3 ms·
How does this work if, say, I agreed to these terms, but then I walked into a McDonald’s and bought a scalding hot coffee without using the app? Would I still h
by fotta 3y ago
How does this work if, say, I agreed to these terms, but then I walked into a McDonald’s and bought a scalding hot coffee without using the app? Would I still have grounds to sue if I got burnt since I never interacted with the app in this transaction but I previously agreed in the app?
edit: the terms say (emphasis my own)
> any claim or dispute […] you may have with McDonald’s or any other Members of the McDonald’s System arising from or related to the online services or these terms will be resolved exclusively by final and binding arbitration
So I suppose that this really only applies to lawsuits related to the use of the app and that any foodservice claims are still valid? IANAL.
By this reading, I think this statement in the article is incorrect.
> Essentially, the new terms state that, if a customer tries to sue over hot coffee, for example, they can't take their case to trial.
- analog31 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- chrisandchris 3y agoWhat I don't understand is, besides the legal part, where all the common sense went. I mean is it really unknown to everyone that hot coffee is actually hot and may burn you? Whose liability is that you forgot that a hot drink should cool down a bit? Shall McDonals cool it down for you and then you'll sue them because the hot coffee is not anymore hot but just warm?
- cpuguy83 3y agoPosting just for those who are not aware, in the 90's McDonalds was sued for this exact thing [1]. The person had 3rd degree burns and was hospitalized for 8 days after spilling the coffee. --- EDIT --- Just adding that, IIRC, this is _the_ reason coffee cups say "caution: contents of this are hot" (or whatever to that effect). [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest...
- rfrey 3y agoAlso notable that the hospitalized person initially only requested that McDonald's pay for the medical care, a request which was refused. That this case has become the poster child for "crazy lawsuits" is really a triumph of corporate PR.
- flutas 3y agoTheir coffee was stored and served far too hot compared to any other place. They also had over 700 claims from the coffee in 10 years. > McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C) > coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20 °F (11 °C) lower than McDonald's coffee > They also presented the jury with expert testimony that 190 °F (88 °C) coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about three seconds and 180 °F (82 °C) coffee may produce such burns in about twelve to fifteen seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. and the vast numbers you hear about in this settlement are a result of that. All the victim wanted was medical expenses covered. > Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses.
- Jolter 3y agoI think the terms would apply if you could put in orders through the app. I’m assuming you can (I don’t go to McDonald’s). So, if you order a gluten free burger using the app, and a software bug messes up you order? You pick it up at the counter, and they give you a regular burger. You end up getting sick and having expenses or missing income, you can’t sue them in court, I guess.