Can this mother win this lawsuit?



"Glenn Gilbreath Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> And let's not forget that our legal system is getting a rather infamous reputation for making
> illogical decisions...I mean, come on, awarding some lady 3 million dollars for spilling hot
> coffee in her crotch! Sheesh, it's getting rather dispicable.

read up on the case first.

http://corpreform.typepad.com/corpreform/2003/10/the_truth_about.html
http://www.8bitjoystick.com/archives/jake_misinformation_about_the_mcdonalds_coffee_lawsuit.php
 
GGJ> And let's not forget that our legal system is getting a rather infamous reputation for making
GGJ> illogical decisions...I mean, come on, awarding some lady 3 million dollars for spilling hot
GGJ> coffee in her crotch!

As you can see from the many responses to your post, it's not only the legal system but quite a
number of folks as well.
 
"Jonathan Kamens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Robert E. Lewis" <[email protected]> writes:
> >For example, while the Mythbuster site points out 700 McDonald's coffee scaldings over ten years
> >and describes McDonald's coffee sales as running $1.3 million per day, the Stella Awards site
> >does the math and points
out
> >that this works out to just one injury per twenty-four million cups of coffee sold by McDonald's
> >- which makes it sound a bit less as though the company was rampantly injuring people with its
> >dangerous coffee.
>
> This is an excellent example of how to lie with statistics.
>
> You can't legitimately jump from the fact that Stella's attorneys were able to document 700 cases
> of scaldings over ten years to the *assumption* that those were the *only* cases of scalding.
> Without doing a heck of a lot more research, there's no way to know how many scaldings went
> unreported during that time.

I have read quite a bit on this case. The one question I still have is the scope of the 700 suits.
Were they national? Local? Regional?

> Furthermore, you can't assume that the $1.3 million per day in coffee sales figure is accurate for
> the past ten years; it almost certainly isn't.
>
> Furthermore, you can't assume that McDonald's had a policy of serving their coffee that hot for
> the past ten years, or that in fact the equipment they were using in their restaurants for the
> entire ten years was capable of keeping coffee that hot.
>
> Furthermore, you can't assume that all McDonald's outlets served their coffee that hot for the
> entire ten years, even if that was corporate policy. Some chains may have chosen to turn down the
> temperature, perhaps because they thought it was dangerously hot ;-) or because patrons
> complained.
>
> The proportion of the number of people injured to the number of units sold is remarkably low for
> the majority of product liability claims. This has little bearing on whether there is in fact any
> liability.
>
> >For example, the Mythbuster site offers descriptions of the dangers of serving coffee at 180 -
> >185 degrees Farenheit as offered as proof
McDonald's
> >was recklessly acting for purely economic reasons - The Stella Awards version points to the
> >National Coffee Association's website on 'How To
Brew
> >Coffee' - and that 180-185­° is the recommended serving temperature for coffee.
>
> The correct temperature for optimal taste has little relationship to the correct temperature for
> optimal safety. Product manufacturers and retailers change their products all the time to make
> them more safe in ways that make them "worse" in other ways. It's perfectly legitimate to argue
> that the temperature at which you should serve coffee for your own personal use is too hot, safety-
> wise, for a large-volume fast-food operation.
>
> Given the quality of the hamburgers that McDonald's serves, surely you're not going to argue that
> they always do things in a way that ensures the highest quality product possible.
 
In <[email protected]>, Glenn Gilbreath Jr. wrote:
>
>And let's not forget that our legal system is getting a rather infamous reputation for making
>illogical decisions...I mean, come on, awarding some lady 3 million dollars for spilling hot coffee
>in her crotch! Sheesh, it's getting rather dispicable. Too bad people can't be held responsible for
>their own actions, but rather seek to blame someone else for everything that might possibly occur.

You should find better examples of frivolous lawsuits. The facts of the McD's suit are:

1. The coffee was not at a usual coffee temperature, but significantly hotter. The lady required
skin grafts.
2. Before suing, the lady asked for no more than reimbursement of her medical bills, and
McD's refused.
3. McD's was on notice of 600 previous burns from their excessively hot coffee, and also the extra-
tight coffeecup lids. Dislodging the lid all-too-often spilled coffee.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
In <[email protected]>, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
>"Robert E. Lewis" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>For example, the Mythbuster site offers descriptions of the dangers of serving coffee at 180 - 185
>>degrees Farenheit as offered as proof McDonald's was recklessly acting for purely economic reasons
>>- The Stella Awards version points to the National Coffee Association's website on 'How To Brew
>>Coffee' - and that 180-185­° is the recommended serving temperature for coffee.
>
>The correct temperature for optimal taste has little relationship to the correct temperature for
>optimal safety.

Given the quality of McD's coffee, it is understandable that the temperature for best taste would
be one that burns taste buds! Meanwhile, I think coffee should be at a temperature where I could
drink it! And where does NCA get that high temperature? Is that so the coffee remains hot after
being poured into a cold ceramic cup?

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
[email protected] (Jonathan Kamens) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> The correct temperature for optimal taste has little relationship to the correct temperature for
> optimal safety.

Good point. I suspect that the two numbers are considerably spaced apart. Which means that coffe
served at a palatable temp is likely to carry some risk. Which then brings us to the question of how
much risk is accpetable?

--
CBI
 
Andy <[email protected]> writes:

> I once saw pictures of the woman's injuries from the infamous "McDonald's too-hot coffee" case.
> They were pretty gross.

I'm sure any photo of an eighty-year-old woman's crotch would be pretty disturbing, scalded or not.

Geoff

--
"Democrats are so stupid that if one of 'em fell into a barrel full of titties he'd come out sucking
his thumb."
-- Will Durst
 
<[email protected]> writes:

>> Most cars have coffee-holders.

> Hey TROLL, look at the time this happened and try to tell us most cars had cup holders then!

This, from somebody who doesn't even have the guts to post under his own name. Ya gotta love it...

Three points:

1. Being wrong about something doesn't make someone a "troll."

2. And if it did, the term would be *troller.* A "troll" is a provocative article posted by
a troller.

3. Most cars sold in the U.S. have had cupholders for about a quarter-century now, give or take.

Geoff

--
"Democrats are so stupid that if one of 'em fell into a barrel full of titties, he'd come out sucki-
ng his thumb."
-- Will Durst
 
"Jonathan Kamens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Glenn Gilbreath Jr.) writes:
> >And let's not forget that our legal system is getting a rather infamous reputation for making
> >illogical decisions...I mean, come on, awarding some lady 3 million dollars for spilling hot
> >coffee in her crotch!
>
> People on the rag about our out-of-control legal system frequently bring up this case as their
> poster child of ridiculous law suits, but when doing so, they fail to mention the context of
> the case.
>
> Coffee that is hot enough to cause second-degree burns when spilled on someone's lap is too hot.
>
> The McDonald's which was sued after this particular incident had a history, on the record, of
> people being injured by its coffee, of many people complaining that its coffee was too hot. It
> failed to take any steps to address the situation.
>
> The high damages in this particular case were not intended to compensate the victim as much as
> they were intended to make McDonald's "feel the pain" for its negligent behavior. Given its huge
> income, it would not have felt any pain from a small award. Punishing the offender, not rewarding
> the victim, is the point of punitive damages.
>
> >Too bad people can't be held responsible for their own actions, but rather seek to blame someone
> >else for everything that might possibly occur.
>
> I don't disagree with you that our culture of blame has gotten out of control. But the McDonald's
> case you referenced isn't necessarily a good example of that.

You are absolutely correct in you analysis of this case (you must have been reading my old posts on
this subject). McDonald's was surely on notice that they had a major problem with regard to the
excessively high temperature that the coffee was brewed and served it. They brewed it at those
temperatures for purely economic reasons, and the jury said that they deserved to be hit hard for
their attitude.

One of the responses that has been made is that it is just 20 degrees above the usual brewing
temperature. However, according to a friend of mine, who is a reconstructive plastic surgeon,
temperature is related to potential injury logarithmically. He has even identified another potential
source of problems. If you care to, email me for additional information at
[email protected]
 
JK> Coffee that is hot enough to cause second-degree burns when spilled on someone's lap is too hot.

Not so. Coffee is supposed to be drunk, not spilled on the lap. It's the same as saying that
scissors that wound the eye when stuck into it, are too sharp.

Go to your kitchen, take instant coffee, read the instructions. They will say: "Add boiling water".

Coffee is a hot drink. A hot drink is supposed to be hot.

JK> The McDonald's which was sued after this particular incident had a history, on the record, of
JK> people being injured by its coffee, of many people complaining that its coffee was too hot. It
JK> failed to take any steps to address the situation.

Maybe it's because way more people prefer their coffee hot.
 
"bat" <[email protected]> writes:
>It still does not explain why McDonalds was liable. Obviously, people spill hot drinks on
>themselves on regular basis, at home, at work, in restaurant, wherever they drink hot drinks. Was
>McDonalds' coffee hotter than any other coffee or tea prepared by any coffee- or teamaker anywhere?

That's not the legal standard that a plaintiff is required to meet to prove liability.

All the plaintiff has to show is that the defendant knew or should have known that injury could
result from a reasonable person using their product in a reasonable fashion.

Furthermore, note that, as others have pointed out, civil liability isn't an all-or-nothing thing.
In the particular case we're discussing, McDonald's was found *partially* liable, i.e., yeah, the
woman shouldn't have put a cup of hot coffee between her legs, but on the other hand, McDonald's
should have known that they were serving coffee that was too hot to be safe.

I don't pretend to know whether McDonald's should have been held liable in this case, nor do I
really care to debate it. What I *do* know is that the case isn't obvious in either direction, and
that anyone who tries to portray it as an obvious example of frivolous litigation or an obvious
example of corporate greed is being overly simplistic. The "truth" in this case was ambiguous, and
what is our legal system for, if not to provide a forum for such ambiguity to be resolved?

Also, I tend to assume, in cases like this, that a jury which saw and heard all of the testimony was
in a better place to judge liability than I am. Can anyone in this newsgroup claim to have read the
transcript of the trial?
 
bat wrote:
>> You can't legitimately jump from the fact that Stella's attorneys were able to document 700 cases
>> of scaldings over ten years to the *assumption* that those were the *only* cases of scalding.
>> Without doing a heck of a lot more research, there's no way to know how many scaldings went
>> unreported during that time.
>
> It still does not explain why McDonalds was liable. Obviously, people spill hot drinks on
> themselves on regular basis, at home, at work, in restaurant, wherever they drink hot drinks. Was
> McDonalds' coffee hotter than any other coffee or tea prepared by any coffee- or teamaker
> anywhere?

Yes, it was. Something in the neighborhood of 20-25 degrees hotter. Hot enough to induce third-
degree burns in seconds. McDonald's did this because the higher temperature tended to waft the aroma
of coffee about their restaurants more, even though their own consultants warned them of the dangers
of the higher temperature.

McDonalds was only found to be partially, though mostly, liable. The 80-year-old woman had to be
held partially liable even though she was more careful than most people think when they "hear" about
this story instead of reading about it. For example, most people believe she was driving. She was a
passenger. Most people believe the car was moving when it happened. The car was pulled over
specifically so that she could put creamer in her coffee. Most people don't realize that older
people, like the very young, are more susceptable to burns than your typical adult. Likewise most
people don't realize that the burn danger increases exponentially as the temperature increases. Yes,
she should not have been holding the coffee cup between her legs when she attempted to open it, but
a reasonable person would not expect to get third degree burns from a cup of coffee, either. The
sweat suit type pants she was wearing unfortunately contributed to the burn, as it held the scalding
hot water against her skin for a longer period of time than other material might have.

Another common misconception about this is that Stella was only interested in getting millions of
dollars. She first approached McDonald's only to get her medical expenses taken care of, which IIRC
were about $20,000. Mickey D's refused outright.

I believe that they proved in the courtroom that McD's was quite aware of the dangers, but
determined that it would be cheaper to simply settle with the hundreds of scalding cases than the
financial impact on their coffee sales should they lower the temperature, however they did lower the
temperatures soon after the incident and before the case went to trial.

--
Fris "I prefer Starbucks myself" bee® MCNGP #13

http://www.mcngp.tk The MCNGP Team - We're here to help

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/certaholics Certaholics - We're here if you're beyond help
 
In article <keHFb.455575$275.1338650@attbi_s53>, "bat" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> GGJ> And let's not forget that our legal system is getting a rather infamous reputation for making
> GGJ> illogical decisions...I mean, come on, awarding some lady 3 million dollars for spilling hot
> GGJ> coffee in her crotch!
>
> As you can see from the many responses to your post, it's not only the legal system but quite a
> number of folks as well.
>

this is what big companies want you to believe -- they publicize often bogus cases of large awards
[most are greatly reduced or dismissed on appeal]

I would not have voted a large award in the coffee case -- but the plaintiffs were able to show that
McDonalds was aware of hundreds of serious burns caused by their hotter than usual coffee and had
done nothing about it

most malpractice is not even acknowledged -- your doctor seriously injures you and odds are YOU will
pay for the necessary follow up treatment

almost no malpractice is compensated

most injuries from poorly designed products are not compensated etc etc

a case like this [which appears ridiculous -- the poisoner is guilty not the company that made the
drug] is LOVED by businesses who are busy trying to get Congress to shut down everyone's right to
sue for serious injury -- and yet we know that manufacturers blithly manufacture dangerous products
so long as they know they won't be held accountable

e.g. in one of the car gas tank cases -- there were memos basically stating that it was 'too
expensive' to pay a few bucks to protect the gas tank because the injuries would only add up to
a few hundred thousand dollars

lots of jawing about the occasional goofy misuse of lawsuits is used to try to prevent the public
from being able to protect itself from a rapacious profit oriented culture of business in which
legally screwing over workers, retirees and the public is the political goal
 
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:41:13 GMT, "bat" <[email protected]> wrote:

>It still does not explain why McDonalds was liable. Obviously, people spill hot drinks on
>themselves on regular basis, at home, at work, in restaurant, wherever they drink hot drinks. Was
>McDonalds' coffee hotter than any other coffee or tea prepared by any coffee- or teamaker anywhere?

It was, according to the lawsuit, hotter than most of the restaurants in the area they served.

>
http://www.8bitjoystick.com/archives/jake_misinformation_about_the_mcdonalds_coffee_lawsuit.php
>

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee
- that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits
 
"Marke DB Johnston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Glenn Gilbreath Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > And let's not forget that our legal system is getting a rather infamous reputation for making
> > illogical decisions...I mean, come on, awarding some lady 3 million dollars for spilling hot
> > coffee in her crotch! Sheesh, it's getting rather dispicable.
>
> read up on the case first.
>
> http://corpreform.typepad.com/corpreform/2003/10/the_truth_about.html

From the above site:

4: McDonalds admitted that the coffee was not fit for human consumption at the temperature they
served it.

IOW, they agree that they created a dangerous instrumentality.

>
http://www.8bitjoystick.com/archives/jake_misinformation_about_the_mcdonalds_coffee_lawsuit.php
 
[email protected] (Don Klipstein) wrote:

> You should find better examples of frivolous lawsuits. The facts of the McD's suit are:
>
>1. The coffee was not at a usual coffee temperature, but significantly hotter. The lady required
> skin grafts.
>2. Before suing, the lady asked for no more than reimbursement of her medical bills, and McD's
> refused.
>3. McD's was on notice of 600 previous burns from their excessively hot coffee, and also the extra-
> tight coffeecup lids. Dislodging the lid all-too-often spilled coffee.

4. The award was significantly reduced on appeal. I don't recall the final number, but it was
nowhere near the $3 million claimed (about $100K, as I recall).

5. Evidence was produced at trial showing that McD's intentionally made its coffee excessively hot
to discourage free refills despite having been advised that the temperature would cause burns
and lawsuits. Management calculated that the increased profits would exceed damage awards. In
other words, they knowingly and willfully chose to inflict burns and be sued.
 
"Don Klipstein" <[email protected]> wrote
> You should find better examples of frivolous lawsuits. The facts of the McD's suit are:
> 1. The coffee was not at a usual coffee temperature, but significantly hotter. The lady required
> skin grafts.

Actually, many people have hotter coffee at home.

> 2. Before suing, the lady asked for no more than reimbursement of her medical bills, and McD's
> refused.
> 3. McD's was on notice of 600 previous burns from their excessively hot coffee, and also the extra-
> tight coffeecup lids. Dislodging the lid all-too-often spilled coffee.

You missed the biggest one:
4. McD had deep pockets.
 
It wouldn't have been a problem is McD's like coffee houses added the creme and sugar if requested
to drive thru coffee at the very least. FWIW I used to think this woman was to blame based on what I
read, however, she wasn't driving, her grandson was, he pulled over to let her put the creme in the
coffee when it spilled causing third degree burns. The coffee was kept at much higher temps than
drive thru coffee shops such as Starbucks. Complaints had been made previously that the coffee was
beyond hot, which they chose to ignore.

--
Error reading FAT record: Try the SKINNY one? (Y/N)

Jonathan Kamens <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] (Glenn Gilbreath Jr.) writes:
>>> And let's not forget that our legal system is getting a rather infamous reputation for making
>>> illogical decisions...I mean, come on, awarding some lady 3 million dollars for spilling hot
>>> coffee in her crotch!
>>
>> People on the rag about our out-of-control legal system frequently bring up this case as their
>> poster child of ridiculous law suits, but when doing so, they fail to mention the context of
>> the case.
>>
>> Coffee that is hot enough to cause second-degree burns when spilled on someone's lap is too hot.
>>
>> The McDonald's which was sued after this particular incident had a history, on the record, of
>> people being injured by its coffee, of many people complaining that its coffee was too hot. It
>> failed to take any steps to address the situation.
>>
>> The high damages in this particular case were not intended to compensate the victim as much as
>> they were intended to make McDonald's "feel the pain" for its negligent behavior. Given its huge
>> income, it would not have felt any pain from a small award. Punishing the offender, not rewarding
>> the victim, is the point of punitive damages.
>>
>>> Too bad people can't be held responsible for their own actions, but rather seek to blame someone
>>> else for everything that might possibly occur.
>>
>> I don't disagree with you that our culture of blame has gotten out of control. But the McDonald's
>> case you referenced isn't necessarily a good example of that.
 
Joni Rathbun <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
>

<snip of Benadryl lawsuit>
>
> Contrary to popular opinion, most frivilous lawsuits never go to trial.

It still costs defendants in frivilous suits money for lawyers to get the suits dismissed, or to
settle them to avoid the even greater cost of winning. Sometimes a defendant can seek legal costs
for a frivilous suit - but as people have pointed out in the cost-ineffectiveness of suing the
babysitter who presumably has little money, it's doubtful the pharmacy or the pharmaceutical
companies will recover their costs for a frivilous suit brought by the mother.

> And in many that do, circumstances are often far different than what we were led to believe by way
> of the media. The McDonald's coffee case is just one example:
>
> http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

I think the Stella Awards (named for the woman injured in the McDonald's coffee case) website has a
more balanced take on the story: http://www.StellaAwards.com/stella.html

For example, while the Mythbuster site points out 700 McDonald's coffee scaldings over ten years and
describes McDonald's coffee sales as running $1.3 million per day, the Stella Awards site does the
math and points out that this works out to just one injury per twenty-four million cups of coffee
sold by McDonald's - which makes it sound a bit less as though the company was rampantly injuring
people with its dangerous coffee.

For example, the Mythbuster site offers descriptions of the dangers of serving coffee at 180 - 185
degrees Farenheit as offered as proof McDonald's was recklessly acting for purely economic reasons -
The Stella Awards version points to the National Coffee Association's website on 'How To Brew
Coffee' - and that 180-185­° is the recommended serving temperature for coffee.
 
JR> Contrary to popular opinion, most frivilous lawsuits never go to
JR> trial. And in many that do, circumstances are often far different
JR> than what we were led to believe by way of the media. The
JR> McDonald's coffee case is just one example:

JR> http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

I read it, and I don't see why the circumstances are "far different". Indeed, McDonalds sold her hot
coffee, and indeed she spilled it on her while removing the lid. And she, obviously, was not the
first person in history to spill hot drink on herself (in McDonalds or elsewhere), but first to
collect hundreds of thousands for that. This is exactly how it was reported and what everybody
knows. What's different or inaccurate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back