3 ms·

I'm aware of information out there. I've read other information out there. No, I have not spent hours pouring over the minutiae, but my question is not in bad f

I'm aware of information out there. I've read other information out there. No, I have not spent hours pouring over the minutiae, but my question is not in bad faith. This will probably be downvoted too, but, golly gee, I'm just trying to have an open mind here and seeing if someone can convince me that MCD should be at fault. A hot product is hot and inherently carries those sorts of risks. Yes, it was hotter than it needed to be. I get that. So what? How is it some sort of gross negligence? (That's a real question, not rhetorical--I don't understand. 180-190 is not out-of-this world hot, but yes, is extra hot compared to 160 degree coffee). My newborn example in the grandparent post still applies if served at a cooler temperature. They'll get burned right away. And for adults? The temperature coffee is served at all coffee shops everywhere can be inherently dangerous and cause 3rd degree burns (see page 3 http://www.ameriburn.org/Preven/ScaldInjuryEducator%27sGuide.pdf http://www.ameriburn.org/Preven/ScaldInjuryEducator%27sGuide...). While people may not understand the specific number of seconds required, they get the gist--be careful with hot liquids.

anigbrowl 10y ago
OK about the good faith thing, but the relevant facts are laid out in the article for you. Why don't you try disputing their significance instead of just saying 'I don't get it!' over and over?
- torgoguys 10y ago
  Sure. All of my questions have been about the product and why serving it should have caused legal liability. So ignoring the parts of the article that simply points out that most people don't correctly know details what happened (whether she was driving, dollar amounts she actually got, etc.) and focusing on what the article has to say about the product and why it might carry liability for MCD we get very little from this article, namely: - MCD served coffee at up to 190 degrees - they had 700 previous reports of burns - MCD claimed customers wanted it served hot Those are the precious few facts we have about the product from the article. I'm aware of other facts of the case not covered in the article (business reasons MCD chose to serve at that temp and such), but it still doesn't connect A to B; why serving coffee extra hot (at a temp you can get at Starbucks if you request it) should mean MCD is liable for burn injuries if you take the lid off and spill it on yourself. Do you get where I'm coming from?
  - crucini 10y ago
    All sorts of hazards are "grandfathered" in. If cars were invented today, they'd never be allowed. Now think about stairs. A certain athletic performance is needed to rapidly descend stairs. Get it wrong and you can tumble a long way onto concrete. Life-changing injuries are just one slip away.
  - hannele 10y ago
    I hear it. I feel the severity of the burns, the requirement for skin grafts should come into play, but I can put that aside. It should also be clarified, it was not 700 previous reports of burns, it was 700 previous lawsuits. That implies that there were far more burns and spills that did not result in lawsuits. On your part though, the lack of infamy implies there were plenty of cases that were settled or where the judge agreed with McDonalds. In the Too Much Coffee Man comic (if you'll forgive getting some info from a comic) others have posted: http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/ http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/ It's important to note the emotionally offensive arguments that were made by McDonalds, that actually helped tilt the case over to Stella Liebeck's side. Mainly, I expect, that she was asking for too much money because she was so old that she wouldn't get much more use out of her ahem parts. The awarding of punitive damages, I expect had to do with the 700 previous lawsuits which resulted in no change in behaviour. Spilling a bit of coffee, especially when the cup is at its fullest and hottest, especially when in the cramped confines of a vehicle, is a common enough occurrence that I don't consider it unreasonable that McDonalds should have taken earlier action. The Starbucks approach also highlights the liability - because you must request that temperature, it can more reasonably be claimed that you should know to take extra precaution. Certainly, it can't be claimed that you didn't know just how hot it was going to be. For what it's worth, I've had to revise a little just how clear cut this is. But I still feel that the legal system was working as intended, that this lawsuit doesn't deserve its frivolous reputation, and that it's important for ordinary citizens to have these methods of recourse against giant corporations.

anigbrowl 10y ago

OK about the good faith thing, but the relevant facts are laid out in the article for you. Why don't you try disputing their significance instead of just saying 'I don't get it!' over and over?

torgoguys 10y ago
Sure. All of my questions have been about the product and why serving it should have caused legal liability. So ignoring the parts of the article that simply points out that most people don't correctly know details what happened (whether she was driving, dollar amounts she actually got, etc.) and focusing on what the article has to say about the product and why it might carry liability for MCD we get very little from this article, namely: - MCD served coffee at up to 190 degrees - they had 700 previous reports of burns - MCD claimed customers wanted it served hot Those are the precious few facts we have about the product from the article. I'm aware of other facts of the case not covered in the article (business reasons MCD chose to serve at that temp and such), but it still doesn't connect A to B; why serving coffee extra hot (at a temp you can get at Starbucks if you request it) should mean MCD is liable for burn injuries if you take the lid off and spill it on yourself. Do you get where I'm coming from?
- crucini 10y ago
  All sorts of hazards are "grandfathered" in. If cars were invented today, they'd never be allowed. Now think about stairs. A certain athletic performance is needed to rapidly descend stairs. Get it wrong and you can tumble a long way onto concrete. Life-changing injuries are just one slip away.
- hannele 10y ago
  I hear it. I feel the severity of the burns, the requirement for skin grafts should come into play, but I can put that aside. It should also be clarified, it was not 700 previous reports of burns, it was 700 previous lawsuits. That implies that there were far more burns and spills that did not result in lawsuits. On your part though, the lack of infamy implies there were plenty of cases that were settled or where the judge agreed with McDonalds. In the Too Much Coffee Man comic (if you'll forgive getting some info from a comic) others have posted: http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/ http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/ It's important to note the emotionally offensive arguments that were made by McDonalds, that actually helped tilt the case over to Stella Liebeck's side. Mainly, I expect, that she was asking for too much money because she was so old that she wouldn't get much more use out of her ahem parts. The awarding of punitive damages, I expect had to do with the 700 previous lawsuits which resulted in no change in behaviour. Spilling a bit of coffee, especially when the cup is at its fullest and hottest, especially when in the cramped confines of a vehicle, is a common enough occurrence that I don't consider it unreasonable that McDonalds should have taken earlier action. The Starbucks approach also highlights the liability - because you must request that temperature, it can more reasonably be claimed that you should know to take extra precaution. Certainly, it can't be claimed that you didn't know just how hot it was going to be. For what it's worth, I've had to revise a little just how clear cut this is. But I still feel that the legal system was working as intended, that this lawsuit doesn't deserve its frivolous reputation, and that it's important for ordinary citizens to have these methods of recourse against giant corporations.