5 ms·

The McDonald's coffee incident is often cited as an example of litigation and punitive damages gone mad. Some woman got scalded by her coffee? And she was award

The McDonald's coffee incident is often cited as an example of litigation and punitive damages gone mad. Some woman got scalded by her coffee? And she was awarded how much? It's less often noted just how badly the woman was injured (third degree burns, significant amounts of skin seared off, etc.) and the details of why McDonald's was held liable (dangerous policy, not an isolated mistake). The details are worth a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest...

bryanrasmussen 4y ago
I certainly agree that McDonald's got what it deserved, hope you don't think I was implying otherwise. on edit: actually I think the ability to sue for torts is one of the pluses of the American system, and is definitely better than a lot of other supposedly fairer countries.
- afiori 4y ago
  McDonald got the verdict it deserved, but later appeals reduced the sum to a much lower value IIRC not even covering the total medical expenses + lawyers.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    It was reduced but in the wikipedia article linked above https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest... it says >The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. I would think that the settlement out of court was less than 640000, because it was McDonalds that was appealing, thus for them to drop it they would have to pay less than what they were going to anyway (I suppose) It also says >Liebeck died on August 5, 2004, at age 91. According to her daughter, "the burns and court proceedings (had taken) their toll" and in the years following the settlement Liebeck had "no quality of life". She said the settlement had paid for a live-in nurse. So I think it was still significantly more than the 160,000 the suit was originally for in order to afford a nurse.
watwut 4y ago
I read about this lawsuit a lot. No women did nothing wrong or stupid. The lawsuit outcome was still bad decision with bad reasoning which is why all those writeups remain unconvincing.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  You could explain why you think the outcome is bad, just saying it was bad is rather unconvincing
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    Okay: the actual proximate cause of the burn was the heat of the liquid. As far as I know, they were not required to, nor did they, reduce the temperature. Nor should they have; to reduce the temperature of the coffee to a level low enough where she would not have received third-degree burns would require brewing and/or holding at a temperature low enough to negatively impact the quality. That case is a study in how a sympathetic plaintiff affects the outcome.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      As I mentioned in another comment, keeping coffee at a high temperature actually reduces the quality by speeding up chemical reactions that make it more bitter. Keeping it at a low temperature (around 50C) prevents this so your interpretation of how the temperature relates to quality is entirely backwards
      - Karunamon 4y ago
        That coffee does not exist in a vacuum. The temperature at which people want to drink it, and when, is part of this as well, probably even more important, and requiring reheating is the worst of all worlds. Also, you would likely be hard-pressed to tell the difference in bitterness given the relatively short maximum holding times (two hours in the steel urn, half an hour in the glass pot) and how much coffee the average breakfast goes through (it will be hanging out a lot less time than the maximum). Remember, this is McDonald's. The coffee being a bit more bitter won't result in complaints. The coffee being not hot enough will.
Veen 4y ago
I've never understood this. She bought hot coffee, put it between her legs, and spilled it. If I'd done that, I would feel foolish and blame no one but myself. What reasonable person is surprised that coffee is served hot enough to scald you?
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > Liebeck acknowledged that the spill was her fault. What she took issue with was that the coffee was so ridiculously hot — at up to 190 degrees Fahrenheit [88C], near boiling point — that it caused third-degree burns on her legs and genitals, nearly killing her and requiring extensive surgery to treat. > McDonald’s apparently knew that this was unsafe. In the decade before Liebeck’s spill, McDonald’s had received 700 reports of people burning themselves. McDonald’s admitted that its coffee was a hazard at such high temperatures. But it continued the practice, enforced by official McDonald’s policy, of heating up its coffee to near-boiling point. (McDonald’s claimed customers wanted the coffee this hot.) > Liebeck didn’t want to go to court. She just wanted McDonald’s to pay her medical expenses, estimated at $20,000. McDonald’s only offered $800, leading her to file a lawsuit in 1994. > After hearing the evidence, the jury concluded that McDonald’s handling of its coffee was so irresponsible that Liebeck should get much more than $20,000, suggesting she get nearly $2.9 million to send the company a message. Liebeck settled for less than $600,000. And McDonald’s began changing how it heats up its coffee. * https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/... There's hot and then there's hot.
  - onethought 4y ago
    88 degrees makes sense… you boil water to make coffee… Also you can feel via the cup how hot.
    - throw0101a 4y ago
      > According to Dr. Fredericka Brown and Dr. Kenneth Diller, mechanical engineering professors at The University of Texas at Tyler, the optimal temperature range for serving hot beverages is between 125°F and 136°F. Their research shows that although there are varying preferences regarding the optimal temperature for beverage consumption, drinking a hot beverage outside of this range can negatively impact taste and cause physical discomfort. In some cases, drinking beverages that are above this temperature range can lead to serious burns to the mouth, tongue, and esophagus. * https://blog.nycm.com/2020/01/protecting-your-palate-what-is-best.html https://blog.nycm.com/2020/01/protecting-your-palate-what-is... > Hot beverages such as tea, hot chocolate, and coffee are frequently served at temperatures between 160 degrees F (71.1 degrees C) and 185 degrees F (85 degrees C). Brief exposures to liquids in this temperature range can cause significant scald burns. However, hot beverages must be served at a temperature that is high enough to provide a satisfactory sensation to the consumer. This paper presents an analysis to quantify hot beverage temperatures that balance limiting the potential scald burn hazard and maintaining an acceptable perception of adequate product warmth. * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18226454/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18226454/

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

I certainly agree that McDonald's got what it deserved, hope you don't think I was implying otherwise. on edit: actually I think the ability to sue for torts is one of the pluses of the American system, and is definitely better than a lot of other supposedly fairer countries.

afiori 4y ago
McDonald got the verdict it deserved, but later appeals reduced the sum to a much lower value IIRC not even covering the total medical expenses + lawyers.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  It was reduced but in the wikipedia article linked above https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest... it says >The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. I would think that the settlement out of court was less than 640000, because it was McDonalds that was appealing, thus for them to drop it they would have to pay less than what they were going to anyway (I suppose) It also says >Liebeck died on August 5, 2004, at age 91. According to her daughter, "the burns and court proceedings (had taken) their toll" and in the years following the settlement Liebeck had "no quality of life". She said the settlement had paid for a live-in nurse. So I think it was still significantly more than the 160,000 the suit was originally for in order to afford a nurse.

watwut 4y ago

I read about this lawsuit a lot. No women did nothing wrong or stupid. The lawsuit outcome was still bad decision with bad reasoning which is why all those writeups remain unconvincing.

kevviiinn 4y ago
You could explain why you think the outcome is bad, just saying it was bad is rather unconvincing
- Karunamon 4y ago
  Okay: the actual proximate cause of the burn was the heat of the liquid. As far as I know, they were not required to, nor did they, reduce the temperature. Nor should they have; to reduce the temperature of the coffee to a level low enough where she would not have received third-degree burns would require brewing and/or holding at a temperature low enough to negatively impact the quality. That case is a study in how a sympathetic plaintiff affects the outcome.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    As I mentioned in another comment, keeping coffee at a high temperature actually reduces the quality by speeding up chemical reactions that make it more bitter. Keeping it at a low temperature (around 50C) prevents this so your interpretation of how the temperature relates to quality is entirely backwards
    - Karunamon 4y ago
      That coffee does not exist in a vacuum. The temperature at which people want to drink it, and when, is part of this as well, probably even more important, and requiring reheating is the worst of all worlds. Also, you would likely be hard-pressed to tell the difference in bitterness given the relatively short maximum holding times (two hours in the steel urn, half an hour in the glass pot) and how much coffee the average breakfast goes through (it will be hanging out a lot less time than the maximum). Remember, this is McDonald's. The coffee being a bit more bitter won't result in complaints. The coffee being not hot enough will.

Veen 4y ago

I've never understood this. She bought hot coffee, put it between her legs, and spilled it. If I'd done that, I would feel foolish and blame no one but myself. What reasonable person is surprised that coffee is served hot enough to scald you?

throw0101c 4y ago
> Liebeck acknowledged that the spill was her fault. What she took issue with was that the coffee was so ridiculously hot — at up to 190 degrees Fahrenheit [88C], near boiling point — that it caused third-degree burns on her legs and genitals, nearly killing her and requiring extensive surgery to treat. > McDonald’s apparently knew that this was unsafe. In the decade before Liebeck’s spill, McDonald’s had received 700 reports of people burning themselves. McDonald’s admitted that its coffee was a hazard at such high temperatures. But it continued the practice, enforced by official McDonald’s policy, of heating up its coffee to near-boiling point. (McDonald’s claimed customers wanted the coffee this hot.) > Liebeck didn’t want to go to court. She just wanted McDonald’s to pay her medical expenses, estimated at $20,000. McDonald’s only offered $800, leading her to file a lawsuit in 1994. > After hearing the evidence, the jury concluded that McDonald’s handling of its coffee was so irresponsible that Liebeck should get much more than $20,000, suggesting she get nearly $2.9 million to send the company a message. Liebeck settled for less than $600,000. And McDonald’s began changing how it heats up its coffee. * https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/... There's hot and then there's hot.
- onethought 4y ago
  88 degrees makes sense… you boil water to make coffee… Also you can feel via the cup how hot.
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    > According to Dr. Fredericka Brown and Dr. Kenneth Diller, mechanical engineering professors at The University of Texas at Tyler, the optimal temperature range for serving hot beverages is between 125°F and 136°F. Their research shows that although there are varying preferences regarding the optimal temperature for beverage consumption, drinking a hot beverage outside of this range can negatively impact taste and cause physical discomfort. In some cases, drinking beverages that are above this temperature range can lead to serious burns to the mouth, tongue, and esophagus. * https://blog.nycm.com/2020/01/protecting-your-palate-what-is-best.html https://blog.nycm.com/2020/01/protecting-your-palate-what-is... > Hot beverages such as tea, hot chocolate, and coffee are frequently served at temperatures between 160 degrees F (71.1 degrees C) and 185 degrees F (85 degrees C). Brief exposures to liquids in this temperature range can cause significant scald burns. However, hot beverages must be served at a temperature that is high enough to provide a satisfactory sensation to the consumer. This paper presents an analysis to quantify hot beverage temperatures that balance limiting the potential scald burn hazard and maintaining an acceptable perception of adequate product warmth. * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18226454/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18226454/