Hot Coffee decades later

[HeadlessRoland]

the difference is if I spill it on myself and get burnt I will not be suing the microwave manufacturer for not letting me know that liquids can become hot enough to burn.

Can I quote you on that?
Will you volunteer to have searingly hot coffee spilt on your lap?

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

The issue isn't that the coffee was spilled.

The issue is that the coffee was that hot to begin with.

Coffee THAT HOT had no business being served. They'd been asked, corporately, to not serve it so hot - and they declined. NOT adjusting their business practice is what makes/made them responsible in this instance.

How many more folks have had third degree burns from McDonald's coffee since this incident?

 

[Caleb]

The issue isn't that the coffee was spilled.

The issue is that the coffee was that hot to begin with.

Coffee THAT HOT had no business being served. They'd been asked, corporately, to not serve it so hot - and they declined. NOT adjusting their business practice is what makes/made them responsible in this instance.

How many more folks have had third degree burns from McDonald's coffee since this incident?

How hot does coffee need to be before it's considered "not hot"?

Seriously, that's like me saying "I accidentally fell on a hot weld I just welded and burned a good part of my forearm, so I'm gonna sue my former employer for my burns because 'i didn't know it was that hot'."

Hot is called hot for a reason.

 

[gregkl]

I don't care if she was awarded 1 dollar or 1 trillion. She bought coffee and spilled it on herself. Can I sue a hot water heater manufacturer if I get burned by the hot water it creates because I didn't expect it to get "that" hot?

The lawsuit is simple. She passed the responsibility of her error onto someone else (the new American way)

If an employee had spilled it on her and burned her, that's a totally different story, but SHE spilled it on HERSELF.

If I trip on a sidewalk bump my head and end up in the ICU do I get to sue the city because I expected the sidewalk to be level?

Sure you can file a lawsuit. And you may even get damages paid. I leveled up my sidewalks in my neighborhood because they posed a trip hazard and I could be sued for negligence if someone tripped out in front of my house.

I could still be sued if someone falls, but I would have a fighting chance since I can prove that I took steps to remove/minimize the hazard.

 

[jkaetz]

The issue isn't that the coffee was spilled.

The issue is that the coffee was that hot to begin with.

But the issue would not have existed if the coffee had not been spilled. The coffee temperature is irrelevant without the spilling of said coffee.

Coffee THAT HOT had no business being served.

This continues to be said but has anyone done any research on hot drinks in general? It's not unusual for hot drinks to be in the 150ºF - 175ºF range. At those temperatures, seconds is all it will take to burn/scald. But it takes those temperatures to make the drink feel like a hot drink and not just a warm one. The bottom line is that hot drinks are dangerous. If you want to remove the danger you'll have luke warm drinks.


Calculating the optimum temperature for serving hot beverages. - ResearchGate
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...cup-of-joe?-we-put-your-favorites-to-the-test.

 

[lizerdking]

In law it all comes down to what is a reasonable expectation.

A reasonable person would expect that yes, coffee may burn them, but they would not expect skin grafting to be required for extensive burns. Anyone who drinks coffee at home/any other restaurant has come in contact with normal temperature coffee and not required skin grafting for extensive burns.

Had she expected the coffee to be that dangerously hot, she would not have done the actions that led to her extensive burns. She was acting reasonably considering any other cup of coffee would have been uncomfortable to come in contact with, not dangerous.

A corporation was acting outside of reasonable expectations, purely for the sake of profit.



Let's go the other way with it. You buy ice cream, it's expected to be cold, so you eat it. Company discovers that serving excessively cold ice cream frozen with liquid nitrogen is cheaper to produce. They start serving it, and have discovered and are warned that their ice cream can cause frost bite and necrosis. They continue to serve the ice cream knowing it is dangerous. A person then purchases the ice cream and has to have their tongue removed because it was so cold it caused instant necrosis. Shouldn't' that company be liable for breaking what is considered the acceptable reasonable standard for ice cream temperature knowingly and without regard for the consumer well being?

 

[forgop]

Either of you research the details of this case? At all? Or continue to believe that it's frivolity?

If there were ever a case of negligence on the part of a company - this is it. Seriously. Read up.

Also - do you honestly think that a company selling a beverage (yes, even a beverage supposed to be hot) that's hot enough to cause THIRD DEGREE BURNS, even if in an unintentional spill, isn't the LEAST bit negligent? Seriously?

Heaven forbid anyone you're related to has to go through something like this.

I have read up on it. I know coffee is hot. I don't place HOT (or cold beverages for that matter) in my lap and attempt to take off the lid. If anyone is STUPID enough to do it, shame on you for being an IDIOT.

 

[forgop]

How many more folks have had third degree burns from McDonald's coffee since this incident?

I'd say far more people haven't been burned because they didn't want to be known as someone as stupid as this old lady by putting hot coffee in their lap and removing the lid more so than lowering the coffee temp 10 degrees.

 

[jkaetz]

In law it all comes down to what is a reasonable expectation.

A reasonable person would expect that yes, coffee may burn them, but they would not expect skin grafting to be required for extensive burns. Anyone who drinks coffee at home/any other restaurant has come in contact with normal temperature coffee and not required skin grafting for extensive burns.

Had she expected the coffee to be that dangerously hot, she would not have done the actions that led to her extensive burns. She was acting reasonably considering any other cup of coffee would have been uncomfortable to come in contact with, not dangerous.

You have a couple flaws in your argument. First you use subjective terms for hot and dangerously hot. What is needed is facts and numbers. The other flaw is an ignorance of how dangerous hot liquids are does not absolve one of responsibility. Hot liquids will cause severe burns very quickly. Look at the temp vs time to 3rd degree burn I posted above. Even 150º liquid will burn you very badly if left on your skin for 90 seconds.

 

[forgop]

How about the temp at which fries are served when they're fresh. They'll burn your mouth. The need to turn down the fryers to prevent people from scalding their mouths and causing blisters from dangerous temps at which the fries are cooked. Next time I get hot fries, I'm going to complain and demand they turn down the fryer. Then I will certainly have grounds to file a lawsuit if they don't turn their fryers down to 250, right?

 

[85t5mcss]

Even 150º liquid will burn you very badly if left on your skin for 90 seconds.

And don't forget to remind him that strapped into a car by using a seatbelt, stuck in a drive thru and unable to open the door while wearing cotton pants AND cotton briefs that held the heat energy against the skin. Even if she would have "flapped" her pants to cool it off the hot liquid is still against her skin. I still say frivoulous. Should never have put the coffee between her legs to begin with. I guess McD's should post a time vs temp chart in all their stores.

I burnt my tongue at lunch. Who should I sue? Work? Microwave Company? Maybe myself since it was my leftovers? I guess I'll just take responsibility for overheating it and then putting dangerously hot food in my mouth.

How about the temp at which fries are served when they're fresh. They'll burn your mouth. The need to turn down the fryers to prevent people from scalding their mouths and causing blisters from dangerous temps at which the fries are cooked. Next time I get hot fries, I'm going to complain and demand they turn down the fryer. Then I will certainly have grounds to file a lawsuit if they don't turn their fryers down to 250, right?

Fries are typically cooked at 350^. I would demand it to be reduced to 125^. That way it'll take longer to burn you and it'll give you a chance to chew them first. Also ask for money for gas since you'll be sitting in the drive-thru for 15 minutes now.

 

[public servant]

And don't forget to remind him that strapped into a car by using a seatbelt, stuck in a drive thru and unable to open the door while wearing cotton pants AND cotton briefs that held the heat energy against the skin. Even if she would have "flapped" her pants to cool it off the hot liquid is still against her skin.

This is why I don't wear seatbelts or pants in the drive-thru.

 

[Caleb]

This is why I don't wear seatbelts or pants in the drive-thru.

Kilt?

 

[public servant]

Kilt?

Commando.

 

[Leo]

All of life has hazards. Even if you spent your life in a padded room and were attended to by top physicians and nutritionists, you would die. Tonight on TV there is a "big news event" about SUV's that catch fire it you wreck them bad enough, claiming they are defectively designed. Rear end a Pinto with a one ton van and a school bus, it may catch fire. Rear end a police cruiser hard enough, it may catch fire. Rear end an SUV hard enough, it may catch fire. Spill hot coffee on yourself, you may get burned. Submerge yourself in bath water, you may drown. Sorry folks, you will have to accept reality.

 

[Leo]

Greg mentioned the sidewalks. I lived in a town where there was an ordinance that you have to shovel the snow off your sidewalks. My neighbor cleared his drive and walks and they got icy. An old woman slipped and fell. She sued him and won because the judge said the snow was not an "act of God" because he altered the conditions by shoveling.

The problem is not coffee, engineering or sidewalks, it is foolishness in the legal system.

 

[lizerdking]

How about the temp at which fries are served when they're fresh. They'll burn your mouth. The need to turn down the fryers to prevent people from scalding their mouths and causing blisters from dangerous temps at which the fries are cooked. Next time I get hot fries, I'm going to complain and demand they turn down the fryer. Then I will certainly have grounds to file a lawsuit if they don't turn their fryers down to 250, right?

A reasonable person expects their fries to be that hot, they're server out of hot oil that is the same temperature no matter what establishment serves them.
Mcdonalds served coffee @ 190... everywhere else coffee is made @ 140. Society had come to expect that coffee = 140, hot, not dangerous.

All of life has hazards. Even if you spent your life in a padded room and were attended to by top physicians and nutritionists, you would die. Tonight on TV there is a "big news event" about SUV's that catch fire it you wreck them bad enough, claiming they are defectively designed. Rear end a Pinto with a one ton van and a school bus, it may catch fire. Rear end a police cruiser hard enough, it may catch fire. Rear end an SUV hard enough, it may catch fire. Spill hot coffee on yourself, you may get burned. Submerge yourself in bath water, you may drown. Sorry folks, you will have to accept reality.

So corporations should not be responsible for doing things they know are dangerous to their consumers? Let's start painting our kids toys with lead paint because it's cheaper too. Sorry little johnnie, accept that you have the intelligence of a potato because it made some guy a little extra cash now.

Ya'll made up your mind a long time ago on this case based on the original settlement that made the news but was never actually paid out. The old lady didn't get rich off this, she had her medical bills covered, that's about it.

I expect more open minds on a board like this, everyone here gets in an uproar when the media sensationalizes an issue like gun control and sticks to facts that are half truths at best, but when they sensationalized this story you took the bait.

How have we all gotten so gullible as a society.

 

[Birds Away]

Darwin was the lifeguard of humanity's gene pool. Just another job the libs have lost for us.

 

[CountryBoy19]

saw the documentary. the pic of the old lady's inner thighs, after the McD's coffee burnt her, is horrific.
she was severely burned. not placing blame anywhere...just recalling how disturbing her injury was.

but still the CAUSE of her getting burnt was HER spilling the coffee. She and she alone bears the responsibility as to why the hot liquid even had the chance to burn in the first place regardless of how much hotter it was than a "normal" cup of hot coffee.

This might be a stretch but lets try to correlate this to some other industry for a moment, say the car industry.

Coffee, even though it is not a standardized industry, has a range of temperatures that the beverage is commonly served at for both safety etc. etc. blah blah. If you purchase a cup of coffee you can reasonably expect that the serving temperature will be similar to other vendors. Just like when you buy a car you can reasonably expect that the car is safe and in most normal auto-accident the safety features will protect you. However, lets say one car company has found that it is more profitable to use air-bags of a suspect origin because it is cheaper to do so. You buy the vehicle because it has passed safety tests and shows that is is safe. However, 5 years down the road it has come to light that the air-bag units may be faulty and the company knows that. Still there is no recall yet. Then, you get in an accident and are maimed for life because the air-bag didn't deploy.

Now, by your argument you knew that driving a car had it's risks and you should accept that this happened to you. By the argument of Indy_Guy_77 and some others it was proven that this was not an isolated incident and that the company was deliberately putting the drivers of their vehicle at risk because it meant more profit. Would it be frivolous for you to sue the auto-maker? That is what happened in the case of McD's coffee.

The serving temperature of their coffee was well above typical serving temperatures in the industry. It is pretty reasonable for a person to assume there is risk of being burned by hot coffee, it is unreasonable to state they should have known McD's serves their coffee 20 degrees hotter than the rest of coffee vendors and should be extra careful because McD's coffee can cause 3rd degree burns where-as other coffee can only cause 2nd-degree in most cases.

Really, I was in the same camp as you for nearly 2 decades until I watched the documentary and read up on it. I discovered through my own research that McDonalds was acting negligently serving a non-standard product in the likeness of a similar, yet much safer product.

Now, that's not to say that I'm saying McDonald's is at fault for spilling the coffee, because that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying McDonald's was at fault for serving a product that was much more dangerous than other products served in it's likeness.

All of life has hazards. Even if you spent your life in a padded room and were attended to by top physicians and nutritionists, you would die. Tonight on TV there is a "big news event" about SUV's that catch fire it you wreck them bad enough, claiming they are defectively designed. Rear end a Pinto with a one ton van and a school bus, it may catch fire. Rear end a police cruiser hard enough, it may catch fire. Rear end an SUV hard enough, it may catch fire. Spill hot coffee on yourself, you may get burned. Submerge yourself in bath water, you may drown. Sorry folks, you will have to accept reality.

I disagree. We, as consumers, collectively determine what is a reasonable risk and what isn't. It is accepted that at some point a vehicle safety feature can only do so much to protect you and in the case of very severe accidents you will die. That is and should be understood by almost everybody on the road. However, you also respect that in the majority of accidents the vehicle will be designed in a manner that it WILL protect you and it won't burst into flames. So when a vehicle has multiple reports of safety-system failures and there are an unusual number of incident rates (deaths in this case) for that particular vehicle it becomes clear that it has fallen out of the realm of "reasonable" expectations of safety and now begins the investigation to determine if negligence played a part. If it did, the company is liable for that negligence. The liability is shared between the consumer and the manufacturer. I realize there is risk in every thing I do every single day, but I weight the likelihood & consequences vs. the reward of performing that action. If a manufacturer acted negligently and their negligent actions shift the likelihood or the consequences of a catastrophy to a higher risk level then they are liable.

I've done many risk-assessments before, I know how risk assessments work in industry, and therefore I understand how that can be applied to real-life outside of work. Average people "assess risk" everyday without realizing it so it can only be assumed that this lady also may have assessed her risk. A risk assessment for buying coffee may be similar to this: can coffee burn me? Yes, but I've been burned by coffee before and it only burned enough to be uncomfortable, not cause life-altering injuries. What is the likelihood of an incident occurring if I place the coffee in my lap? Marginally likely but coffee, even when spilled should only cause discomfort, not 3rd-degree life-altering burns, I will accept that risk and place this cup of coffee in my lap.

That is how the thought process may go. However, if McD's serves a cup of coffee that is WELL-ABOVE the usual serving temperature that shifts the cosequence of an incident and that is where the liability came in. However, that alone isn't worth a lawsuit, often times negligence has to be proven. In this case it was. McD's KNEW their coffee was much hotter than common industry practices and knew the consequences of a spill were very high, yet they continued their practices because it was more profitable at the expense of shifting hazards to their consumers. When you shift additional hazard to consumers you better have a good way of backing up your actions as reasonable.

 

[forgop]

A reasonable person expects their fries to be that hot, they're server out of hot oil that is the same temperature no matter what establishment serves them.
Mcdonalds served coffee @ 190... everywhere else coffee is made @ 140. Society had come to expect that coffee = 140, hot, not dangerous.

Who says society had come to expect coffee be 140? NOBODY serves it at that low of a temp even now, let alone in the era 20 years ago where it was even hotter than it is now.

A reasonable person expects hot fries, but it takes a dumb@ss to put coffee between their legs whether it's 170 or 190.