4 ms·

From Wikipedia... "McDonalds had received more than 700 reports of people burned by their coffee to varying degrees of severity". I remember reading a lot abou

From Wikipedia... "McDonalds had received more than 700 reports of people burned by their coffee to varying degrees of severity". I remember reading a lot about this. It was the fact that McDonalds knew they had a dangerous product but wanted to keep it "hot" at the drive-thru so it would still be drinkable after people finished their car rides. That was a large factor of why the courts found McDonalds 80% liable in the case.

harry8 3y ago
yeah if you want to argue the cups were rubbish and negligently so, fine. Go right ahead, there /may/ be a sensible discussion to be had there somewhere. It is at least possible "Caution contents hot" Does not seem to be any way an engineering fix for this though, does it? Like seriously, why do you think that is written there? People expect cold? That fixes it? The mind boggles. So many legal fees on garbage like this. But yeah, the lawyers got everyone jumping to their BS and so the zeitgeist will go into wikipedia. Caution: contents silly.
- SkipperCat 3y ago
  I think a lot of the case focused on the temperature of the coffee. McDonalds brewed it above 135F and that put it in the category of "burn risk". They could have brewed it slightly cooler, but McDonalds thought it would detract from the taste. Having "caution hot" was probably not enough of a warning. They should have put "caution burn risk" or something like that on the cups.
  - harry8 3y ago
    A purchaser has zero right to assume that a freshly brewed cup of coffee can't burn them. I mean seriously wtf? Children should know better and do. A purchaser has no right to blame anyone else for putting a freshly brewed cup of coffee between their legs while driving a car. That is dangerous and reckless driving and they should be charged for not taking the proper regard for others safety. You can hate mcdonalds and I /really/ do and see this BS for what it is. Exploiting your sympathy for a burn victim to accrue a mass of lawyers fees. This case and all the other legal actions on the same principle. You don't have to be a "rugged individualist championing personal responsibility above all things" (aka libtard) to see it. You can even be a a massive socialist and still see the incredible damage to ordinary people engendered by this frankly insane interpretation and enforcement of the law. Nobody is safer, but the existing lawyers get richer and their highly productive segment of the economy grows. The effect on insurance premiums across the entire economy has been profound and immense. Add up all the legal fees and flow on then compare to "caution: contents hot" written in tiny print on a cup that cannot be seen without holding said cup. Include all the additional legal fees from just this kind of nonsense for any small business trying to grow that come out of this. That is the outcome. It's such an idiotic "AKHTUALLY it's not what it seems." AKHTUHALLY it's not crazy like it sounds because it's really good for lawyers who have a huge interest in avoiding the necessary legal reforms and have done a truly stellar job pursuing those interests.

harry8 3y ago

yeah if you want to argue the cups were rubbish and negligently so, fine. Go right ahead, there /may/ be a sensible discussion to be had there somewhere. It is at least possible "Caution contents hot" Does not seem to be any way an engineering fix for this though, does it? Like seriously, why do you think that is written there? People expect cold? That fixes it? The mind boggles. So many legal fees on garbage like this. But yeah, the lawyers got everyone jumping to their BS and so the zeitgeist will go into wikipedia. Caution: contents silly.

SkipperCat 3y ago
I think a lot of the case focused on the temperature of the coffee. McDonalds brewed it above 135F and that put it in the category of "burn risk". They could have brewed it slightly cooler, but McDonalds thought it would detract from the taste. Having "caution hot" was probably not enough of a warning. They should have put "caution burn risk" or something like that on the cups.
- harry8 3y ago
  A purchaser has zero right to assume that a freshly brewed cup of coffee can't burn them. I mean seriously wtf? Children should know better and do. A purchaser has no right to blame anyone else for putting a freshly brewed cup of coffee between their legs while driving a car. That is dangerous and reckless driving and they should be charged for not taking the proper regard for others safety. You can hate mcdonalds and I /really/ do and see this BS for what it is. Exploiting your sympathy for a burn victim to accrue a mass of lawyers fees. This case and all the other legal actions on the same principle. You don't have to be a "rugged individualist championing personal responsibility above all things" (aka libtard) to see it. You can even be a a massive socialist and still see the incredible damage to ordinary people engendered by this frankly insane interpretation and enforcement of the law. Nobody is safer, but the existing lawyers get richer and their highly productive segment of the economy grows. The effect on insurance premiums across the entire economy has been profound and immense. Add up all the legal fees and flow on then compare to "caution: contents hot" written in tiny print on a cup that cannot be seen without holding said cup. Include all the additional legal fees from just this kind of nonsense for any small business trying to grow that come out of this. That is the outcome. It's such an idiotic "AKHTUALLY it's not what it seems." AKHTUHALLY it's not crazy like it sounds because it's really good for lawyers who have a huge interest in avoiding the necessary legal reforms and have done a truly stellar job pursuing those interests.