4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaura... "She was hospitalized for eight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaura... "She was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment."

giantg2 5y ago
Just because someone is injured doesn't say anything about culpability. The culpability part is what was being questioned, not her injuries.
- mcculley 5y ago
  "Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000." We know why coffee vendors make the coffee so hot. It expresses more caffeine. It is very simple. They decided that the value in keeping consumers addicted was worth the risk.
- derekp7 5y ago
  The culpability is two parts. First part is serving a beverage that was much hotter than what an average consumer would expect, without a warning such as "this product will cause third degree burns within 3 seconds of touching your skin". But the biggest issue that I don't see mentioned most times this case is brought up is that the coffee cups at that time were defective by design. They relied on the lid for structural integrity. When you grasped the cup and squeeze it hard enough to keep it from falling, then if the lid pops off the cup collapses and the cup falls, spilling scalding liquid on you. Notice that the current cups don't crush as easily even without a lid on, they still hold their structure when squeezing it hard enough to pick it up. Also, the old cups would cause discomfort when holding them, which indicates that the liquid lost a lot of its thermal energy to the environment in a short amount of time. Due to that, customers that had to transport their coffee for some distance before wanting to drink it would want it to be served hotter than normal. Then it would be the perfect temperature when they get to their classroom / office. The newer cups have much better insulation properties, so this is less necessary.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Thanks! I was not aware of the cup problem.
  - astura 5y ago
    Yeah, there's much less burns from hot coffee nowadays, but it's not necessarily from serving coffee colder (as far as I know coffee is usually held at extremely hot temperatures still). 1) The cup design is much, much sturdier. Not just at McDonald's, almost everywhere has sturdier cups. 2) The store usually puts cream and sugar in it rather than handing it to the customer to put it in themselves - that's what Stella was doing at the time she spilled. 3) cup holders are now plentiful and ubiquitous in cars - the car that Stella's grandson was driving didn't have cup holders so she had to grip the cup with her knees to open the cream/sugar.
- blowski 5y ago
  IANAL but I think you’re misinterpreting what culpability means in a legal context. https://online.vwu.edu/news/criminal-justice/culpability/ https://online.vwu.edu/news/criminal-justice/culpability/ WHAT IS CULPABILITY? Culpability “refers to the blameworthiness of the accused,” according to the definition provided by USLegal. When the court determines that the accused is culpable for a crime, the accused is considered to have an appropriate understanding that what the person did was wrong. Being culpable implies that an action (or neglect of an action) is immoral, wrong or illegal. It does not, however, always imply malicious intent on the part of the wrongdoer. It simply means liable or blamable. A liable person is answerable for inappropriate actions. For example, if you are driving on a busy street, lose focus and crash into another vehicle, then you are responsible for your action. Because you didn’t mean to cause harm, it’s called culpable negligence. It’s understood to have been unintentional, but you are still held accountable.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    > Because you didn’t mean to cause harm, it’s called culpable negligence. Strong disagree. It comes to duty of care, and failing that duty is the culpable act. It has nothing to do with intent to cause harm, rather with the lack of intent to pay enough attention to avoid a collision. Otherwise fault is not found (e.g. a third car pushed them into the first)
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  Normally you don't get 3rd degree burns and require a skin graft for accidentally spilling your coffee in your lap in a McDonald's drive thru
  - mcculley 5y ago
    It had been happening for years.
    - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
      does that mean something
      - mcculley 5y ago
        Yes, it means McDonald's did expect it to happen. > "Normally you don't get 3rd degree burns..." It was normal. "Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000."
        VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
        Oh I see. I thought maybe you were indicating it was an excuse that would preclude the woman from having a claim in her lawsuit. It was actually the opposite.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    But Mcdonald’s has not reduced the serving temperature of their coffee after this lawsuit. Are you suggesting that there was something wrong with this woman in particular?
- bastawhiz 5y ago
  If I ordered a drink to consume and it was (intentionally!) almost boiling, not only is that reckless and wildly unsafe, it's neglectful. I order Starbucks and gingerly sip my coffee, expecting it to be quite hot. If it literally gave me second or third degree burns, I would also sue and so would you. "Hot things are hot" is a naive defense of an intentional and malicious act (literally to get people to order fewer refills) that dismisses the fact that there is a threshold where the item is dangerous.
  - freedomben 5y ago
    AFAIK the plaintiff didn't get second or third degree burns from sipping the coffee. It spilled on her lap. Might have been a defective cup or maybe her fault, idk I haven't researched it enough to say, but I'm pretty confident it wasn't just from gingerly sipping.
    - bastawhiz 5y ago
      It was a combination of factors, including the coffee being intentionally way too hot. The coffee was hot enough to give third degree burns in a couple seconds: you don't need to drop that in your lap to get burned.
      - robonerd 5y ago
        All coffee served hot is hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns in seconds, particularly to children and the elderly who have thinner skin that burns quicker. >The severity of tap water scalds depends on the temperature of the water and the length of time the skin is exposed. Human exposure to hot water at 140°F can lead to a serious burn within 3 seconds, whereas at 120°F a serious burn takes about 10 minutes. Because thinner skin burns more quickly, children and older adults are at increased risk. Young children are disproportionately affected by scald burns, as approximately 21,000 children are treated for scald burns from all causes each year, and scald burns represent an estimated 65% of burn hospitalizations for children ages 4 and under. Hot tap water causes nearly 25% of all scald burns and is associated with more scald burn deaths and hospitalizations in children than any other hot liquid. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3605550/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3605550/

giantg2 5y ago

Just because someone is injured doesn't say anything about culpability. The culpability part is what was being questioned, not her injuries.

mcculley 5y ago
"Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000." We know why coffee vendors make the coffee so hot. It expresses more caffeine. It is very simple. They decided that the value in keeping consumers addicted was worth the risk.
derekp7 5y ago
The culpability is two parts. First part is serving a beverage that was much hotter than what an average consumer would expect, without a warning such as "this product will cause third degree burns within 3 seconds of touching your skin". But the biggest issue that I don't see mentioned most times this case is brought up is that the coffee cups at that time were defective by design. They relied on the lid for structural integrity. When you grasped the cup and squeeze it hard enough to keep it from falling, then if the lid pops off the cup collapses and the cup falls, spilling scalding liquid on you. Notice that the current cups don't crush as easily even without a lid on, they still hold their structure when squeezing it hard enough to pick it up. Also, the old cups would cause discomfort when holding them, which indicates that the liquid lost a lot of its thermal energy to the environment in a short amount of time. Due to that, customers that had to transport their coffee for some distance before wanting to drink it would want it to be served hotter than normal. Then it would be the perfect temperature when they get to their classroom / office. The newer cups have much better insulation properties, so this is less necessary.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Thanks! I was not aware of the cup problem.
- astura 5y ago
  Yeah, there's much less burns from hot coffee nowadays, but it's not necessarily from serving coffee colder (as far as I know coffee is usually held at extremely hot temperatures still). 1) The cup design is much, much sturdier. Not just at McDonald's, almost everywhere has sturdier cups. 2) The store usually puts cream and sugar in it rather than handing it to the customer to put it in themselves - that's what Stella was doing at the time she spilled. 3) cup holders are now plentiful and ubiquitous in cars - the car that Stella's grandson was driving didn't have cup holders so she had to grip the cup with her knees to open the cream/sugar.
blowski 5y ago
IANAL but I think you’re misinterpreting what culpability means in a legal context. https://online.vwu.edu/news/criminal-justice/culpability/ https://online.vwu.edu/news/criminal-justice/culpability/ WHAT IS CULPABILITY? Culpability “refers to the blameworthiness of the accused,” according to the definition provided by USLegal. When the court determines that the accused is culpable for a crime, the accused is considered to have an appropriate understanding that what the person did was wrong. Being culpable implies that an action (or neglect of an action) is immoral, wrong or illegal. It does not, however, always imply malicious intent on the part of the wrongdoer. It simply means liable or blamable. A liable person is answerable for inappropriate actions. For example, if you are driving on a busy street, lose focus and crash into another vehicle, then you are responsible for your action. Because you didn’t mean to cause harm, it’s called culpable negligence. It’s understood to have been unintentional, but you are still held accountable.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  > Because you didn’t mean to cause harm, it’s called culpable negligence. Strong disagree. It comes to duty of care, and failing that duty is the culpable act. It has nothing to do with intent to cause harm, rather with the lack of intent to pay enough attention to avoid a collision. Otherwise fault is not found (e.g. a third car pushed them into the first)
VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
Normally you don't get 3rd degree burns and require a skin graft for accidentally spilling your coffee in your lap in a McDonald's drive thru
- mcculley 5y ago
  It had been happening for years.
  - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
    does that mean something
    - mcculley 5y ago
      Yes, it means McDonald's did expect it to happen. > "Normally you don't get 3rd degree burns..." It was normal. "Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000."
      - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
        Oh I see. I thought maybe you were indicating it was an excuse that would preclude the woman from having a claim in her lawsuit. It was actually the opposite.
- rosndo 5y ago
  But Mcdonald’s has not reduced the serving temperature of their coffee after this lawsuit. Are you suggesting that there was something wrong with this woman in particular?
bastawhiz 5y ago
If I ordered a drink to consume and it was (intentionally!) almost boiling, not only is that reckless and wildly unsafe, it's neglectful. I order Starbucks and gingerly sip my coffee, expecting it to be quite hot. If it literally gave me second or third degree burns, I would also sue and so would you. "Hot things are hot" is a naive defense of an intentional and malicious act (literally to get people to order fewer refills) that dismisses the fact that there is a threshold where the item is dangerous.
- freedomben 5y ago
  AFAIK the plaintiff didn't get second or third degree burns from sipping the coffee. It spilled on her lap. Might have been a defective cup or maybe her fault, idk I haven't researched it enough to say, but I'm pretty confident it wasn't just from gingerly sipping.
  - bastawhiz 5y ago
    It was a combination of factors, including the coffee being intentionally way too hot. The coffee was hot enough to give third degree burns in a couple seconds: you don't need to drop that in your lap to get burned.
    - robonerd 5y ago
      All coffee served hot is hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns in seconds, particularly to children and the elderly who have thinner skin that burns quicker. >The severity of tap water scalds depends on the temperature of the water and the length of time the skin is exposed. Human exposure to hot water at 140°F can lead to a serious burn within 3 seconds, whereas at 120°F a serious burn takes about 10 minutes. Because thinner skin burns more quickly, children and older adults are at increased risk. Young children are disproportionately affected by scald burns, as approximately 21,000 children are treated for scald burns from all causes each year, and scald burns represent an estimated 65% of burn hospitalizations for children ages 4 and under. Hot tap water causes nearly 25% of all scald burns and is associated with more scald burn deaths and hospitalizations in children than any other hot liquid. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3605550/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3605550/