3 ms·

I have some insight into the McDonalds coffee case... 1. The coffee spilled on the lady's lap in her car, buring her right through her jeans, the burns were s

I have some insight into the McDonalds coffee case... 1. The coffee spilled on the lady's lap in her car, buring her right through her jeans, the burns were so bad she required skin grafting throughout her upper thighs. It's also worth noting the coffee spilled because the McDonald's employee did not fasten the coffee lid; 2. As you mention during litigation it was discovered multiple people had been badly burned by the coffee from this McDonald's and others, and in prior cases the courts ordered McDonald's to turn the temp down based on expert testimony; 3. mcDonalds refused to comply with prior court orders, because a cost benefit analysis, you see truckers love their coffee boiling hot bc it stays hot longer, and it made financial sense to keep there main market happy and pay these lawsuits out rather than truckers potentially go elsewhere for coffee; 4. To punish McDonald's for ignoring prior court orders they awarded the woman punitive damages (while not rare is out of the norm), and she was awarded (I think) $3M in punitive damages which equals 1 day of McDonald's coffee sales; 5. Lesser known is McDonald's appealed the judgement and it was reduced, they and all other big companies took the original award and created the anti-litigation PR campaign we all know today, lady spills hot coffee and court awards millions

lr4444lr 9y ago
(3) has to make you wonder how many employee accidents must have occurred handling liquid at temps this hot in a high-speed food service environment.
- will_brown 9y ago
  It's a good question, But the employees would have no right to sue McDonald's for any damages in civil court (negligence for example), and they would be limited to workers compensation claims/benefits.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Employees do not have no rights to sue for workplace injuries; intentional or reckless acts, and perhaps gross negligence, may be actionable even on situations where mere simple negligence would be subsumed into workers comp coverage.
    - will_brown 9y ago
      I didn't say employees had no rights, I said these specific employees would have no rights to sue McDonalds, that is a major distinction. The legal arguments are simple, presumably if there are employees who burned themselves, they would have: a.) likely set the coffee temp themselves (above the recommended temp); b.) at least been aware of the temp and risk; and c.) presumably have some responsibility for spilling the coffee on themselves. These facts would remove intentional/reckless/gross negligence on the part of McDonalds. And I already know the counter arguments; However, if I'm actually wrong feel free to show me an a single case of a McDonalds employee suing McDonald's in civil court outside of workers compensation laws as the result of scalding coffee.

lr4444lr 9y ago

(3) has to make you wonder how many employee accidents must have occurred handling liquid at temps this hot in a high-speed food service environment.

will_brown 9y ago
It's a good question, But the employees would have no right to sue McDonald's for any damages in civil court (negligence for example), and they would be limited to workers compensation claims/benefits.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Employees do not have no rights to sue for workplace injuries; intentional or reckless acts, and perhaps gross negligence, may be actionable even on situations where mere simple negligence would be subsumed into workers comp coverage.
  - will_brown 9y ago
    I didn't say employees had no rights, I said these specific employees would have no rights to sue McDonalds, that is a major distinction. The legal arguments are simple, presumably if there are employees who burned themselves, they would have: a.) likely set the coffee temp themselves (above the recommended temp); b.) at least been aware of the temp and risk; and c.) presumably have some responsibility for spilling the coffee on themselves. These facts would remove intentional/reckless/gross negligence on the part of McDonalds. And I already know the counter arguments; However, if I'm actually wrong feel free to show me an a single case of a McDonalds employee suing McDonald's in civil court outside of workers compensation laws as the result of scalding coffee.