McDonald's Coffee case

[mimir]

Instead of getting the Warning Labels thread further off-topic, I decided to create a new thread about this.

Here are the facts of the case http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm.
As linked to in the other thread, here is another point of view: http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html.
And finally, here is the link to the National Coffee Association of America: http://www.ncausa.org/public/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71

McDonalds sold it's coffee at 180-190 degrees fahrenheit, which, if spilled or even drank immediately, it will cause serious and extremely damaging burns that cannot be cured without "skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years."

The link to the Stella Awards is very biased, and distorts the truth.

Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately".

They recommend the coffee be brewed at those temperatures, not served at them. If you drank coffee at 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit, there is going to be some extremely major damage to your throat and mouth.

McDonald's defense was that many people wouldn't drink their coffee until they got back to their office, and that if they kept it at a reasonable temperature, it would get cold by the time the person got back. However, McDonald's did not warn the customers about this.

There have been over 700 cases of people being severly burned by McDonalds coffee, this was not an isolated incedent. McDonald's admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumptoin."

 

[Bradylama]

"not fit for consumptoin."

Like those rat organs they call Chicken McNuggets?

 

[Flop]

If you drank coffee at 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit, there is going to be some extremely major damage to your throat and mouth.

And that's why I don't drink coffee (or anything else) at 195-205 degrees fahrenheit. People should learn to check what they put in their mouth.

 

[Bradylama]

Because I sure carry a thermometer with me everywhere I go.

 

[victor]

If it's that hawt, you can usually feel it from the intense heat radiation before drinking it. Unless you're an American't.

 

[Lukus]

She spilled the damn coffee out on herself, of course it's going to hurt. Might as well blame an axe manufacturing company for chopping yourself in the leg when chopping firewood. "I didn't know the axe was going to be *that* sharp."

 

[mimir]

She was a 79 year old woman who probably no longer has the motor skills that you have. The jury lessoned the amount the woman received, because they concluded she was 20% at fault for the burns because she spilled it herself. McDonald's was still serving something that was extremely dangerous. There have been other cases where a McDonald's employee spilled the coffee on someone and burned them.

 

[Ekarderif]

The coffee was at the temperature recommended by the national coffee association.

Here's the facts of that lawsuit: http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Such burns require skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments to heal, and the resulting scarring is typically permanent.

Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit". (Source: NCAUSA.) Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?

I consider this lawsuit quite frivolous.

Am I the only one that's seeing "brewed at 195-205" and "maintained at 180-190"?

 

[Kilus]

Couldn't she just pee her pants to counter act the hot coffee?

 

[Flop]

Because I sure carry a thermometer with me everywhere I go.

You do? I usually just feel the cup or maybe take a small sip, but hey, I guess your way works too.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

So what if McDonald's coffee is hot? I mean, what the fuck are people expecting - that food and beverages will have optimal temperature and jump straight into their mouth the second they are served? Reality check, morons - coffee is brewed at extremely high temperatures, so it's fairly reasonable to expect it will be quite hot once it's done. Unless you want to end up with severe burns, wait a while before drinking it. I know the whole concept of 'waiting' is pretty foreign to you westerners, since you usually devour supersize meals faster than a rabid mob of starving Ethiopians, but I highly recommend familiarizing yourselves with it if you still want to have your throat.

Regarding that dumb bitch who spilt coffee all over herself - serves her right. She should learn to be more careful next time. Better yet, she should start eating real food and drinking real beverages instead of tasteless McDonald's shitcrumbs.

Honestly, it's like most of western society got infected by some kind of a retard virus.

Like those rat organs they call Chicken McNuggets?

CRUELTY!

 

[Adz]

She was a 79 year old woman who probably no longer has the motor skills that you have.

And less common sense. If you don't have the nessasary skills to do something safely, you don't go ahead and do it anyway and demand compensation when it goes wrong.

Is the person who sold it to her supposed to asses her motoring skills and say "Maddam, by the way - this coffee is around 180 degrees so please don't drive with it"

Maybe we should make old people sign disclaimer forms before they buy coffee!!

The jury lessoned the amount the woman received, because they concluded she was 20% at fault for the burns because she spilled it herself.

Yeah that doesn't make sense. I think it should be concluded that she was at least 90% at fault

McDonald's was still serving something that was extremely dangerous.

I assume she's also sued the shop that sold her coffee machine / kettle / tea pot too seeing as it boils water...

 

[Lukus]

She was a 79 year old woman who probably no longer has the motor skills that you have.

I don't think this is an excuse. Accuse age, murphys law or God almighty for this, but Mc Donalds? That's just stupid, it was she who fucked up.

McDonald's was still serving something that was extremely dangerous.

You mean something which can be extremely dangerous. Newsflash: You can pick up something which can be extremely dangerous if used incorrectly pretty much anywhere.

There have been other cases where a McDonald's employee spilled the coffee on someone and burned them.

That's something completely different. Chopping yourself in the leg with an axe, and being chopped in the leg by some teen retard working on minimum wage is not the same thing.

 

[welsh]

You guys are missing the point here.

The rule of negligence in tort law is that you are to act in ways that a reasonably prudent person would act so that no one else gets harmed. If you do something and should have foreseen that it was probable ( in otherwords a reasonable man could have anticipated this happening) that an accident would occur, you are liable.

So for example- if you drive a car you have a duty to maintain your brakes in good working condition because a reasonably prudent person would have realized that faulty breaks makes for accidents to happen.

It doesn't matter who the victim is. This is called the "egg shell" doctrine. Back to the car with bad brakes- the car runs off the road and scraps a person on the leg that normally would have resulted in minor injury. But the victim happens to be a hemophiliac and bleeds to death, then you are totally fucked. Your victim might as well be humpty dumpty that took a fall because you made a crappy wall.

That there are 70 or so similar accidents like this suggests that McDonald's has a policy that puts people into foreseeable danger and should know this. That the coffee is hot and needs to be hot to get to the office means that they should consider a new type of cup if heat insulation is an important selling point.

Ok, so that leads to another issue- and this is more a matter of law.

Some places have a law that says that if you are in an accident or suffer some negligence then the court will figure out who is more at fault and divy up the amount of damages as appropriate.

So back to the brakes case- Let's say you are driving along and dick decides to run a stop sign in front of you and you slam the brakes, but your brakes don't work, and you slam into the stop sign runner.

Now there is another rule of law, used in some states, that says that if you are contributorily negligent, you're up shit creek. In this case the law won't allow for a recovery if you were the cause of the injury itself. This can cause some problems.

Two cases I have seen point out these problems-

A friend of mine is driving his bike past a garbage truck, the garbage truck swerves, cutting him off, and he slams into the truck causing some nasty facial injury? Should he recover? Why didn't he slow down?

A friend of a friend is walking across the street near my university, using a crosswalk and speaking into her cell-phone. Some dipshit undergrad driving his SUV a bit to fast comes around the corner and clips her, sending her to the hospital with injuries. Should she recover? Wait, she was talking on her cellphone- isn't that a negligent act in a cross-walk?

You see the types of problems this might cause- a person who might be largely at fault is protected from a suit from a person who is minor at fault but who suffers serious injuries.

Now back to the case of the McDonald's Coffee. If this plays out as I expect, she is suing for products liability and breach of warranty-

Breach of warranty- you have the right to get a useable item that you contracted for. Coffee that's too hot to drink would seem to fail that test.

Products Liability- means strict liability. IN this case usually the manufacture has produced an item with either a manufacturing defect (this particular item was made wrong) or was designed wrong (in which the mode of production that makes the item is fucked up) and injury was likely to result from that defect. If either one of those rules apply, the person making the item is strictly liable (no issue of foreseeably/reasonable man tests as in negligence). So if McDonald's designs its coffee sales wrong- by systematically putting scalding hot coffee in the marketplace, or this cup of coffee was inherently dangerous because it was too damn hot- than McDonald's has got to eat the cost.

That said, remember- it is these types of items that make products safe in the US and protect consumers from injury. We might argue that Americans go to far in protecting ourselves from these injuries. If so than you should go to some other countries where people drive more recklessly, items are less safe, and people get more regularly injured.

Finally, remember, McDonald's is in business and it's legal costs are usually a business expense on it's tax sheets.

 

[Silencer]

Finally, remember, McDonald's is in business and it's legal costs are usually a business expense on it's tax sheets.

Great, that means that it's you, the taxpayer, who gets screwed over at some old crone's stupidity.

The one and only time I drank coffee at McDonalds I had to hold it through a tissue, coz it'd burn my fingers. So if anyone is apt to hold a burning radiant hot cup and place it inbetween their legs, they deserve pain.

That said, I always take coffee with milk from the machine - it's at a perfect drinking temperature.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

I'm suprised McDonalds hasn't instituted a legal waivor for customers to sign before they purchase coffee. It's sad that the incompetence and greed of a few make us all look bad.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Breach of warranty- you have the right to get a useable item that you contracted for. Coffee that's too hot to drink would seem to fail that test.

Coffee may be too hot to drink immediately after purchase, but after a short period of time, it cools and becomes usable. It is no more defective than a computer you need to set up before using it, or a video game you need to register online before playing. McDonald's can't be held responsible for their customers' impatience, or their faulty understanding of basics of thermodynamics.

Products Liability- means strict liability. IN this case usually the manufacture has produced an item with either a manufacturing defect (this particular item was made wrong) or was designed wrong (in which the mode of production that makes the item is fucked up) and injury was likely to result from that defect. If either one of those rules apply, the person making the item is strictly liable (no issue of foreseeably/reasonable man tests as in negligence). So if McDonald's designs its coffee sales wrong- by systematically putting scalding hot coffee in the marketplace, or this cup of coffee was inherently dangerous because it was too damn hot- than McDonald's has got to eat the cost.

Don't be absurd. McDonald's serves coffee. Coffee is hot after brewing. High temperature of coffee is not a defect - it is a natural property. According to your line of thinking, all knives are defective because they are sharp.

That said, remember- it is these types of items that make products safe in the US and protect consumers from injury. We might argue that Americans go to far in protecting ourselves from these injuries. If so than you should go to some other countries where people drive more recklessly, items are less safe, and people get more regularly injured.

Maybe Americans should come to terms with the fact they live in real world and not in fluffyland. In real world injuries occur, and the best way to avoid them is to use some common sense. Drinking steaming hot coffee is dangerous - every the biggest dumbass in the world knows that. If they nonetheless choose to be a masochist, potential consequences of such choice are their responsibility and theirs alone. When a customer willingly brings him or herself in a situation that is potentially hazardous for his or her health, how can McDonald's be held liable?

 

[Dove]

You're forgetting what was my biggest argument Ratty.

There's a big difference between optimal brewing temperature, and optimal serving temperature of coffee. It's preferable to serve coffee at or slightly below 150 degrees F, and brew at or above 190 F. If you spill coffe that is 150 degrees F or less, it's going to fucking hurt, a lot, but it won't cause severe, or permanent injury. Over 180 degrees F or higher, which McDonalds at the time was serving, will (not possibly) cause pretty severe burns to any part of the human body it comes in contact with. To top all of this off, McDonalds was warned to not serve coffee at such a high temperature several times before this incident.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

You're forgetting what was my biggest argument Ratty.

There's a big difference between optimal brewing temperature, and optimal serving temperature of coffee. It's preferable to serve coffee at or slightly below 150 degrees F, and brew at or above 190 F. If you spill coffe that is 150 degrees F or less, it's going to fucking hurt, a lot, but it won't cause severe, or permanent injury. Over 180 degrees F or higher, which McDonalds at the time was serving, will (not possibly) cause pretty severe burns to any part of the human body it comes in contact with. To top all of this off, McDonalds was warned to not serve coffee at such a high temperature several times before this incident.

This isn't the matter of how hot the coffee is, it is the matter of whether or not McDonald's can be held responsible for people who deliberately ignore how hot it is. If a coffee looks steaming hot and feels steaming hot, it probably is steaming hot and drinking it or placing it in your lap is likely a bad idea. Even the least perceptive person understands this. When my mother serves dinner, I can tell if it's too hot to eat by looking at it - I don't need her to put warning labels on the plate, and I sure as hell wouldn't sue her if I got burned while eating it.

 

[Wooz]

No, it isn't. Guys.

McDonald's is an Evil Corporation of The System.

Spraypaint, vandalize and burn every fucking restaurant.

$2! CHEAPAH THAN DOGFOOD! HUZZAH!