\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-mcdonalds-faces-hot-coffee-litigation-again-20120323,0,1757458.story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 So this woman lets a 4 year old wander off in a McDonald's and doesn't notice that she fails to return within the 15 seconds it would take to walk to the trash bin and back. Instead, we are to believe this woman remained completely oblivious and unconcerned while the child spent anywhere from 3-5 minutes going up to the counter, having a conversation with the clerk, leaving because the coffee wasn't ready yet (where did she go for the few minutes that the coffee was still brewing?), returning, getting the coffee refilled, and then spilling it on the way back. Uh, something here doesn't quite add up. It sounds to me like grandma asked the little girl to go get her a coffee refill but they don't want to admit her culpability in the accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 It doesn't matter how much time elapsed in this case. I hate to say this but they have a case. You don't hand piping hot coffee to a 4 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 It doesn't matter how much time elapsed in this case. I hate to say this but they have a case. You don't hand piping hot coffee to a 4 year old. Yep. It's McDs policy not to serve coffee to minors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 It sounds to me like grandma asked the little girl to go get her a coffee refill but they don't want to admit her culpability in the accident. I agree. I hate to say this but they have a case. You don't hand piping hot coffee to a 4 year old. I agree. McDonald's should settle out of court for medical costs and a little pain and suffering. I've had a 2nd degree burn from a sunburn years ago. While I did not have the instant pain from a hot substance or fire, it was more of an annoyance once properly treated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Maybe it Spring and that's what's bringing this type of thing into the open. Seriously. 83 years old and walks into a window/door... Lawsuit! From the comments - FTW: "how come when they, the elderly, drop hot coffee or walk into a door they want millions but when they drive through a store killing 4 people they just want people to understand it was an accident" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 It doesn't matter how much time elapsed in this case. I hate to say this but they have a case. You don't hand piping hot coffee to a 4 year old. Yup, but the judge should also not allow the grandma to watch the kid anymore since this is the type of stellar job she does. If you don't hand a 4 year old a piping hot cup of coffee, you don't ask a 4 year old to go get you one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 We went into the minutia of the hot coffee case in 1st semester Torts. McDonalds was in the wrong. I can't remember all the details exactly so please allow me some creative liberty. From what I recall, though, the lady in question had contacted McDonalds for them to pay her medical bill as a result of the third degree burn that she sustained. She contacted them over and over and over again yet she was ignored. From what I can remember some customer service person told her to submit the bill and they would follow up but months went by and nothing. It wasn't until some time after the injury that she secured an attorney...as a principled matter according to her. She told the attorney that she just wanted her medical bill paid. During discovery it was determined that McDonalds coffee was like 40-50 degrees hotter than anyone else in the area and considerably hotter than the industry standard, and that the top didn't have adequate warnings given the reasonable person's expectation of retail coffee temperature (which by comparison was considerably cooler than McDonald's example). Also, McDonald's OWN quality control guy testified that they knew that it was way too hot, and that they had tests that showed that anything over a certain temp was gonna burn the piss out of people's mouths, but they upped it by another 30 or 40 degrees because at that temperature the aroma and taste was maximized and the benefit of increased coffee patrons because of their superior coffee product considerably outweighed the cost of litigation settlements. They had already settled a thousand or so similar cases at that point so they were WELL aware of the issue. Right before verdict, the old woman plaintiff offered to settle again for medical bills incurred, future medical expenses and attorneys fees (something like $50,000). McDonald's laughed them off. But then they got bent over. The jury returned the exorbitant punitive award largely because of the PATHETIC way that McDonald's handled the situation. They ignored the woman, repeatedly told her that they'd follow up and didn't, returned her mail, etc. They could have paid her medical bill and called it square. Also, they KNEW of the issue for 10+ years prior. People use that case as the rallying cry for litigation reform. Bad case to use. The woman was right. McDonald's was wrong and they were made an example of. There are better cases for lit reform - the person who won against the curling iron company because the curling iron didn't contain the warning "can burn scalp" comes to mind, or the pajama manufacturer who lost a suit because their footie pajamas didn't contain a warning about them being flammable if it comes in contact with flames. If you have a chance, read up on that case. People here like to talk about media hyping something. This is a great example of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 We went into the minutia of the hot coffee case in 1st semester Torts. ... If you have a chance, read up on that case. People here like to talk about media hyping something. This is a great example of that. That's how I remember it, the way you wrote it, if McD had simply paid her bills when first requested, we probably would have never heard of her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted March 26, 2012 Author Share Posted March 26, 2012 We went into the minutia of the hot coffee case in 1st semester Torts. McDonalds was in the wrong. I can't remember all the details exactly so please allow me some creative liberty. From what I recall, though, the lady in question had contacted McDonalds for them to pay her medical bill as a result of the third degree burn that she sustained. She contacted them over and over and over again yet she was ignored. From what I can remember some customer service person told her to submit the bill and they would follow up but months went by and nothing. It wasn't until some time after the injury that she secured an attorney...as a principled matter according to her. She told the attorney that she just wanted her medical bill paid. During discovery it was determined that McDonalds coffee was like 40-50 degrees hotter than anyone else in the area and considerably hotter than the industry standard, and that the top didn't have adequate warnings given the reasonable person's expectation of retail coffee temperature (which by comparison was considerably cooler than McDonald's example). Also, McDonald's OWN quality control guy testified that they knew that it was way too hot, and that they had tests that showed that anything over a certain temp was gonna burn the piss out of people's mouths, but they upped it by another 30 or 40 degrees because at that temperature the aroma and taste was maximized and the benefit of increased coffee patrons because of their superior coffee product considerably outweighed the cost of litigation settlements. They had already settled a thousand or so similar cases at that point so they were WELL aware of the issue. Right before verdict, the old woman plaintiff offered to settle again for medical bills incurred, future medical expenses and attorneys fees (something like $50,000). McDonald's laughed them off. But then they got bent over. The jury returned the exorbitant punitive award largely because of the PATHETIC way that McDonald's handled the situation. They ignored the woman, repeatedly told her that they'd follow up and didn't, returned her mail, etc. They could have paid her medical bill and called it square. Also, they KNEW of the issue for 10+ years prior. People use that case as the rallying cry for litigation reform. Bad case to use. The woman was right. McDonald's was wrong and they were made an example of. There are better cases for lit reform - the person who won against the curling iron company because the curling iron didn't contain the warning "can burn scalp" comes to mind, or the pajama manufacturer who lost a suit because their footie pajamas didn't contain a warning about them being flammable if it comes in contact with flames. If you have a chance, read up on that case. People here like to talk about media hyping something. This is a great example of that. You description omits some very relevant facts about the original case. She ordered coffee from the McDonalds drive thru She tried to balance the coffee on her knees in the car while trying to add cream and sugar While trying to balance the coffee, it spilled and burned her McDonalds wasn't wrong - she got burned because of her stupid behavior. And companies shouldn't have to pay for someone's stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 We went into the minutia of the hot coffee case in 1st semester Torts. McDonalds was in the wrong. I can't remember all the details exactly so please allow me some creative liberty. From what I recall, though, the lady in question had contacted McDonalds for them to pay her medical bill as a result of the third degree burn that she sustained. She contacted them over and over and over again yet she was ignored. From what I can remember some customer service person told her to submit the bill and they would follow up but months went by and nothing. It wasn't until some time after the injury that she secured an attorney...as a principled matter according to her. She told the attorney that she just wanted her medical bill paid. During discovery it was determined that McDonalds coffee was like 40-50 degrees hotter than anyone else in the area and considerably hotter than the industry standard, and that the top didn't have adequate warnings given the reasonable person's expectation of retail coffee temperature (which by comparison was considerably cooler than McDonald's example). Also, McDonald's OWN quality control guy testified that they knew that it was way too hot, and that they had tests that showed that anything over a certain temp was gonna burn the piss out of people's mouths, but they upped it by another 30 or 40 degrees because at that temperature the aroma and taste was maximized and the benefit of increased coffee patrons because of their superior coffee product considerably outweighed the cost of litigation settlements. They had already settled a thousand or so similar cases at that point so they were WELL aware of the issue. Right before verdict, the old woman plaintiff offered to settle again for medical bills incurred, future medical expenses and attorneys fees (something like $50,000). McDonald's laughed them off. But then they got bent over. The jury returned the exorbitant punitive award largely because of the PATHETIC way that McDonald's handled the situation. They ignored the woman, repeatedly told her that they'd follow up and didn't, returned her mail, etc. They could have paid her medical bill and called it square. Also, they KNEW of the issue for 10+ years prior. People use that case as the rallying cry for litigation reform. Bad case to use. The woman was right. McDonald's was wrong and they were made an example of. There are better cases for lit reform - the person who won against the curling iron company because the curling iron didn't contain the warning "can burn scalp" comes to mind, or the pajama manufacturer who lost a suit because their footie pajamas didn't contain a warning about them being flammable if it comes in contact with flames. If you have a chance, read up on that case. People here like to talk about media hyping something. This is a great example of that. That's what I recall...but the bolded is bull ****. If you need "reasonable warning" that hot coffee is, in fact, hot, and that you shouldn't put it between your legs and un-cap it while you're driving, you deserve what happens to you. In short, metaphorically, misuse through stupidity should void any warranty against injury. (The entirely reasonable counterpoint, of course, being that third-degree burns are well beyond any "reasonable risk" that may be assumed by stupidly putting a cup of coffee between one's legs. But I stand by the principle of "If you're an idiot, it's not someone else's fault.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) You description omits some very relevant facts about the original case. She ordered coffee from the McDonalds drive thru She tried to balance the coffee on her knees in the car while trying to add cream and sugar While trying to balance the coffee, it spilled and burned her McDonalds wasn't wrong - she got burned because of her stupid behavior. And companies shouldn't have to pay for someone's stupidity. McDonald's was wrong. You are wrong. And you're profoundly over-simplifying the issue. But if you thought you were right, please see the case's disposition. If you still think you're right, please see the hundreds of other cases that McDonald's settled out of court with near analogous circumstances. If you still think you're right, know that it was a comparative negiligence case and the jury ascribed fault to her at 25% (if I remember correctly) for negligent/improper operation of the cup. And the cup wasn't "balanced on her knees." The cup was in between her knees. BIG difference. That notwithstanding, she could have been doing cartwheels while balancing the cup of coffee on her left incisor tooth and McDonalds still would have maintained a level of responsibility for their coffee being 50 DEGREES HOTTER THAN INDUSTRY STANDARD. The last point is slightly embellished. You seem preoccupied with her management of the cup vis a vis trying to add the condiments. That is almost inconsequential. The dispositive point is that the reasonable person wouldn't expect to receive third degree burns, through a layer of clothing, necessitating significant skin grafts, from a morning coffee spill. But IT IS forseeable by McDonald's that people would spill thier coffee - especially since they're selling it to them while their operating a vehicle, ON THE GO, in a drive though line, and when their attention is otherwise occupied. And since it is forseeable that people will spill their coffee, should they have it so hot, indeed 40-50 degrees hotter than industry standard, that it necessitates skin grafts? Edited March 26, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 To any lawyers out there, I am currently seeking representation for my upcoming lawsuit against Coors Brewing company. I recently spilled their product on my genitals and suffered 3rd degree shrinkage for over 72 hours. Tests confirmed that Coor's is the coldest tasting beer on the market and tastes 50% colder than the next coldest tasting beer. Furthermore, unlike my balls, the mountains on the can failed to turn blue and provided no warning that the beverage which would later soak my junk was indeed as cold as the Rocky Mountains. It is my contention that Coors is guilty of gross negligence and that unreasonable cold tastingness and a can defect caused severe mental anguish to the tune of $325. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 It is my contention that Coors is guilty of gross negligence and that unreasonable cold tastingness and a can defect caused severe mental anguish to the tune of $325. Was the $325 how much the hooker cost that laughed at your shrunken package? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted March 26, 2012 Author Share Posted March 26, 2012 I recently spilled their product on my genitals and suffered 3rd degree shrinkage for over 72 hours. 1/3 of nothing is still nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 1/3 of nothing is still nothing. My only question is, how do you know this? Just askin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Was the $325 how much the hooker cost that laughed at your shrunken package? $325 for a hooker? Who do you think I am, Charlie F@#$%ing Sheen? No, I frequent the under $30 variety, which are just as good, just don't kiss them on the lips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted March 26, 2012 Author Share Posted March 26, 2012 No, I frequent the under $30 variety, which are just as good, just don't kiss them on the lips. http://cmsimg.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=A2&Date=20120319&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=303190022&Ref=AR&MaxW=300&Border=0&Sandra-Morgan-accused-stabbing-man-scissors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 You description omits some very relevant facts about the original case. She ordered coffee from the McDonalds drive thru She tried to balance the coffee on her knees in the car while trying to add cream and sugar While trying to balance the coffee, it spilled and burned her McDonalds wasn't wrong - she got burned because of her stupid behavior. And companies shouldn't have to pay for someone's stupidity. You need to check out the documentary "Hot Coffee" - it was on HBO. She was in the car, but it was parked. The burns she had were SEVERE - they showed pictures and it was disgusting. All she was asking for was medical costs but was ignored. When they dug into the case McDonalds had hundreds of burn complaints about burns that they had not addressed - they knew they had a problem but still instructed their restuarants to heat their coffee to an unreasonably high temperature - you could not drink coffee that hot and exposure to a liquid that hot for more than a few seconds would result in severe burns. McDonalds knew they were in trouble with this suit, so they unleashed the lawyers and PR machine to ridicule a case that had merit. Nobody actually bothered to look into the facts of the case and it became a the example of frivolous lawsuits - just what McDonalds wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 1332779814[/url]' post='2422271']... That notwithstanding, she could have been doing cartwheels while balancing the cup of coffee on her left incisor tooth and McDonalds still would have maintained a level of responsibility for their coffee being 50 DEGREES HOTTER THAN INDUSTRY STANDARD. ... May I ask: What is this industry standard? Who set it? How was it determined to be "safe"? Do McDonalds' cups now have to have a warning stating that their contents are hotter than industry standards? I ask because it seems that arguement is based on an arbitrary number and some implied safety it provides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts