearing on whether their recommended temperatures are safe, or whether it is in the public interest for restaurants to serve coffee at those temperatures.

Do you feel superior making those arrogant-ass "air quotes"?

fredklein: Or, to put it another way, for every idiot who burned themselves on a cup of McDonalds coffee, McDonalds safely sold 23,999,999 other cups of coffee.

Let's bold and big that so the idiots around here can see it clearly:
For every idiot who burned themselves on a cup of McDonalds coffee, McDonalds safely sold 23,999,999 other cups of coffee.


Stella was a dumb coont out to ring the cash register.
 
2010-02-07 11:03:10 PM
From what I remember in the first one.. the person spilled in on herself with no help or interaction!! This sounds more like an employee in too much of hurry, like the asshat who handed me a bag at a drive thru and before I grabbed it, dropped it on the ground. Too busy looking behind them to pay attention to what was going on.

I was pissed just to have to wait for another order to be made... if I had hot coffee dumped forward and the lid wasn't even on the cup if I tried to stop it, yeah.... I would be irate and damned well better get satisfaction or the assault would be paid back with a significant amount of interest!
 
2010-02-07 11:15:10 PM
brush_between_meals: What you claim is a fact: "It was right in line with the temp other establishments served it at", is contradicted by
this account:

"ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.-When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year
that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at
other local restaurants for comparison.
After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found
that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured,
about 180 degrees."


::Sigh::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants (new window), the Similar lawsuits" section:

"Thus, if McDonald's were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 C and 60 C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 C and 95 C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 C and 60 C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers."

"Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.[18]"
[18]- ^ See multiple cases and newspaper stories cited in Ted Frank, "Latest hot coffee lawsuit data points"
, Overlawyered.com, 28 October 2006

"Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defend the lawsuit by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee after the suit. Morgan has since brought other lawsuits against McDonald's over hot-coffee burns.[21] McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80-90 °C (176-194 °F),[22] relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[22][23]"

"Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 °F (82 °C) in this case) is not "unreasonably dangerous."
The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 °F [93 °C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150-160 °F [66-71 °C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 °F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.[25]"

So, your one, vs these four. Let me know when you have another 3.

Furthermore, the "National Coffee Association" is a trade organization representing the interests of the coffee industry. The fact that they make a brewing recommendation to maximize flavor has no bearing on whether their recommended temperatures are safe, or whether it is in the public interest for restaurants to serve coffee at those temperatures.

If they recommend a method of brewing coffee that is indeed 'unreasonably dangerous', they would be sued. If they recommend a method of brewing coffee that is incorrect, they lose business because fewer people buy crappy tasting coffee. So, they have absolutely no reason to recommend brewing/serving methods that are dangerous or incorrect.

Quite frankly, all this is moot, as even if you want to ignore all the evidence and call the coffee "too hot", it's still a fact that only 1 in 24,000,000 cups resulted in a burn. That right there shows that even the "too hot" coffee was not very dangerous.
 
2010-02-08 12:41:29 AM
fredklein: Quite frankly, all this is moot, as even if you want to ignore all the evidence and call the coffee "too hot", it's still a fact that only 1 in 24,000,000 cups resulted in a burn. That right there shows that even the "too hot" coffee was not very dangerous.


Resulted in a complaint, you mean. It's entirely possible, and very likely that other burns were caused, but unreported.
 
2010-02-08 02:07:37 AM
NightOwl2255

So that's it? You call my post wrong, then you're done? I welcome debate. Please spell it out for me in more dynamic terms than "this is 100% wrong" with no explanation. I'm callin' you out. Everyone else, step away. (this could get retarded.) (on my part.) (or NightOwl could be a bigger retard than me.) (We'll never know who the bigger retard is until) (there's some retarded parenthetical).
 
2010-02-08 02:09:08 AM
ReverendJasen: RoyHobbs22: I was at a Friendly's once and overheard a lady complaining that her ice cream was too cold. Cool story . . .

I would have struggled to not walk across the aisle and slapped her.


In the drive-thru at Wendy's once, we heard the lady behind us (via the speaker) ask for a "salad without a lot of lettuce".
 
2010-02-08 02:12:55 AM
Its clear that you've made the transition from farkingly dumb to mother-fackeringly dumb when farkers echo the exact same comments from the originating article and its all eviscerated here just like it was in the original comments. In fact, fark, I'm a little disappointed that you didn't read the original articles first. Shame on you for replicating stupidity!
 
2010-02-08 02:33:17 AM
Hebalo: Resulted in a complaint, you mean. It's entirely possible, and very likely that other burns were caused, but unreported.

Yeah. Juries are handing out multi-million dollar verdicts, but people with flesh peeling off their bones don't bother to complain, much less sue. ::rolleyes::
 
2010-02-08 03:07:42 AM
HOT COFFEE NSFW (new window)

IM LOVIN IT
 
2010-02-08 07:58:49 AM
Aunt Crabby: 135 degrees is still hot. Why not go with the safer, non scalding hot?

Because people don't drink their coffee in the span of 1 minute. They drink it over time, and the 135F coffee you want to serve is going to be at a lukewarm temperature within minutes.

The initial temperature is higher so that it is enjoyable over the period of time it takes to finish it. The last sip should be 135F, not the first one.
 
2010-02-08 10:20:34 AM
fredklein: So, your one, vs these four. Let me know when you have another 3.

The problem with recommended temperatures in the pot is that it depends greatly on what kind of cup you're pouring into. A room-temperature porcelain cup will considerably cool coffee, while a styrofoam cup with a lid will cause almost no cooling at all due to its much lower mass, its much higher thermal resistance, and the fact that the lid blocks convective heat transfer with the outside air. So when you're pouring into a styrofoam cup, you should pour at a lower temperature to take into account that the cup isn't losing heat at nearly the same rate.

A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation of mine is that coffee in a porcelain cup will drop by about 8-10 degrees Fahrenheit *just* due to the energy going to heat the porcelain itself, where styrofoam is about a tenth of a degree. That's not counting the continual heat loss through the material, nor the effects of open-air versus closed-lid serving.

Quite frankly, all this is moot, as even if you want to ignore all the evidence and call the coffee "too hot", it's still a fact that only 1 in 24,000,000 cups resulted in a burn. That right there shows that even the "too hot" coffee was not very dangerous.

Dangerous enough that without medical treatment, the woman would eventually have died from complications as a result of the injuries; the amount of skin burned was large and deep enough that it could not have healed without skin grafting.
 
2010-02-08 10:28:17 AM
Sum Dum Gai: Dangerous enough that without medical treatment, the woman would eventually have died from complications as a result of the injuries; the amount of skin burned was large and deep enough that it could not have healed without skin grafting.

I don't think that's fair, either. There's a lot of small risks we take every day that, if the risk doesn't pan out right, could result in extreme injury. Parking on the street, riding the escalator... let alone occupational hazards.

Every possible fact about how hot this coffee is, is overshadowed by the fact that 24 million people managed to not burn themselves on it for ever single fool that did. Even with a fudge factor of +/- a million people or so to account for unreported burns, that's still an overwhelming percentage. You might even say statistically insignificant percentage.
 
2010-02-08 10:54:11 AM
NightOwl2255: Bucephalos: She has to sue for more than her medical bills ($300).

No, she doesn't.

Bucephalos: In most states, the court will dismiss it unless it reaches $x,

Completely wrong.

Bucephalos: If you only sue for medical damages and lost wages, not only will you end up in small claims court

Doens't matter what you're suing for, the only difference between small claims court and superior court is the amount. You almost got this part right.

NightOwl2255: which has no enforcement power (can't make McDonalds pay)

100% wrong.

I love it when ALTs out themselves!!!

 
2010-02-08 11:17:59 AM
img246.imageshack.us

You put the balm on? Who told you to put the balm on? I didn't tell you to put the balm on. Why'd you put the balm on?
 
2010-02-08 11:56:20 AM
elcnu: This state used to be cool. Now it sucks major a$$.

We are leaving.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, whiners.


Good luck selling your house: property taxes are so high in the People's Republic of Portland that the Days=on-Market are double the lower property tax rate suburbs.
 
2010-02-08 02:01:32 PM
I thought that Take Two and Rockstar Games reached a settlement with the ESRB for this? I didn't even know that McDonalds was involved with the software mini-game business.
 
2010-02-08 03:43:58 PM
Sum Dum Gai: The problem with recommended temperatures in the pot is that it depends greatly on what kind of cup you're pouring into. A room-temperature porcelain cup will considerably cool coffee, while a styrofoam cup with a lid will cause almost no cooling at all due to its much lower mass, its much higher thermal resistance, and the fact that the lid blocks convective heat transfer with the outside air. So when you're pouring into a styrofoam cup, you should pour at a lower temperature to take into account that the cup isn't losing heat at nearly the same rate.

And that's exactly what you want at a drive-thru, where people pick up their coffee and then drive to work. You want the coffee to stay hot so it's still hot when they arrive at their destination.

Dangerous enough that without medical treatment, the woman would eventually have died from complications as a result of the injuries; the amount of skin burned was large and deep enough that it could not have healed without skin grafting.

Oh, yes, it was a severe burn. But we're not trying an Appeal to Sympathy here, are we? The severity of the burn has to be considered WITH the likelihood of it happening. I mean, it's theoretically possible that a meteorite could slam into your cars gas tank, blowing up the entire tank of gas... while you're pumping gas at a gas station. That would certainly be a big explosion. But the likelihood of it happening is so small that we never consider armoring vehicle gas tanks, or reducing their size so the explosion would be manageable.


So, YES, it was a horrible burn. But 1) it was her own fault, and 2) it happens so infrequently that it's not worth it to take extra precautions.
 
2010-02-08 04:55:00 PM
Law scholar time:

Dafatone: It's silly, but if the drive-thru person hands you coffee with a loose lid, that's actually kinda dangerous. Sorry, McD's. Just cough up the $25,000. Not like it matters to you.

Actually, doesn't the franchisee (a small business owner who doesn't necessarily make a ton of money) end up having to pay the damages? Isn't there insurance for stuff like this? How does McDonald's do this?

Either way, this woman collects: If they choose to fight it, McDonald's will likely lose the suit because the employee erred (allegedly) by not putting the lid on properly, or they'll listen to their lawyers and just settle. This plaintiff's case actually has legal merit and McDonald's should wise up already and quit burning people. I know I can't be the only one who thinks that McDonald's coffee really is just too goddamned hot. 190 degrees is simply dangerous (compare to your household automatic drip coffee maker: ~140 degrees) and the company knows it and has for quite some time. McDonald's claims that this makes their coffee taste better, which I find highly dubious. But what do I know? Any scientists or chefs want to weigh in?
 
2010-02-08 05:08:25 PM
loserflame: I thought that Take Two and Rockstar Games reached a settlement with the ESRB for this? I didn't even know that McDonalds was involved with the software mini-game business.

www.emergencynerd.com
 
2010-02-08 09:03:46 PM
Nelly Furtaco: I know I can't be the only one who thinks that McDonald's coffee really is just too goddamned hot. 190 degrees is simply dangerous (compare to your household automatic drip coffee maker: ~140 degrees) and the company knows it and has for quite some time. McDonald's claims that this makes their coffee taste better, which I find highly dubious. But what do I know? Any scientists or chefs want to weigh in?

That exact thing is being debated in the thread. As a barista (lolz) my personal opinion is that, no, it is not too hot. 180 degrees is how hot we serve our coffee, to millions of people everyday. No one complains (to me personally anyway), except the random people who complain that 180 degrees is not even hot enough. For anyone who thinks it IS too hot, they have the presence of mind to ask for us to put a few ice cubes in it. This isn't so we can "keep the coffee longer" or anything either, so that bullcrap story is out the window.
 
Displayed 44 of 194 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report