Can this mother win this lawsuit?



x-no-archive:yes

[email protected] (Geoff Miller) wrote:
>
>Rosalie B. <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>> Not true. We have about 20 cars, all of which were sold in the US and mostly Fords or Mercurys
>> etc although we have had and still have some Plymouths and as I said we also have two Mercedes
>> which are 1985 and 1982. Some of these cars are older than 25 years old, but not all of them are.
>> The Mercedes have no cup holders whatsoever, and I don't think the Escorts of the same era do
>> either. There's a rudimentary one in the 1971 truck, but I think we added it - I don't think it
>> came with.
>
>Note that I said "most cars," not "all cars." As the owner of an '82 300CD and an '85 300D, I know
>that those models, in particular, are exceptions to the generality.
>
>(I didn't know there _was_ such a thing as an Escort diesel.)

We've got three of them, and also a diesel Lynx. They were only made in the 1984-1985 time frame,
and they used Mazda engines. They get quite good mileage/gallon, but the changing the timing belt
requires that you take the engine out and it's an interference engine, so when the timing belt goes
the engine is toast. Two of them are running (we use the Lynx all the time when we are home to go
back and forth to the boatyard), one of them has had the engine removed and has been converted to
electric, and one of them ditto has had the engine removed and is waiting for possible conversion.

grandma Rosalie
 
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 11:47:58 -0800, Joni Rathbun
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>On 25 Dec 2003, Banty wrote:
>
>
>> guess not much else is happening now, so I am now. I guess it's 'cause there's no Christmas-in-the-
>> schools war going on this time ;-)
>
>LOL. That's right. I'd almost forgotten but that conversation does usually dominate! We got lucky
>this year!
>
hehe. Well, not exactly. It's just going on in another group. Try alt.education.. <g>

--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits
 
[email protected] (Jonathan Kamens) 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.
>

snip

I haven't read through all of this thread, but it doesn't look to me as though anyone has posted the
actual facts of the case in question, which was Liebeck v. McDonald's.

The plaintiff was Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, NM. Her grandson was driving the car; she was in
the passenger seat. She was not driving, and the car was not moving. The grandson had pulled over to
allow her to remove the lid and put cream and sugar in her coffee. The coffee spilled on her
sweatpants, which absorbed the hot liquid, causing THIRD degree burns. She was hospitalized for 8
days and required skin grafts.

A McDonald's representative testified in the trial that stores were REQUIRED to hold coffee at 180
to 190 degrees "to maintain optimum taste." I suspect the real reason was that they use relatively
cheap coffee, and if it is very hot when you drink it, you can't taste it. In fact, you cannot drink
coffee at that temperature; it would burn your mouth and throat. Your home coffee maker probably
holds it at around 130 to 140 degrees.

During discovery McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims filed by people burned
by their coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some involved third-degree burns as severe as Liebeck's.
Liebeck had asked McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses, and sued only because
McDonald's refused to settle.

The jury found Liebeck 20% at fault and awarded compensatory damages of $200,000, reduced by 20% to
$180,000. The jury also awarded $1.7 of punitive damages; however, that amount was later reduced to
$480,000 (three times the compensatory damages) by the trial court. The case was subsequently
settled, presumably for something less than that.

A lot of mythology and misinformation has surrounded this case. However, it certainly has had a
salutary effect. Check the temperature of the next cup of coffee you buy at ANY fast food driveup.
Chances are it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 140 to 155 degrees. Plenty hot, but not hot
enough to cause third degree burns if it spills on you.

Grandma Katie Mom to Barbara (Circe), Grandma to Julian, Aurora & Vernon
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Rosalie B. <[email protected]> wrote:

> x-no-archive:yes
>
> [email protected] (Geoff Miller) wrote:
> >
> >Rosalie B. <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >
> >> Not true. We have about 20 cars, all of which were sold in the US and mostly Fords or Mercurys
> >> etc although we have had and still have some Plymouths and as I said we also have two Mercedes
> >> which are 1985 and 1982. Some of these cars are older than 25 years old, but not all of them
> >> are. The Mercedes have no cup holders whatsoever, and I don't think the Escorts of the same era
> >> do either. There's a rudimentary one in the 1971 truck, but I think we added it - I don't think
> >> it came with.
> >
> >Note that I said "most cars," not "all cars." As the owner of an '82 300CD and an '85 300D, I
> >know that those models, in particular, are exceptions to the generality.
> >
> >(I didn't know there _was_ such a thing as an Escort diesel.)
>
> We've got three of them, and also a diesel Lynx. They were only made in the 1984-1985 time frame,
> and they used Mazda engines. They get quite good mileage/gallon, but the changing the timing belt
> requires that you take the engine out and it's an interference engine, so when the timing belt
> goes the engine is toast. Two of them are running (we use the Lynx all the time when we are home
> to go back and forth to the boatyard), one of them has had the engine removed and has been
> converted to electric, and one of them ditto has had the engine removed and is waiting for
> possible conversion.

In my '98 Plymouth, there are two cup holders up front, but one is occupied by an ash tray. Maybe
that was the case in the car that woman was riding in when she was scalded by that McDonalds coffee.
 
"Robert E. Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Joni Rathbun <[email protected]> wrote in message news:pine.LNX.4.44.0312220738410.16373-
> [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.

Those costs are hard to quantify. Either way, one can't assume that settling does not mean that
one isn't liable. Settling may be done to avoid a more costly, and possible deserved, penalty.
Who is to say which is which?

And my post addressed, and was somewhat akin to the "popular opinion" one above, our legal
systems "infamous reputation for making illogical decisions", to quote one poster. But wouldn't
you agree that it's illogical to judge the legal system based upon a handful of cases, and only
one type of cases at that?

P. Tierney
 
"Joni Rathbun" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > JK> The McDonald's which was sued after this particular incident had a history, on the record,
> > JK> of people being injured by its coffee, of many people complaining that its coffee was too
> > JK> hot. It failed to take any steps to address the situation.
> >
> > Maybe it's because way more people prefer their coffee hot.
>
> Coffee can be hot without being hot enough to cause third degree burns.

It's worth noting (as it has been noted many, many times) that doctors from burn units had
already requested in the past that the company turn down their coffee temperatures in the past.
Not all companies, but this particular one. And I'm sure that some of these doctors drink hot
coffee themselves.

Of course, none of that matters to one who keeps going back to the "it's okay for coffee to be
as hot as possible because it's supposed to be hot" thinking, but to others, it might.

P. Tierney
 
"Frisbee® MCNGP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> bat wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Ah, but if you were to plunge scissors into your eyes, you would indeed expect to have some severe
> damage. Do you expect spilled coffee from a restaurant to give you third degree burns?

No matter how much you raise the temperature of water, it cannot cause third degree burns -- a third
degree burn is charring of the skin.

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those
who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield
 
Hiya P.

thanks.

"P. Tierney" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:yzHFb.624080$Tr4.1617140@attbi_s03...
> WARNING! The reading of the two posts below can have the dangerous effect of causing facts to get
> in the way of one's opinions. If sound bites and radio talk shows are your source of news, and
> lengthy, thoughtful, factual sources of information confuse you, be warned. Read at your own
> risk!!!!
>
>
> P. Tierney
>
>
>
> "Marciosos8 Probertiosos8" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "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]
>
>
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> "toto" <[email protected]> wrote
> > 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.
>
> Yeah, I once got a cold burger and cold coffee at another restaurant, and didn't go back.
> McDonalds knows that other restaurants lose customers that way.

Roger, I clued you in on this case years ago, and you stil do not learn.
 
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark ProbertDecember 21, 2002 writes:
>
> > IOW, they agree that they created a dangerous instrumentality.
>
> The Krell were able to dispense with physical instrumentalities entirely. But they destroyed
> themselves in a single night.

Good movie.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "toto" <[email protected]> wrote
> > 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.
>
> Yeah, I once got a cold burger and cold coffee at another restaurant, and didn't go back.
> McDonalds knows that other restaurants lose customers that way.
>
>

because it is necessary for coffee to be hot enough to destroy flesh to the bone or else it must be
cold -- no middle ground there
 
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:50:54 GMT, "Mark ProbertDecember 21, 2002"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"bat" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:LbHFb.177253$_M.808772@attbi_s54...
>> JK> Coffee that is hot enough to cause second-degree burns when spilled on someone's lap is too
>> JK> 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.
>
>You raise a good point.
>
>The brewing equipment that McDonald's purchased is desiged to brew coffee at a specific
>temperature. When a peson buys coffee made fromthe machine, an argument can be made that they are
>assuming the risks associated with that temperature. While it may be only a 20 degree difference,
>the degree of damage caused by hot liquids is not arithmetically proportional to the temperature,
>but increases logarithmically. Thus 20 degrees is a big deal a very big deal.
>
>However, this case is not about those risks. McDonald's intervened in the brewing process and
>disconnected the temperature of the brewer so as to be able to brew at a higher temperature. the
>purpose of this is to use cheaper beans, and extract more coffee flavor from those beans. thus,
>they made an econimic decision to increase the risk, without warning anyone.
>
>Whether the brewer should have been able to even operate with a safety device, i.e. the
>temperature regulator, defeated is another question. Personally, I contend that any machine that
>can operate with safety devices dismantled is inherently not safe, thus laying liability against
>the manufacturer of the machine. Unfortunately, I have never seen this addressed wrt to the
>McDonald's case.
>
>> 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.
>> JK> It failed to take any steps to address the situation.
>>
>> Maybe it's because way more people prefer their coffee hot.
>
>Hot but not scalding.
>
>McDonald's was well aware that they were creating a hazardous situation and did nothing to address
>it, except sell more coffee.
>
>
>

Until this case went to adjudication, it had been Mc Donald's practice to pay the medical expenses
of their victims and settle out of court. In this case they went to trial and the JURY made the
outrageous award after hearing testimony regarding the number of previous claims McDonald's had paid
off (as well as the facts regarding the temperature at which they continued to serve their coffee!
This is not an example of runaway litigation, it is a case demonstrating corporate greed and
disregard of their customers safety!
 
In <[email protected]>, Mark
ProbertDecember 21, 2002 wrote:
>
>Whether the brewer should have been able to even operate with a safety device, i.e. the temperature
>regulator, defeated is another question. Personally, I contend that any machine that can operate
>with safety devices dismantled is inherently not safe, thus laying liability against the
>manufacturer of the machine.

There is no such thing as a completely undefeatable safety device. Someone somewhere will be able
to defeat it. Would a power saw manufacturer be liable if someone removed any guards from the saw?
If someone hacks out a safety interlock switch from a piece of hazardous machinery and replaces
the interlock with a couple pieces of wire, who is responsible? If someone wraps tape around the
"deadman" lever on a power mower, who is responsible? Liability for defeating a safety device lies
with whoever defeated the safety device.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
"Carey Gregory" <[email protected]> wrote
> >Actually, many people have hotter coffee at home.
> And how do they do that? You can't buy a coffee maker that will produce
the
> temp of McDonalds coffee.

Lots of people make instant coffee by pouring boiling water directly into a cup. Likewise, people
make tea with boiling water. Boiling water is about 30 degrees hotter than the McD coffee.
 
MP> The brewing equipment that McDonald's purchased is desiged to brew coffee at a specific
MP> temperature. When a peson buys coffee made fromthe machine, an argument can be made that they
MP> are assuming the risks associated with that temperature. While it may be only a 20 degree
MP> difference, the degree of damage caused by hot liquids is not arithmetically proportional to the
MP> temperature, but increases logarithmically. Thus 20 degrees is a big deal a very big deal.

The purpose of any brewing equipment after all is to mimic the natural way of brewing.

Let's see what the natural way is and at what temperature the coffee should be served.

http://www.coffeemasters.com/Public/brewing.htm

...6. Use a brewing method (such as manual drip, plunge pot, vacuum pot, or high-quality electric
drip) which will produce temperatures of 195 - 205 degrees. Never boil or reheat coffee. Serve the
beverage as soon as possible.

http://www.darknest.com/xmas/recipes/drinks.htm

...To serve: Place 1 heaping tablespoon of the mixture in cup. Add boiling water and stir.

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0cex0 Add boiling water (the measure of a serving cup
plus a little more), stir well. Add cardamom pods (experiment to achieve desired taste) and bring
coffee to a boil. When the foam on top begins to rise, remove coffee from heat until it settles and
repeat process. Pour into a coffee cup, spooning in some foam. The coffee grounds will sink to the
bottom of the cup; do not stir them up. Serve immediately.

I challenge you to find an instruction that tells to let the coffee cool down before serving.

Here's another link:
=========
http://www.confex.com/store/items/ift/jfs67-2774.htm

Three hundred consumers were required to mix a hot and a cooler coffee together until it was at a
desired temperature for drinking. ... In all experiments, the chosen mean preferred temperature for
drinking was around 60 8C (140 8F). ... In all cases, consumers tended to choose, on average,
temperatures for drinking coffee that were above the oral pain threshold and the burn damage
threshold.
=========

1. Obviously, since this was drive-by, and the coffee was supposed to be drunk through the straw,
if McDonalds sold it already at 140F, by the time of actual drinking it would be much less
than that.

2. The straw, by the way, is yet another matter: the coffee is supposed to be drunk throw it when in
the car or in any other "on the go" situation. I don't think you saw many folks on the go with
their cup of coffee not sealed with the lid. Further, anyone who ever removed that lid from the
full-to-the-top cup knows that it is _very_ risky operation even not in the car. A 5 year old
might not know it, but 70 should.
 
"Mark ProbertDecember 21, 2002" <[email protected]> writes:
>the degree of damage caused by hot liquids is not arithmetically proportional to the temperature,
>but increases logarithmically.

You keep saying logarithmically when you mean exponentially.

(It would be nice if corrections like this could be sent to you by E-mail rather than posted, but
the E-mail address in your header doesn't work and you don't explain in your messages how to send
E-mail to you.)
 
J> Hardly an association. Yes, it's supposed to be drunk not spilled but it's liquid and liquid
J> spills, expecially when driving. Scissors don't just end up in your eye without a careless act.

McDonalds sold the coffee closed with the lid. What would say to your kid if he or she tried to
remove the lid from the full to the top cup of hot coffee in the car between the legs? I'm sure you
would use words even stronger than "careless".
 
"bat" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:yLGFb.16973$VB2.37378@attbi_s51...
> JR> Contrary to popular opinion, most frivilous lawsuits never go to trial. And in many that do,
> JR> circumstances are often far different than what we were led to believe by way of the media.
> JR> The 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?
>

What was different was that
1) her skin melted (imagine drinking coffee hot enough to melt your skin);
2) McDonalds was given the opportunity to pay just her medical bills and refused; and
3) McDonalds had made a business decision that it was financially worthwhile to serve the hotter
coffee regardless of injuries and to pay court judgments. (I suspect that the jury didn't
appreciate that logic).

Art
 
Andy wrote:
> "bat" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<LbHFb.177253$_M.808772@attbi_s54>...
>>> 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.
>
> I once saw pictures of the woman's injuries from the infamous "McDonald's too-hot coffee" case.
> They were pretty gross.
>
> If you are handing something out a window to people in a car it is pretty forseeable that stuff
> will get fumbled and dropped from time-to-time. In this context, I think its pretty inconsiderate
> to make your coffee so hot that people would get 3rd degree burns if it spills on them.

I actually witnessed a VERY close call inside a McDonalds a few months ago. I was standing in line
ordering breakfast, and a couple got their order and went over to the condiments bar to put
cream/sugar into their coffee. They took the lids off and were getting ready to add the condiments
when some kids running nearby distracted them and one of the cups got knocked over and spilled. The
kids were only a few feet away and nearly got sprayed. I'm glad my kids were in the car with Mom
when this happened.

--
Fris "McOuch" 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
 
"Mark ProbertDecember 21, 2002" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> However, this case is not about those risks. McDonald's intervened in the brewing process and
> disconnected the temperature of the brewer so as to be able to brew at a higher temperature.

Are you sure about this? I had understood that they were using the machine according the
manufacturers recommendations and the issue was that those resulted in higher temps than other fast
food restaurants.

> >
> > Maybe it's because way more people prefer their coffee hot.
>
> Hot but not scalding.

But alot of people get he coffee at the drive through and then take it to their destination before
consiming it. So it is served in a manner to increase the chances that it will still be hot (bit not
scalding) before they get there. In fact, you could make the argument that since eating while
driving (and posssibly riding) in the car is dangerous that this is the intended useof the drive -
through. Although the case for that would be strengthened if they had actually made a statement (say
on the bag) before hand.

> McDonald's was well aware that they were creating a hazardous situation and did nothing to address
> it, except sell more coffee.

I'm not sure that is as clear as some would like to make it either. A company the size of McD's gets
a lot of complaints. Clearly not all should result ina change of policy. So the issue becomes, "how
many of what type should?" I would think that you would need a lot of information about industry
norms to make the judgement.

--
CBI
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back