5 ms·

This is a very light treatment of an important case. It didn't go into the extensive surgery she had, and that her case wasn't for $20K, it was just to pay for

by nekopa 10y ago

This is a very light treatment of an important case. It didn't go into the extensive surgery she had, and that her case wasn't for $20K, it was just to pay for her medical expenses. Also, though maybe not important in this article, was the logic behind the jury's award. They placed the award at 2 days worth of McD's nationwide coffee sales. But I am glad that they did mention the other 700+ suits filed against McDs, but they should have gone into a little more depth about how McDs used its extensive legal department to squash those complaints. A practice that still continues today. Edit: And for more interesting reads, check out the Stella Awards site. Now defunct, it was devoted to finding really stupid law suits, and debunking urban legend law suits. The quoted aim was to show that there is a real issue with US law suits, that doesn't need fake "I microwaved my poodle because the instructions didn't let me know that was bad" to let people know there is an issue. I teach lawyers English, and one of my more fun classes is mixing up a bunch of true and fake lawsuits and watching them try to figure out which is which. Pro-Tip: The more ridiculous sounding ones are actually real. Case in point - a couple who lost their 2 year old in a lawnmower accident at day care found out that the day care only had a $100K insurance policy. So they dropped the case against the day care center and sued the manufacturer of the lawn mower. There was a safety feature that was invented 16 years after the mower was built that the mower didn't have. No recall statement or after action was specified by authorities. The jury awarded the couple a $2M award.

steveeq1 10y ago
That was 700 complaints out of 171 BILLION customers over the course of 10 years. This is statistically nothing.
- bsder 10y ago
  $20,000 x 700 cases = $14,000,000 out of $1,000,000 PER DAY in coffee revenue over decades is also statistically nothing. McDonald's judged that injuring people and pounding them with lawyers was more cost effective than customers not having hot coffee after they drove to the office. McDonalds got off lightly.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  What does statistical significance have to do with this?
- bb88 10y ago
  If you want to re-litigate it in the court of public opinion, fine: It's not the volume of product sold that matters. It's the damages that one product can have in one specific case. And besides, if they really had a case, they should have appealed rather than settled and then re-litigate it in the court of public opinion. Winning a case is always a stronger argument than trying to prove you were right afterwards.
  - steveeq1 10y ago
    Actually, the vast majority of cases where people sued over hot coffee that was as hot or even hotter than the liebeck case are dismissed as "frivolous". The liebeck verdict was more of the exception, rather than the rule. Source (wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau.... (in "aftermath" section)
    - bb88 10y ago
      So what you're saying is, had they appealed, they would have had a bunch of case law on their side, which may or may not have mattered to the appellate court. Again, if they felt they would have won, they should have appealed.
      - steveeq1 10y ago
        I'm saying that the liebeck case was an outlier. The vast majority of judges throw off hot coffee cases (as hot or hotter) as "frivolous".
        bb88 10y ago
        Exactly. It should have been in the appeal. Oh... wait.
        steveeq1 10y ago
        We would have to ask the McDonald's lawyers. Maybe they had a good reason to not appeal, we don't know.
- jartelt 10y ago
  A lot of people do not report issues, so the 700 complaints should be treated as very low ball estimate. Similar to how relatively few people report cases of food poisoning, I imagine relatively few people reported burned tongues/limbs/etc.
- neaden 10y ago
  That's now how statistics works. Like, if were were comparing McDonald's coffee burns to Burger King Coffee burns and the different was only 700 people we might say that there isn't a statistically significant difference between the rate, but you can't just say a rare outcome is statistically insignificant on it's own.
  - steveeq1 10y ago
    Statistically insignificant outcomes are, by definition, rare.
    - neaden 10y ago
      No they aren't. First off nothing can just be statistically insignificant, it has to be statistically insignificant compared to something. So you can say that people are not more likely to be burned by McDonalds coffee then Burger King, or at home. This could be true even if lots of people got burned by McDonalds coffee, so long as lots of people got burned by Burger King or their home coffee. You can also have a statistically significant outcome that's rare. Guillain-Barré syndrome is a rare side effect of some vaccines, but's it's not statistically insignificant.
mc32 10y ago
For me the question isn't about McDonald's being rigid and stubborn and refusing to pay medical bills for one of their customers. It's "the right thing to do". On the other hand, coffee is hot. Coffee aficionados might quibble on the proper temperature for coffee --but the temp McDonald's served the coffee was not "wrong". So, I could see them found guilty of providing an inadequate vessel for the coffee .. but she burnt herself trying to open the cup and adding sweetener, or something to that effect. How is that the company's fault? Granted, if you see one of your customers accidentally hurt themselves, the humane thing is to help them --but how was McD guilty of contributing to her injury when we all recognize coffee is a hot substance. When you make it at home you know you are not to allow it to spill over yourself. I mean, I get that McD was callous in not wanting to pay her bill. I agree they were callous but how were they at fault for her injury? There are many things which are intrinsically unsafe but we mostly operate safely around such things: gasoline, razor blades, knives, medicines, etc. Is it believed servers should allow coffee to cool down to a safe temperature before tendering the drink?
- smileysteve 10y ago
  > when we all recognize coffee is a hot substance. 190 degrees is not at all drinkable (though perfect for out of the brewer) and McDonalds had already received complaints about it being too hot.
  - mc32 10y ago
    So are they supposed to have a "cooling process" to bring the temp down to a standard temp? If there is no such standards, it kind of leaves things undefined and perhaps we should have one, although I imagine a few coffee bars flouting the standard. The complaints may or may not be relevant, I think because you will have people complain it's not hot enough, or too hot, etc. and in terms of proportion to servings served it was a miniscule percentage. Never the less we all know from experience when we brew at home that coffee is hot. We know to be careful around the stove or range.
    - bb88 10y ago

by nekopa 10y ago

steveeq1 10y ago

That was 700 complaints out of 171 BILLION customers over the course of 10 years. This is statistically nothing.

bsder 10y ago
$20,000 x 700 cases = $14,000,000 out of $1,000,000 PER DAY in coffee revenue over decades is also statistically nothing. McDonald's judged that injuring people and pounding them with lawyers was more cost effective than customers not having hot coffee after they drove to the office. McDonalds got off lightly.
GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
What does statistical significance have to do with this?
bb88 10y ago
If you want to re-litigate it in the court of public opinion, fine: It's not the volume of product sold that matters. It's the damages that one product can have in one specific case. And besides, if they really had a case, they should have appealed rather than settled and then re-litigate it in the court of public opinion. Winning a case is always a stronger argument than trying to prove you were right afterwards.
- steveeq1 10y ago
  Actually, the vast majority of cases where people sued over hot coffee that was as hot or even hotter than the liebeck case are dismissed as "frivolous". The liebeck verdict was more of the exception, rather than the rule. Source (wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau.... (in "aftermath" section)
  - bb88 10y ago
    So what you're saying is, had they appealed, they would have had a bunch of case law on their side, which may or may not have mattered to the appellate court. Again, if they felt they would have won, they should have appealed.
    - steveeq1 10y ago
      I'm saying that the liebeck case was an outlier. The vast majority of judges throw off hot coffee cases (as hot or hotter) as "frivolous".
      - bb88 10y ago
        Exactly. It should have been in the appeal. Oh... wait.
        steveeq1 10y ago
        We would have to ask the McDonald's lawyers. Maybe they had a good reason to not appeal, we don't know.
jartelt 10y ago
A lot of people do not report issues, so the 700 complaints should be treated as very low ball estimate. Similar to how relatively few people report cases of food poisoning, I imagine relatively few people reported burned tongues/limbs/etc.
neaden 10y ago
That's now how statistics works. Like, if were were comparing McDonald's coffee burns to Burger King Coffee burns and the different was only 700 people we might say that there isn't a statistically significant difference between the rate, but you can't just say a rare outcome is statistically insignificant on it's own.
- steveeq1 10y ago
  Statistically insignificant outcomes are, by definition, rare.
  - neaden 10y ago
    No they aren't. First off nothing can just be statistically insignificant, it has to be statistically insignificant compared to something. So you can say that people are not more likely to be burned by McDonalds coffee then Burger King, or at home. This could be true even if lots of people got burned by McDonalds coffee, so long as lots of people got burned by Burger King or their home coffee. You can also have a statistically significant outcome that's rare. Guillain-Barré syndrome is a rare side effect of some vaccines, but's it's not statistically insignificant.

mc32 10y ago

For me the question isn't about McDonald's being rigid and stubborn and refusing to pay medical bills for one of their customers. It's "the right thing to do". On the other hand, coffee is hot. Coffee aficionados might quibble on the proper temperature for coffee --but the temp McDonald's served the coffee was not "wrong". So, I could see them found guilty of providing an inadequate vessel for the coffee .. but she burnt herself trying to open the cup and adding sweetener, or something to that effect. How is that the company's fault? Granted, if you see one of your customers accidentally hurt themselves, the humane thing is to help them --but how was McD guilty of contributing to her injury when we all recognize coffee is a hot substance. When you make it at home you know you are not to allow it to spill over yourself. I mean, I get that McD was callous in not wanting to pay her bill. I agree they were callous but how were they at fault for her injury? There are many things which are intrinsically unsafe but we mostly operate safely around such things: gasoline, razor blades, knives, medicines, etc. Is it believed servers should allow coffee to cool down to a safe temperature before tendering the drink?

smileysteve 10y ago
> when we all recognize coffee is a hot substance. 190 degrees is not at all drinkable (though perfect for out of the brewer) and McDonalds had already received complaints about it being too hot.
- mc32 10y ago
  So are they supposed to have a "cooling process" to bring the temp down to a standard temp? If there is no such standards, it kind of leaves things undefined and perhaps we should have one, although I imagine a few coffee bars flouting the standard. The complaints may or may not be relevant, I think because you will have people complain it's not hot enough, or too hot, etc. and in terms of proportion to servings served it was a miniscule percentage. Never the less we all know from experience when we brew at home that coffee is hot. We know to be careful around the stove or range.
  - bb88 10y ago