Ok. I figured it out....(kinda long)

[monorail_rider]

[MiceMan]

Too Hilarious! I have heard about all of those and I like them in your happy little story! Now all the lady needs to do is sue the funeral parlor from beyond the grave because they don't make coffins big enough for her!

[FrumiousBoojum]

Well, as far as the coffee incident at McDonald's, you were never really told the full story unless you did a lot of research into it.

This actually *was* a valid lawsuit.

The problem wasn't a stupid person not knowing that the coffee would be hot, but more of McDonald's refusal to cool the coffee down to a safer level. McDonald's coffee at that point was claimed to be the hottest coffee in town. However, it could easily create 3rd degree burns. It was always served several degrees hotter than any other restraunt would even think of serving their coffee.

On top of refusing to cool it down, they failed to put warning that their coffee was dangerously hot.

I believe there were several other factors, but I was one that believed that it was a case of stupid person winning in court until I heard about all the facts of the rest of the case.

Oddly enough, me hearing about the rest of the facts fell in line with a rather stupid lawsuit: a divorced couple suing somebody that hit them in a car accident because they had apparently caused the divorce by hitting them with the car. An accident that didn't really do much damage, apparently...

[monorail_rider]

Well, as far as the coffee incident at McDonald's, you were never really told the full story unless you did a lot of research into it.

This actually *was* a valid lawsuit.

The problem wasn't a stupid person not knowing that the coffee would be hot, but more of McDonald's refusal to cool the coffee down to a safer level. McDonald's coffee at that point was claimed to be the hottest coffee in town. However, it could easily create 3rd degree burns. It was always served several degrees hotter than any other restraunt would even think of serving their coffee.

On top of refusing to cool it down, they failed to put warning that their coffee was dangerously hot.

I believe there were several other factors, but I was one that believed that it was a case of stupid person winning in court until I heard about all the facts of the rest of the case.

Oddly enough, me hearing about the rest of the facts fell in line with a rather stupid lawsuit: a divorced couple suing somebody that hit them in a car accident because they had apparently caused the divorce by hitting them with the car. An accident that didn't really do much damage, apparently...

I have done LOTS of research into the coffee (and other) BS lawsuits.

I have worked for MD's Hardee's and BK and I know that the coffe when it is brewed is 117 degs. and remains between that and 112 degs untill poured from the pot into the cup. Now I agree that is HOT But there are very vallid reasons to have it that hot. Keeps it from goign bad as fast. keeps it warm longer.

AS for the "warning" There has ALWAYS been a warning on the coffee cups saying "Caution: HOT LIQUID"

Refusal to cool it down????? Ok. so they serve nice hot coffee and someone gets stupid and burns themself. Or they cool it down and now everyone complains that the coffee is too cold.

I know that working the places I did, if a coustomer asked (and only when asked) we would add ice to their cup. one lady even requested half and half. (half cold water and half coffee.)


On top of that. Who in their right mind sticks a cup of HOT coffee in a paper cup between their legs while driving?

Basicly some lady saw a "get rich quick" idea and acted on it.



I think I'm going to sue Playboy for my CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME :lol:

[PirateMunkee]

I think I'm going to sue Playboy for my CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME :lol:

Upon hearing his joke being stolen. Larry the Cable Guy sues Monorail_rider for tons of money :lol:

[monorail_rider]

Upon hearing his joke being stolen. Larry the Cable Guy sues Monorail_rider for tons of money :lol:

But who sues him since we were telling that joke in middle school?



(oops edited the wrong thread in the wrong board. LOL)

[PirateMunkee]

But who sues him since we were telling that joke in middle school?

Good Question.

And besides...my bad. Larry the Cable Guy says he's going to sue Hustler for Carpal Tunnel. I guess you're in the clear since Playboy gave you you're Carpal Tunnel.

Man, never drink and type especially when you can't think straight....trust me on this. I have a bad cold and just drank some Nightquill.

[figment1986]

Whatabout when you are in the hospital... crate a movie/game idea... and 2 years latter... see it in the theaters but you didn't give them permission to use it or get any cash..... then sue....

[Bacon]

Basicly some lady saw a "get rich quick" idea and acted on it.

Yeah, I'm sure she inflicted 3rd degree burns on herself on purpose.

[monorail_rider]

Yeah, I'm sure she inflicted 3rd degree burns on herself on purpose.

Ok. Some information I learned from being on the Fire Dept.

a 3rd deg burn can be very sever(sp) or it can be not so bad. Example. Anyone that has sipped a FRESH cup of hot coffee, or soup and burned their toung. That is a 3rd deg burn., It'll hurt for a day or 2. but it does not cause boils, skin loss, surgery, ect. Or you can be caught in a fire and be burned from head to toe and that ALSO is 3rd deg burn.



So when you hear and say that she had 3rd deg burns from coffee. Image how your toung feels when you drink hot coffee and then tell me if you think she had a vallid lawsuit.

[Bacon]

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

Two important quotes from that article.

Before trial, McDonald's gave the opposing lawyer its operations and training manual, which says its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees for optimal taste.

That's a little above your 117 degree number. Remeber, water's boiling point is at 212 degrees, and a substance like coffee holds heat longer than plain water so would burn more if spilled.

Quote #2

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.

I don't know about you, but I've spilled coffee on my self before and it never required an extended hospital stay and skin grafts.

[Bacon]

Some more interesting points...

The testimony of Mr. Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it.

There was far more going on in the case than most people realize. McDonalds knew there was potential for danger and did nothing to even look into it.

I'm generally against frivolous law suits. I also am of the opinion that the award to the victim in this case was too high (I'll get to that). But the claim itself most certainly had merit.

As for the award being to high, here's how I see it. The jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. Now, while I understand that 1) there does have to be a some significant penalty to discourage companies from negligence and 2) simply paying for a victim's medical costs does not really compensate them for the emotional pain or future problems, making people millionaires out of this is going to far. Personally, I think punitive damages should be paid to the state and go to covering the cost of the judicial system.

Of course, if the tort reform bill that just ended up in the House goes through, that will change the game.

[The Mad Hatter]

Why would anyone actually defend the 'coffee spiller'?? coffee=hot, even a child can realize this. People just need to own up to their stupid mistakes and stop trying to blame others. These people shouldn't breed.

[Bacon]

Why would anyone actually defend the 'coffee spiller'?? coffee=hot, even a child can realize this. People just need to own up to their stupid mistakes and stop trying to blame others. These people shouldn't breed.

Sigh. 1) The jury reduced her compensatory damages by 20% because she was responsible for spilling it. 2) The coffee was dangerously hot, McDonalds knew it was dangerously hot, and they did nothing about it.

Yes, she made a stupid mistake spilling coffee. But it's reasonable to assume that you don't have to treat a cup of coffee as a hazardous material. You spill it, it hurts a lot, you need a new pair of pants. But there's no way in HELL it should land you in a hospital for 7 days and require expensive, painful, and permanently disfiguring skin grafts. Especially, and this can't be stressed enough, when a McDonalds exectuive admitted that they knew the coffee could cause burns but did nothing about it. Pure negligence.

[The Mad Hatter]

But it's reasonable to assume that you don't have to treat a cup of coffee as a hazardous material.

It's also reasonable not to put a cup of coffee inbetween your legs. And of course the McDonalds representatives were apologetic...if they weren't then the people that blame everyone else for everything would throw a hissy-fit. It's all ludicrous. There is potential danger with everything. So what's next, putting a label on a baseball bat telling people not to hit other people upside the head with it? :lol:

[Bacon]

McDonalds representatives weren't apologeitc, they were idiots. They admitted to not paying a lick of attention to the fact that their product had the potential to severly injure someone.

Sorry, but McDonalds produced a faulty product, one that was unnecessarily hot. I take care not to spill coffee on me because it will hurt. However, if I knew that it had the potential to burn the flesh off of my body, I would never handle it at all in a moving car, between my legs or otherwise. But I don't expect that, nor should I. This isn't someone suing because they want their cup of coffee back. This is someone suing because McDonalds failed to take even the slightest bit of precaution to ensure their product wasn't dangerous. The relevant facts are this. 1) Coffee does not need to be that hot. 2) McDonalds was AWARE that it posed a danger, 3) They did nothing to mitigate that danger.

Your baseball bat analogy doesn't hold. There's no reasonable expectation for that not to cause serious injury. There is a reasonable expectation for spilled coffee to not cause permanent disfigurement.

[The Mad Hatter]

But how hot is too hot?? One person's scalding hot is another person's mildly hot. What she was wearing could be another factor...if she was wearing shorts it would be much worse than if she was wearing pants. The point is it doesn't matter how hot the stuff is. If you get fajitas at chevy's, the plate comes sizziling hot...should they put a sticker on the plate telling you to watch out?? it comes down to common sense, or lack of common sense for that matter.

[FrumiousBoojum]

Her claim was reduced because it was her fault, as was stated. The larger point is, if it's served at that kind of heat, it had no business being served through the drive-through where that kind of accident could happen no matter where you put the coffee. It really wasn't even at a safe drinking level.

The case was, in the end, out of pure negligence, as was already stated. She didn't get as much because of her negligence, but because of McDonald's negligence of near-boiling coffee, she won.

Near-boiling coffee is near-boiling coffee, no matter what your comfort level of heat is. Just because you're a masochist, that doesn't mean you still won't get 3rd degree burns.

And what she was wearing shouldn't come into play in this legal case. She shouldn't need to worry about how thick her pants and plan her entire wardrobe around a visit through a drive-thru.

Eh... I see too much of a repeat of what's already been said coming too much now.

[Bacon]

Yes, it does come down to common sense, and common sense says that coffee should not be able to disfigure you.

Sizzling oil has the expectation of being dangerously hot. Coffee does not. Again, we're not talking, "Ow that was really hot, it burnt my tongue a little." 7 days in the hospital and lifelong disfigurement. As Monorail Rider pointed out, 112-117 degrees it he normal temperature of restaurant coffee. This was 190 degrees! It was at least 30 degrees above the temperature KNOWN to cause 3rd degree burns. We're not talking a thin line, here, it wasn't even close. As I see it, it's lack of common sense when a someone says, "Yeah, we knew it was dangerous, but decided to not look into it and ask anyone if we should do something about it."

Again, the jury held her partly responsible because she spilled the coffee, and thus reduced her damages (just the compensatory, not the punitive, that's a whole other issue, which I've already addressed). But that doesn't change the fact that McDonalds was very negligent in paying attention to the known dangers of their product.

[The Mad Hatter]

I totally understand what your saying. But has there been anyone else that this has happened to?? where they had to spend a week in the hospital from McDonald's coffee?? I sure havn't heard any other stories like that. If the coffee was so dangerously hot...then why weren't there lots of other people seriously burning themselves??