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.

(NJ.com)   Old hotness: McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit. New hotness: Dunkin' Donuts hot apple cider lawsuit   (nj.com) divider line 37
    More: Asinine, Dunkin' Donuts, Mcdonald, Essex County, Jennifer Fragoso, New Jersey woman, New Jersey  
•       •       •

688 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Feb 2014 at 11:02 AM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-22 07:57:48 AM
Prepare yourselves, here come the people who have no idea what the McDonald's lawsuit is actually about.

It is a shame that the McDonald's lawsuit is still regarded as frivolous.  McDonald's was absolutely in the wrong here.  Yes, I can agree that putting a cup of coffee between your legs is a dumb idea, and there is risk in getting burned...that being said...McDonald's was in the wrong in this case...oh and the dozens of other incidents that occurred prior to the now famous case.

Unfortunately due to the fact that this is a pretty poorly written article that lacks any meaningful information...key one in my opinion being whether or not the car was moving, if she was busy sending a text message and trying to back up at the same time, etc...I am sure we will learn more in the coming weeks about this chick.
 
2014-02-22 10:28:28 AM
I get it.  Beverages in a container may be hot.  But seriously, unless you're five, you know the lids on hot and cold beverage containers may and most likely will come off in the car if you grab  anywhere near the the top of the cup.
 
2014-02-22 10:39:06 AM

Endive Wombat: Prepare yourselves, here come the people who have no idea what the McDonald's lawsuit is actually about.


This one is actually better, though... The usual McDonald's defense from Fred and the other Tort Reform people is that coffee is supposed to be brewed* at a really high temperature. Cider does not have that requirement. There's no need for boiling it, and certainly no reason to serve it anywhere near that temp.

*mind you, it's supposed to be held and served at much lower temperatures.
 
2014-02-22 10:45:15 AM
But the coffee! And the hotness!

/And the third degree burns
//And the testimony of a burn specialist who said the coffee was too damn hot
 
2014-02-22 10:51:33 AM
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier:
//And the testimony of a burn specialist who said the coffee was too damn hot

Specifically, one Dr. E. Fitzgerald, who explained that it was "too darn hot" and that as a result of the high temperature, even if one wished to sup or fill up the cup to consume it with one's significant other, they would be unable to, 'cause it's too darn hot.
 
2014-02-22 11:01:01 AM
Believe this is Ms. Fragoso.  If it is, I think the Fark community deserves the right to look at pictures of the burns on the thighs, and surrounding areas.  For research purposes, only, you know.
m.c.lnkd.licdn.com
 
2014-02-22 11:11:06 AM

Theaetetus: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier:
//And the testimony of a burn specialist who said the coffee was too damn hot

Specifically, one Dr. E. Fitzgerald, who explained that it was "too darn hot" and that as a result of the high temperature, even if one wished to sup or fill up the cup to consume it with one's significant other, they would be unable to, 'cause it's too darn hot.


Just because a man dedicated his life to the explicit and relevant study of that field of medicine does not make his testimony relevant. She should have KNOWN that third degree burns are a possibility when buying coffee marked for human consumption, just like how office renters should be aware that spontaneous building collapse sometimes just happens. Caveat emptor and all that.
 
2014-02-22 11:23:51 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-22 11:40:30 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Theaetetus: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier:
//And the testimony of a burn specialist who said the coffee was too damn hot

Specifically, one Dr. E. Fitzgerald, who explained that it was "too darn hot" and that as a result of the high temperature, even if one wished to sup or fill up the cup to consume it with one's significant other, they would be unable to, 'cause it's too darn hot.

Just because a man dedicated his life to the explicit and relevant study of that field of medicine does not make his testimony relevant.


www.geni.com
Unamused.
 
2014-02-22 12:13:04 PM
nice.  the headline hotness meme.  literally.
 
2014-02-22 01:40:23 PM

Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: Prepare yourselves, here come the people who have no idea what the McDonald's lawsuit is actually about.

This one is actually better, though... The usual McDonald's defense from Fred and the other Tort Reform people is that coffee is supposed to be brewed* at a really high temperature. Cider does not have that requirement. There's no need for boiling it, and certainly no reason to serve it anywhere near that temp.

*mind you, it's supposed to be held and served at much lower temperatures.


What temperature do you think mcdonalds should serve their coffee at?  130 degrees can cause 3rd degree burns, and 100-110 is usually described as lukewarm or a bit warm.  Should they serve it at 120 and hope to god that you drink it in within a minute?
 
2014-02-22 01:49:48 PM
Endive Wombat * * Smartest * Funniest 2014-02-22 07:57:48 AM Prepare yourselves, here come the people who have no idea what the McDonald's lawsuit is actually about. It is a shame that the McDonald's lawsuit is still regarded as frivolous. McDonald's was absolutely in the wrong here.
===================================================

Yes we do. It has to do with an asshat suing because a hot beverage was hot.

It's the DEFINITION of frivolous.

/We need to change our awful tort system in this country.
 
2014-02-22 01:59:24 PM

Endive Wombat: Prepare yourselves, here come the people who have no idea what the McDonald's lawsuit is actually about.

It is a shame that the McDonald's lawsuit is still regarded as frivolous.  McDonald's was absolutely in the wrong here.  Yes, I can agree that putting a cup of coffee between your legs is a dumb idea, and there is risk in getting burned...that being said...McDonald's was in the wrong in this case...oh and the dozens of other incidents that occurred prior to the now famous case.

Unfortunately due to the fact that this is a pretty poorly written article that lacks any meaningful information...key one in my opinion being whether or not the car was moving, if she was busy sending a text message and trying to back up at the same time, etc...I am sure we will learn more in the coming weeks about this chick.


Its regarded as frivolous because Stella took the lid off. While it was between her legs. It wasn't handed to her with the lid halfway off. What's personal responsibility again?
 
2014-02-22 02:23:26 PM

Endive Wombat: Prepare yourselves, here come the people who have no idea what the McDonald's lawsuit is actually about.

It is a shame that the McDonald's lawsuit is still regarded as frivolous.  McDonald's was absolutely in the wrong here.  Yes, I can agree that putting a cup of coffee between your legs is a dumb idea, and there is risk in getting burned...that being said...McDonald's was in the wrong in this case...oh and the dozens of other incidents that occurred prior to the now famous case.

Unfortunately due to the fact that this is a pretty poorly written article that lacks any meaningful information...key one in my opinion being whether or not the car was moving, if she was busy sending a text message and trying to back up at the same time, etc...I am sure we will learn more in the coming weeks about this chick.


So what if McDonalds where in the wrong.

Why were she awarded 2.7million dollars? Surely she didn't loose that amount of money from the accident.
 
2014-02-22 02:48:47 PM

Endive Wombat: Prepare yourselves, here come the people who have no idea what the McDonald's lawsuit is actually about.

It is a shame that the McDonald's lawsuit is still regarded as frivolous.  McDonald's was absolutely in the wrong here.  Yes, I can agree that putting a cup of coffee between your legs is a dumb idea, and there is risk in getting burned...that being said...McDonald's was in the wrong in this case...oh and the dozens of other incidents that occurred prior to the now famous case.


People who want to learn more about the infamous McDonald's case should watch the documentary titled Hot Coffee.

It is interesting to note that big corporations lobby State GOP legislators to weaken the buying public's right to sue for just compensation by passing so-called "Frivolous Lawsuit" caps.
 
2014-02-22 02:53:54 PM

subotai54: Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: Prepare yourselves, here come the people who have no idea what the McDonald's lawsuit is actually about.

This one is actually better, though... The usual McDonald's defense from Fred and the other Tort Reform people is that coffee is supposed to be brewed* at a really high temperature. Cider does not have that requirement. There's no need for boiling it, and certainly no reason to serve it anywhere near that temp.

*mind you, it's supposed to be held and served at much lower temperatures.

What temperature do you think mcdonalds should serve their coffee at?  130 degrees can cause 3rd degree burns, and 100-110 is usually described as lukewarm or a bit warm.  Should they serve it at 120 and hope to god that you drink it in within a minute?


www.accuratebuilding.com
130 should be plenty safe, actually.
It shouldn't be 185, which is what McDonald's coffee was.
 
2014-02-22 03:03:08 PM
If you make a beverage at temperatures that are too hot to consume, when the product is intended for consumption, we have a word for that.  NEGLIGENCE.

subotai54: Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: Prepare yourselves, here come the people who have no idea what the McDonald's lawsuit is actually about.

This one is actually better, though... The usual McDonald's defense from Fred and the other Tort Reform people is that coffee is supposed to be brewed* at a really high temperature. Cider does not have that requirement. There's no need for boiling it, and certainly no reason to serve it anywhere near that temp.

*mind you, it's supposed to be held and served at much lower temperatures.

What temperature do you think mcdonalds should serve their coffee at?  130 degrees can cause 3rd degree burns, and 100-110 is usually described as lukewarm or a bit warm.  Should they serve it at 120 and hope to god that you drink it in within a minute?


Please go make a cup of water at 110 degrees and then chug it down.  Please come back to tell us how "lukewarm" it is.
 
2014-02-22 03:05:42 PM

listernine:Its regarded as frivolous because Stella took the lid off. While it was between her legs. It wasn't handed to her with the lid halfway off. What's personal responsibility again?

Which was addressed in the jury's finding of contributory negligence against Liebeck

spawn73: Why were she awarded 2.7million dollars? Surely she didn't loose that amount of money from the accident.


She wasn't.  The Jury awarded $160,000 for compensatory damages, and the 2.7 mil was punitive against McDs as this had happened before and they had been warned about the high coffee temp but didn't seem to care.  That number btw was calculated based on the profits from coffee sales for two days, and was knocked down on appeal.
 
2014-02-22 03:20:51 PM

Teiritzamna: listernine:Its regarded as frivolous because Stella took the lid off. While it was between her legs. It wasn't handed to her with the lid halfway off. What's personal responsibility again?

Which was addressed in the jury's finding of contributory negligence against Liebeck

spawn73: Why were she awarded 2.7million dollars? Surely she didn't loose that amount of money from the accident.

She wasn't.  The Jury awarded $160,000 for compensatory damages, and the 2.7 mil was punitive against McDs as this had happened before and they had been warned about the high coffee temp but didn't seem to care.  That number btw was calculated based on the profits from coffee sales for two days, and was knocked down on appeal.


Who was the 2.7 mill awarded to then? I know she didn't recieve it in the end, but wasn't it awarded to her?
 
2014-02-22 03:30:48 PM
My response was that the 2.7 mil was not based on "amount of money [she lost] from the accident" not that she didn't get it (although in the end she in-fact didn't).

Punitive damages are awarded to the party at suit, but they are not meant to compensate, they are meant to punish the wrong-doer.  Theoretically the punitive damages could go to the government, or to some community chest (ala the tobacco settlement payments which in part fund anti-tobacco groups), but the way we do it here is that the victim gets it.  Think of it sort of like a bounty awarded for stopping people and companies from doing bad things.
 
2014-02-22 04:17:53 PM

Theaetetus: subotai54: Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: Prepare yourselves, here come the people who have no idea what the McDonald's lawsuit is actually about.

This one is actually better, though... The usual McDonald's defense from Fred and the other Tort Reform people is that coffee is supposed to be brewed* at a really high temperature. Cider does not have that requirement. There's no need for boiling it, and certainly no reason to serve it anywhere near that temp.

*mind you, it's supposed to be held and served at much lower temperatures.

What temperature do you think mcdonalds should serve their coffee at?  130 degrees can cause 3rd degree burns, and 100-110 is usually described as lukewarm or a bit warm.  Should they serve it at 120 and hope to god that you drink it in within a minute?

[www.accuratebuilding.com image 850x657]
130 should be plenty safe, actually.
It shouldn't be 185, which is what McDonald's coffee was.


You're not paying attention to what actually happened.  She was old, sitting in a car, surprised, and wearing absorbent, tight clothing.  That graph ends at 5 seconds.  She would have had contact for about 15-30 seconds, and at 130 degrees, that is enough to cause 2nd or 3rd degree burns.
 
2014-02-22 04:33:40 PM

spawn73: Endive Wombat: Prepare yourselves, here come the people who have no idea what the McDonald's lawsuit is actually about.

It is a shame that the McDonald's lawsuit is still regarded as frivolous.  McDonald's was absolutely in the wrong here.  Yes, I can agree that putting a cup of coffee between your legs is a dumb idea, and there is risk in getting burned...that being said...McDonald's was in the wrong in this case...oh and the dozens of other incidents that occurred prior to the now famous case.

Unfortunately due to the fact that this is a pretty poorly written article that lacks any meaningful information...key one in my opinion being whether or not the car was moving, if she was busy sending a text message and trying to back up at the same time, etc...I am sure we will learn more in the coming weeks about this chick.

So what if McDonalds where in the wrong.

Why were she awarded 2.7million dollars? Surely she didn't loose that amount of money from the accident.


She originally simply wanted her medical bills covered, which...IIRC was around $20,000?
 
2014-02-22 05:13:59 PM
This winter, we've had temperatures as low as 15 below zero...I can think of people who would
LOVE to have hot coffee or cider dumped on their laps.
 
2014-02-22 05:24:52 PM

Teiritzamna: listernine:Its regarded as frivolous because Stella took the lid off. While it was between her legs. It wasn't handed to her with the lid halfway off. What's personal responsibility again?

Which was addressed in the jury's finding of contributory negligence against Liebeck

spawn73: Why were she awarded 2.7million dollars? Surely she didn't loose that amount of money from the accident.

She wasn't.  The Jury awarded $160,000 for compensatory damages, and the 2.7 mil was punitive against McDs as this had happened before and they had been warned about the high coffee temp but didn't seem to care.  That number btw was calculated based on the profits from coffee sales for two days, and was knocked down on appeal.


Yes. A jury has never gotten anything wrong before.
 
2014-02-22 06:11:36 PM

subotai54: Theaetetus: subotai54: Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: Prepare yourselves, here come the people who have no idea what the McDonald's lawsuit is actually about.

This one is actually better, though... The usual McDonald's defense from Fred and the other Tort Reform people is that coffee is supposed to be brewed* at a really high temperature. Cider does not have that requirement. There's no need for boiling it, and certainly no reason to serve it anywhere near that temp.

*mind you, it's supposed to be held and served at much lower temperatures.

What temperature do you think mcdonalds should serve their coffee at?  130 degrees can cause 3rd degree burns, and 100-110 is usually described as lukewarm or a bit warm.  Should they serve it at 120 and hope to god that you drink it in within a minute?

[www.accuratebuilding.com image 850x657]
130 should be plenty safe, actually.
It shouldn't be 185, which is what McDonald's coffee was.

You're not paying attention to what actually happened.  She was old, sitting in a car, surprised, and wearing absorbent, tight clothing.  That graph ends at 5 seconds.  She would have had contact for about 15-30 seconds, and at 130 degrees, that is enough to cause 2nd or 3rd degree burns.


Unlikely. First, following the curve on that graph, it probably hits 3rd degree burns at 130 at some point closer to two to three  minutes. Second, that's provided the liquid  stays at that temperature the entire time. Her body will suck up a lot of that heat and the temperature of the liquid will drop significantly. Within 15 seconds, it'd probably be closer to 100 degrees.

As an anecdotal, but relevant example, I'm currently cooking steaks in a temperature controlled water bath at 54 degrees Celsius (129.2 Fahrenheit).  To move the steaks around in the bath, I just reached in, bare handed, and shuffled the bags. It was quite warm, and I wouldn't want to leave my hand in there more than 5 seconds, but I didn't even have anything approaching a first degree burn. And that's with a significant amount of water, around a gallon or two, such that it doesn't decline in temperature due to my body.
 
2014-02-22 08:16:55 PM

listernine: Yes. A jury has never gotten anything wrong before.


Oh of course they do.  But given that anyone in this thread who knows anything about this actual case thinks they got it right, this is probably not one of those times.
 
2014-02-22 11:51:16 PM

Theaetetus: subotai54: Theaetetus: subotai54: Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: Prepare yourselves, here come the people who have no idea what the McDonald's lawsuit is actually about.

This one is actually better, though... The usual McDonald's defense from Fred and the other Tort Reform people is that coffee is supposed to be brewed* at a really high temperature. Cider does not have that requirement. There's no need for boiling it, and certainly no reason to serve it anywhere near that temp.

*mind you, it's supposed to be held and served at much lower temperatures.

What temperature do you think mcdonalds should serve their coffee at?  130 degrees can cause 3rd degree burns, and 100-110 is usually described as lukewarm or a bit warm.  Should they serve it at 120 and hope to god that you drink it in within a minute?

[www.accuratebuilding.com image 850x657]
130 should be plenty safe, actually.
It shouldn't be 185, which is what McDonald's coffee was.

You're not paying attention to what actually happened.  She was old, sitting in a car, surprised, and wearing absorbent, tight clothing.  That graph ends at 5 seconds.  She would have had contact for about 15-30 seconds, and at 130 degrees, that is enough to cause 2nd or 3rd degree burns.

Unlikely. First, following the curve on that graph, it probably hits 3rd degree burns at 130 at some point closer to two to three  minutes. Second, that's provided the liquid  stays at that temperature the entire time. Her body will suck up a lot of that heat and the temperature of the liquid will drop significantly. Within 15 seconds, it'd probably be closer to 100 degrees.

As an anecdotal, but relevant example, I'm currently cooking steaks in a temperature controlled water bath at 54 degrees Celsius (129.2 Fahrenheit).  To move the steaks around in the bath, I just reached in, bare handed, and shuffled the bags. It was quite warm, and I wouldn't want to leave my hand in there more than 5 seconds, but I didn't even have anything approaching a first ...


http://www.saintfrancismemorial.org/Medical_Services/195314

Notice that in your graph, VA thinks that 3rd degree burns can occur in 3 seconds at 140 degrees.  While 130 degrees in 15 seconds might be disagreeable to some of these people, it's not out and out crazy.

Regardless, 130 is just not hot enough to serve coffee at.  And the difference between 190 and 140 is just 4 seconds, which is basically inconsequential in this circumstance.
 
2014-02-23 12:20:24 AM
What are the odds she dumped it on herself in the hopes of winning a fat lawsuit?
 
2014-02-23 01:36:16 AM
Fragoso said she was sitting in her car in the parking lot when the lid came loose and the drink tumbled over, the New Jersey Law Journal reports.

Oh, I'm sure it did it all on its own too.
 
2014-02-23 01:55:34 AM
Coffee held at 140 degrees (or less) is unhygienic, by law.

The coffee could have been at 250 degrees, and if she put it between her legs, it is her OWN damn fault.

Put it in a cup holder. If you do not have a cup holder, do not order coffee.
 
2014-02-23 01:57:52 AM
subotai54:
Notice that in your graph, VA thinks that 3rd degree burns can occur in 3 seconds at 140 degrees.  While 130 degrees in 15 seconds might be disagreeable to some of these people, it's not out and out crazy.

Regardless, 130 is just not hot enough to serve coffee at.  And the difference between 190 and 140 is just 4 seconds, which is basically inconsequential in this circumstance.


Honestly, I really don't know what you're  trying to argue. You're saying "130 degrees is deadly and people will get significant burns immediately" and "130 is not hot enough to serve coffee at". Whatever it is you're trying to say, you're being inconsistent from the start.

Let me help... if you believe that coffee should be served  hotter, then you should start out by arguing how those burn graphs are wrong. If you accept them, then the only alternative is that you're arguing that people should be burned when they drink coffee... and if that's your argument, then by all means, embrace it. Because it will be really fun to argue against.
 
2014-02-23 02:13:12 AM

subotai54: Theaetetus: subotai54: Theaetetus: subotai54: Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: Prepare yourselves, here come the people who have no idea what the McDonald's lawsuit is actually about.


You know you're debating an attorney?  My money is on the guy with a degree.
 
2014-02-23 08:02:37 AM
I haven't spent my life studying coffee temperatures like some folks here, but I have been burned with commercial coffee.

I bought a regular coffee and it was placed on the counter in front of me, in the typical paper cup and plastic lid. I picked it up normally, about 2/3 of the way up, not in too big of a hurry. But the heat from the coffee had actually softened the cup/lid meeting point, the lid came off, the cup mashed together, and coffee went all over my hand.

That coffee was farking HOT. I mean, I burn myself with coffee at home commonly enough. But Jesus farking christ, this coffee was so hot I dropped the cup on the floor in like two seconds, and a blister raised on my hand. How hot is that on the graph, damned if I know.

The person that served me ran into the back and wouldn't come back out. Other customers and I threw napkins on the puddle, and I got ice. I was hugely pissed off. I didn't make trouble about it, because the blister eventually went away without peeling. I've always assumed I'd be too embarrassed to go to the trouble of suing someone, but if I'd put that coffee on my lap and blistered my junk with it, yeah, I'd have sued too. That shiat is just too hot.
 
2014-02-23 08:24:23 AM

relaxitsjustme: What are the odds she dumped it on herself in the hopes of winning a fat lawsuit?


NSFW/NSFL - 1

NSFW/NSFL - 2

Keep in mind this is an old lady with no money troubles...now rethink your question.
 
2014-02-23 03:32:58 PM
the McDonalds coffee lawsuit was when I knew the country was going down the drain...

coffee is made by boiling water, it's hot.

if you put it in your crotch, good for you, but you don't deserve a cent for being such a dumbass.
 
2014-02-23 10:49:17 PM
One Day's coffee profits is not too higha price to pay for burning the skin off a woman's cooch.
Yes coffee is hot, but spilled coffee should not necessitate skin grafts. Especially if you've already settled hundreds of lawsuits for third degree burns caused by your excessively hot coffee.
One Day's coffee profits.
Third degree burns over 16% of her body.
She tried to settle for $9K, McDonald's offered $800. Fark them!
 
2014-02-23 10:56:18 PM

subotai54: Theaetetus: subotai54: Theaetetus: Endive Wombat: Prepare yourselves, here come the people who have no idea what the McDonald's lawsuit is actually about.

This one is actually better, though... The usual McDonald's defense from Fred and the other Tort Reform people is that coffee is supposed to be brewed* at a really high temperature. Cider does not have that requirement. There's no need for boiling it, and certainly no reason to serve it anywhere near that temp.

*mind you, it's supposed to be held and served at much lower temperatures.

What temperature do you think mcdonalds should serve their coffee at?  130 degrees can cause 3rd degree burns, and 100-110 is usually described as lukewarm or a bit warm.  Should they serve it at 120 and hope to god that you drink it in within a minute?

[www.accuratebuilding.com image 850x657]
130 should be plenty safe, actually.
It shouldn't be 185, which is what McDonald's coffee was.

You're not paying attention to what actually happened.  She was old, sitting in a car, surprised, and wearing absorbent, tight clothing.  That graph ends at 5 seconds.  She would have had contact for about 15-30 seconds, and at 130 degrees, that is enough to cause 2nd or 3rd degree burns.


Well then, 185 degree coffee would be much worse then wouldn't it? Especially since they were already on notice that their coffee was too damn hot.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report