6 ms·

The issue is not always children or safety. When an elderly customer of McDonald’s sues — and wins damages — for being burned by coffee that is too hot, what d

The issue is not always children or safety. When an elderly customer of McDonald’s sues — and wins damages — for being burned by coffee that is too hot, what do you think will happen to prevent it in the future? (Besides cooler coffee) hint: special warnings on the cup, redesigned cups, and the basic infantilization of adults.

SkittyDog 5y ago
You have been and taken in by propaganda. Please take the time to read the wikipedia article that the other commenter linked, and learn the truth about this incident. You deserve better than to continue having the wool pulled over your eyes.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  Pay special attention to the "Coffee Temperature" section: > "Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's current policy is to serve coffee at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C),[37] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability" In other words, Stella's lawsuit was sort of a one-off success for aspiring hot-coffee lawyers, and the only effect it had in the long run was maybe a few more warning labels on paper cups.
  - SkittyDog 5y ago
    So you actually quoted the part where it mentions improving their cups... And then you seem to have completely ignored it in your own commentary. Redesigning the cups with more rigid foam (and the plastic lid lip IIRC) was a pretty big deal at the time, and it made a significant impact on the possibility of spilling. But the bigger problem is that you're still ignoring that your mind has been captured by the propaganda that demonized this woman as a greedy opportunist, and cast our tort system as a lottery for lazy, evil people to enrich themselves at the expense of honest hard-working businesses. The woman asked that McDonald's pay her medical damages, only... And those damages were extensive... Can you even imagine how much surgery is required to treat 3rd degree burns to the genitals? Major skin grafts, permanent horrific scarring. You'd never regain full sensation again, and it's likely you'd never fully function sexually afterwards. The jury decided to award massive punitive damages, in large part because they felt that McDonald's conduct after the injury was so shocking that they felt compelled to send an equally attention-getting message to the corporate executives who had treated this woman with such callous inhumanity. And the punitive damages were reduced on appeal, anyway, which shows that the tort system does work. McDonald's paid their lawyers more than they paid the defendant... And they would have only paid a tiny fraction of that amount, if only they had evolved a bit of conscience at the beginning.
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      No, the changes that McDonalds implemented in their cups were not really a big deal. Rigid styrofoam and cups were already in widespread use at large establishments at the time. McDonalds' "redesigned" cups were and continue to be quite pedestrian. Don't take my word for it. Go order a cup of McDonalds coffee, which will likely be served to you at the same dangerously hot, NCA-approved temperature that burned Stella, put the cup between your legs and squeeze it like Stella did, and tell me how safe you feel. > But the bigger problem is that you're still ignoring that your mind has been captured by the propaganda that demonized this woman as a greedy opportunist No, in my comments I have explicitly stated that I empathized with Stella and that I'm glad she got her medical bills paid. She didn't deserve what happened to her, and she definitely didn't deserve the hateful publicity she received. I furthermore freely admit that I'm fully capable of doing the same idiotic things that Stella did. Putting hot coffee between my legs and squeezing it to fiddle with the lid is exactly something I would do, and I'd probably be on the fucking phone or driving while I did it. I recognize that Stella probably didn't understand just how dangerous this is, and I accept that McDonalds may have been negligent in the nature of the warnings it provided. > Can you even imagine how much surgery is required to treat 3rd degree burns to the genitals? This is an appeal to emotion. Yes, I've seen some horrific injuries in my time. I'm also a vegetarian with a deep abiding hatred of McDonalds and their ilk. McDonalds makes, markets, and sells shit food that is poisoning generations. But the magnitude of Stella's injury is orthogonal to the issue of McDonalds culpability for it. Clearly the judicial system has settled into some recognition of liability for merchants of hot coffee, but excessive service temperature is not part of that consideration. And it's a damn good thing, because coffee needs to be hot. Here's a simple question for you, based on an actual experience I had years ago. If I accidentally stab myself in the eye with a paring knife (yes, long story), will you support me if I sue the knife maker or the merchant for selling me a knife that was excessively or unexpectedly sharp and pointy?
      - SkittyDog 5y ago
        You don't seem to know very much about the redesigned lids. Disposable coffee lids in the US changed drastically following this lawsuit. It took a few years, but the quality of disposable cups/libs used to serve hot beverages to-go is vastly higher than it used to be. I'm surprised that you don't know that... There's a lot of legal scholarship on this topic that specifically discusses that shift, and analyzes the impact of this lawsuit vs other causes. But then, you also don't seem to know very much about product liability in US law. Manufacturers are held to surprisingly high standards in the US, and McDonald's conduct before & during this trial actually shocked the legal community. Their position was seen as surprisingly risky, given the fact pattern. Your knife example is pretty silly, and I'm not sure why you expected it to prove anything. Legal hypotheticals are sometimes useful analytical tools, but you have to actually construct the hypo case to distinguish a relevant legal principle or fact pattern... Your example does none of that. It's just an obvious tautology, and there's not really any argument contained in it. Again, I would encourage you to educate yourself, instead of just making a lot of assumptions that are emotionally convenient to your preconceived notions.
542458 5y ago
I suggest you go and read the details of that case. The store was knowingly serving coffee at temperatures too hot for human consumption, and had received prior complaints of injuries. The cups they served coffee in at the time were also known to be extremely flimsy and easy to accidentally collapse. The woman in question had third degree burns and required skin grafts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest... If you go looking you can find images of the burns on her groin. They’re pretty grisly.
- SteveGerencser 5y ago
  As someone that lived there, and drank their coffee, everyone knew it was hot. It was served that way because of the huge number of university students that grabbed a cup before class and it was still warm after walking across campus. The exit of that parking lot is also a known issue. It has/had a steep dip out of the lot and onto the road because that's how the roads were built down there rather than putting in sewers. Finally, there is a traffic light right next to that McDonalds. A LOT of people hit that dip hard trying to get onto the road before that light changes. All of these things contributed to the issue. Sticking a hot cup of coffee between your legs while someone is driving is stupid, especially in that parking lot. Serving coffee so hot that it stays warm while you walk to class is also pretty stupid. The way McDonalds handled the issue is what made them the bad guys here. They could have easily helped this woman with her medical bills and it would have cost them far less money than the amount they spent on the their PR campaign and lawyers.
  - 542458 5y ago
    For what it’s worth, they were parked when the spill happened. But agreed re:McDonald’s behaviour. I believe the jury was also deeply unimpressed, which is why the punitive damages were so high at first.
  - felipemnoa 5y ago
    I think they should have made better cups to retain the heat longer.
- 5y ago
SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
Contrary to popular belief, the “sue because coffee is too hot, what an infantile concept” is actually a highly successful PR campaign by McDonald’s. The coffee was hot enough to melt flesh and in fact, when spilled onto a lap, was hot enough to melt the genitals shut. I would sue too!
- b112 5y ago
  Just thinking of the horrible scream that poor person must have let out...
- twic 5y ago
  Flesh doesn't melt. The coffee was hot enough to cause third-degree burns. Specifically, it was 82–88 °C [1]. I couldn't find a definitive "correct" temperature at which to serve coffee. It seems that people typically want it at 60 °C when they drink it [2], but since not everyone wants to drink it straight away, often coffee shops serve it hotter than that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230106152_At_What_Temperatures_Do_Consumers_Like_to_Drink_Coffee_Mixing_Methods https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230106152_At_What_T...
  - SkittyDog 5y ago
    When someone says "He got his head blown off" in reference to a cranial gunshot wound, do you also pull this "WELL AKSHUALLY..." routine on them, by pointing out that the victim's head is still attached to their body? The characterization of "melt the genitals shut" is not a precise medical, physical, scientifix statement. It's a colloquial, even poetic phrasing, and it does a FANTASTIC job of describing the impact of this woman's injuries.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      It seems fairly clear to me that it was not intended to be read as a colloquial phrasing. It's stated twice, in italics. There's nothing wrong with pointing out this idea is just false. The responder isn't telling the whole story though. The reason the coffee was so hot was because they wanted to limit the practical ability of customers to make use of endless refills on coffee. Not consideration for the average customer's wants.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

SkittyDog 5y ago

You have been and taken in by propaganda. Please take the time to read the wikipedia article that the other commenter linked, and learn the truth about this incident. You deserve better than to continue having the wool pulled over your eyes.

nate_meurer 5y ago
Pay special attention to the "Coffee Temperature" section: > "Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's current policy is to serve coffee at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C),[37] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability" In other words, Stella's lawsuit was sort of a one-off success for aspiring hot-coffee lawyers, and the only effect it had in the long run was maybe a few more warning labels on paper cups.
- SkittyDog 5y ago
  So you actually quoted the part where it mentions improving their cups... And then you seem to have completely ignored it in your own commentary. Redesigning the cups with more rigid foam (and the plastic lid lip IIRC) was a pretty big deal at the time, and it made a significant impact on the possibility of spilling. But the bigger problem is that you're still ignoring that your mind has been captured by the propaganda that demonized this woman as a greedy opportunist, and cast our tort system as a lottery for lazy, evil people to enrich themselves at the expense of honest hard-working businesses. The woman asked that McDonald's pay her medical damages, only... And those damages were extensive... Can you even imagine how much surgery is required to treat 3rd degree burns to the genitals? Major skin grafts, permanent horrific scarring. You'd never regain full sensation again, and it's likely you'd never fully function sexually afterwards. The jury decided to award massive punitive damages, in large part because they felt that McDonald's conduct after the injury was so shocking that they felt compelled to send an equally attention-getting message to the corporate executives who had treated this woman with such callous inhumanity. And the punitive damages were reduced on appeal, anyway, which shows that the tort system does work. McDonald's paid their lawyers more than they paid the defendant... And they would have only paid a tiny fraction of that amount, if only they had evolved a bit of conscience at the beginning.
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    No, the changes that McDonalds implemented in their cups were not really a big deal. Rigid styrofoam and cups were already in widespread use at large establishments at the time. McDonalds' "redesigned" cups were and continue to be quite pedestrian. Don't take my word for it. Go order a cup of McDonalds coffee, which will likely be served to you at the same dangerously hot, NCA-approved temperature that burned Stella, put the cup between your legs and squeeze it like Stella did, and tell me how safe you feel. > But the bigger problem is that you're still ignoring that your mind has been captured by the propaganda that demonized this woman as a greedy opportunist No, in my comments I have explicitly stated that I empathized with Stella and that I'm glad she got her medical bills paid. She didn't deserve what happened to her, and she definitely didn't deserve the hateful publicity she received. I furthermore freely admit that I'm fully capable of doing the same idiotic things that Stella did. Putting hot coffee between my legs and squeezing it to fiddle with the lid is exactly something I would do, and I'd probably be on the fucking phone or driving while I did it. I recognize that Stella probably didn't understand just how dangerous this is, and I accept that McDonalds may have been negligent in the nature of the warnings it provided. > Can you even imagine how much surgery is required to treat 3rd degree burns to the genitals? This is an appeal to emotion. Yes, I've seen some horrific injuries in my time. I'm also a vegetarian with a deep abiding hatred of McDonalds and their ilk. McDonalds makes, markets, and sells shit food that is poisoning generations. But the magnitude of Stella's injury is orthogonal to the issue of McDonalds culpability for it. Clearly the judicial system has settled into some recognition of liability for merchants of hot coffee, but excessive service temperature is not part of that consideration. And it's a damn good thing, because coffee needs to be hot. Here's a simple question for you, based on an actual experience I had years ago. If I accidentally stab myself in the eye with a paring knife (yes, long story), will you support me if I sue the knife maker or the merchant for selling me a knife that was excessively or unexpectedly sharp and pointy?
    - SkittyDog 5y ago
      You don't seem to know very much about the redesigned lids. Disposable coffee lids in the US changed drastically following this lawsuit. It took a few years, but the quality of disposable cups/libs used to serve hot beverages to-go is vastly higher than it used to be. I'm surprised that you don't know that... There's a lot of legal scholarship on this topic that specifically discusses that shift, and analyzes the impact of this lawsuit vs other causes. But then, you also don't seem to know very much about product liability in US law. Manufacturers are held to surprisingly high standards in the US, and McDonald's conduct before & during this trial actually shocked the legal community. Their position was seen as surprisingly risky, given the fact pattern. Your knife example is pretty silly, and I'm not sure why you expected it to prove anything. Legal hypotheticals are sometimes useful analytical tools, but you have to actually construct the hypo case to distinguish a relevant legal principle or fact pattern... Your example does none of that. It's just an obvious tautology, and there's not really any argument contained in it. Again, I would encourage you to educate yourself, instead of just making a lot of assumptions that are emotionally convenient to your preconceived notions.

542458 5y ago

I suggest you go and read the details of that case. The store was knowingly serving coffee at temperatures too hot for human consumption, and had received prior complaints of injuries. The cups they served coffee in at the time were also known to be extremely flimsy and easy to accidentally collapse. The woman in question had third degree burns and required skin grafts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest... If you go looking you can find images of the burns on her groin. They’re pretty grisly.

SteveGerencser 5y ago
As someone that lived there, and drank their coffee, everyone knew it was hot. It was served that way because of the huge number of university students that grabbed a cup before class and it was still warm after walking across campus. The exit of that parking lot is also a known issue. It has/had a steep dip out of the lot and onto the road because that's how the roads were built down there rather than putting in sewers. Finally, there is a traffic light right next to that McDonalds. A LOT of people hit that dip hard trying to get onto the road before that light changes. All of these things contributed to the issue. Sticking a hot cup of coffee between your legs while someone is driving is stupid, especially in that parking lot. Serving coffee so hot that it stays warm while you walk to class is also pretty stupid. The way McDonalds handled the issue is what made them the bad guys here. They could have easily helped this woman with her medical bills and it would have cost them far less money than the amount they spent on the their PR campaign and lawyers.
- 542458 5y ago
  For what it’s worth, they were parked when the spill happened. But agreed re:McDonald’s behaviour. I believe the jury was also deeply unimpressed, which is why the punitive damages were so high at first.
- felipemnoa 5y ago
  I think they should have made better cups to retain the heat longer.
5y ago

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago

Contrary to popular belief, the “sue because coffee is too hot, what an infantile concept” is actually a highly successful PR campaign by McDonald’s. The coffee was hot enough to melt flesh and in fact, when spilled onto a lap, was hot enough to melt the genitals shut. I would sue too!

b112 5y ago
Just thinking of the horrible scream that poor person must have let out...
twic 5y ago
Flesh doesn't melt. The coffee was hot enough to cause third-degree burns. Specifically, it was 82–88 °C [1]. I couldn't find a definitive "correct" temperature at which to serve coffee. It seems that people typically want it at 60 °C when they drink it [2], but since not everyone wants to drink it straight away, often coffee shops serve it hotter than that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230106152_At_What_Temperatures_Do_Consumers_Like_to_Drink_Coffee_Mixing_Methods https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230106152_At_What_T...
- SkittyDog 5y ago
  When someone says "He got his head blown off" in reference to a cranial gunshot wound, do you also pull this "WELL AKSHUALLY..." routine on them, by pointing out that the victim's head is still attached to their body? The characterization of "melt the genitals shut" is not a precise medical, physical, scientifix statement. It's a colloquial, even poetic phrasing, and it does a FANTASTIC job of describing the impact of this woman's injuries.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    It seems fairly clear to me that it was not intended to be read as a colloquial phrasing. It's stated twice, in italics. There's nothing wrong with pointing out this idea is just false. The responder isn't telling the whole story though. The reason the coffee was so hot was because they wanted to limit the practical ability of customers to make use of endless refills on coffee. Not consideration for the average customer's wants.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]