It's not merely stastical probability that the coffee was served at temperatures unsafe for human consumption. Back when this story was fresh, various sources bought coffee from various fast food resturants and measured the temperature. McDonald's was always at least 15 degrees hotter than every other place.
I never said it was chance. The point was a rhetorical question: if zero-tolerance is the benchmark, then at what temperature would you be willing to declare that 10 billion cups of coffee will be served, in hundreds of countries, in thousands of restaurants, in millions of different brewing equipment, in order to guarantee not a single one will ever be served at 180?
Projected reduced sales from coffee that tasted bad. The extreemly hot coffee[I.E. burns on the inside of the mouth] masked its taste, reducing the temperature made this more noticable. MCD expected less sales from colder coffee.
Are you honestly telling me that McDonald's customers preferred to be burned?
Strike that. Are you honestly trying to tell me that what you just wrote makes any sense whatsoever? It doesn't. Try again.
Razor blades are supposed to be sharp, because sharper = safer than dull. Are you telling me that McDonalds serves their coffee at such high temperatures for the sake of safety?
My butter knife and my scissors from first grade disagree with you. Seriously, are you guys this fucking retarded?
I never said it was chance. The point was a rhetorical question: if zero-tolerance is the benchmark, then at what temperature would you be willing to declare that 10 billion cups of coffee will be served, in hundreds of countries, in thousands of restaurants, in millions of different brewing equipment, in order to guarantee not a single one will ever be served at 180?
Low enough so that a jury of your peers, screened by both parties, doesn't get appalled by your behavior at the trial and decides to slap you with punative damage.
Low enough so that a jury of your peers, screened by both parties, doesn't get appalled by your behavior at the trial and decides to slap you with punative damage.
Which is what temperature?
I think you guys are missing the reality of what happened with this case.
I don't think it was a frivolous lawsuit. She had a case. One I feel she should have lost.
The problem is that we've excluded the middle. Whenever a customer sues a large corporation, basically it is either a) frivoulous, or b) the company loses. We've forgotten the part in between, where someone has a conceptually reaonable case but not enough to warrant damages.
Most companies just settle in these matters. If nothing else, it's an act of charity for someone that you were at least somewhat involved in hurting. The problem is that juries all buy into that norm now. So either you settle, or the person better be a verifiable nutcase. Because anything in between and a jury is just going to side with an old lady over a faceless coporation. McDonald's temporarily thought they could challenge that wisdom, but they ended up settling anyway.
Projected reduced sales from coffee that tasted bad. The extreemly hot coffee[I.E. burns on the inside of the mouth] masked its taste, reducing the temperature made this more noticable. MCD expected less sales from colder coffee.
Are you honestly telling me that McDonald's customers preferred to be burned?
Strike that. Are you honestly trying to tell me that what you just wrote makes any sense whatsoever? It doesn't. Try again.
On this I agree with Yar - unless you can cite McD's as this being their reasoning, it does not make sense.
Razor blades are supposed to be sharp, because sharper = safer than dull. Are you telling me that McDonalds serves their coffee at such high temperatures for the sake of safety?
My butter knife and my scissors from first grade disagree with you. Seriously, are you guys this fucking retarded?
On this however, I'm calling you ignorant Yar. Do you shave? Ever? Because anyone who does will tell you that you are far more likely to cut yourself when shaving with a dull razor then a sharp one, because the process involves dragging the front edge of the blade over the skin to cut hair in a perpedicular action. If the blade doesn't cut hair easily, then there is resistance, and you're liable to slide it sideways more easily, which is how you cut yourself shaving. I have a minor scar on my chin from having done this.
On this however, I'm calling you ignorant Yar. Do you shave? Ever? Because anyone who does will tell you that you are far more likely to cut yourself when shaving with a dull razor then a sharp one, because the process involves dragging the front edge of the blade over the skin to cut hair in a perpedicular action. If the blade doesn't cut hair easily, then there is resistance, and you're liable to slide it sideways more easily, which is how you cut yourself shaving. I have a minor scar on my chin from having done this.
It was an analogy. Your technicality has no relevance. And I wasn't talking about a shaving razor.
Fine, let's say scissors, then. Scissors are supposed to be sharp. Not sharp enough to be dangerous, but sharp. Exactly how sharp? Who knows, but generally customers prefer sharper than duller. All the same could said for coffee and heat.
But if someone were to drop the scissors on their foot, well then, did the scissors need to be sharp enough to pierce the skin? Couldn't they still cut paper if they were duller? Was the scissors company just out for greedy evil profit when they made scissors sharper because their customer preferred it?
It doesn't matter, scissors are, by design, sharp.
Fine, let's say scissors, then. Scissors are supposed to be sharp. Not sharp enough to be dangerous, but sharp. Exactly how sharp? Who knows, but generally customers prefer sharper than duller. All the same could said for coffee and heat.
They could make scissors much sharper. Scissors are supposed to be sharp enough to cut paper and other thin stuff but dull enough not to chop off your finger.
They could make scissors much sharper. Scissors are supposed to be sharp enough to cut paper and other thin stuff but dull enough not to chop off your finger.
Many scissors, particularly the ones with warning labels about their sharpness, could cut off a finger.
They could make scissors much sharper. Scissors are supposed to be sharp enough to cut paper and other thin stuff but dull enough not to chop off your finger.
Many scissors, particularly the ones with warning labels about their sharpness, could cut off a finger.
The ones that could cut off a finger are generally supposed to so it can be used to cut chicken bones and the like. Most aren't that sharp.
Coffee is supposed to be hot. How hot? Depends on who's asking. But it is pretty clear from links cited here that the coffee that burned this woman was within as little as 5 degrees F of the ideal serving temperature.
As little as 5 degrees. Or as much as 15. Since the potential for burns is drastically different for a 180 degree liquid compared to a 190 degree liquid, it makes a difference.
Also, it was as little as 5 degrees from the "maximum" ideal serving temperature. I imagine that for a good cup of coffee you'd want it somewhere in the middle of that range...then again, I don't claim to be a coffee expert.
Lastly, customers don't prefer the taste at 185 degrees...they fail to taste it. Basically, fast food coffee is shit. Get it hot enough, though, and it will burn their mouth keeping them from realizing that it tastes like shit. The fact that the populace is too goddamn stupid to realize this doesn't suddently make McDonald's coffee good, nor does it make it any safer.
They could make scissors much sharper. Scissors are supposed to be sharp enough to cut paper and other thin stuff but dull enough not to chop off your finger.
Many scissors, particularly the ones with warning labels about their sharpness, could cut off a finger.
The ones that could cut off a finger are generally supposed to so it can be used to cut chicken bones and the like. Most aren't that sharp.
I think it's a question of ease. Is brushing it likely to cut my skin like a scalpel or is the action expected to apply considerable force? Because if I could drop a pair of scissors marketed for cutting paper with no warning labels, and lose a testical, a finger and 3 toes then I would say those scissors are far to sharp.
They could make scissors much sharper. Scissors are supposed to be sharp enough to cut paper and other thin stuff but dull enough not to chop off your finger.
Many scissors, particularly the ones with warning labels about their sharpness, could cut off a finger.
The ones that could cut off a finger are generally supposed to so it can be used to cut chicken bones and the like. Most aren't that sharp.
I think it's a question of ease. Is brushing it likely to cut my skin like a scalpel or is the action expected to apply considerable force? Because if I could drop a pair of scissors marketed for cutting paper with no warning labels, and lose a testical, a finger and 3 toes then I would say those scissors are far to sharp.
Unlike a knife, scissors have two pivoted (or hinged ) blades. Most types of scissors are not particularly sharp; it is primarily the shearing between the two blades which cuts.
So most scissors aren't going to hurt you unless you try to.
They could make scissors much sharper. Scissors are supposed to be sharp enough to cut paper and other thin stuff but dull enough not to chop off your finger.
Many scissors, particularly the ones with warning labels about their sharpness, could cut off a finger.
The ones that could cut off a finger are generally supposed to so it can be used to cut chicken bones and the like. Most aren't that sharp.
I think it's a question of ease. Is brushing it likely to cut my skin like a scalpel or is the action expected to apply considerable force? Because if I could drop a pair of scissors marketed for cutting paper with no warning labels, and lose a testical, a finger and 3 toes then I would say those scissors are far to sharp.
Unlike a knife, scissors have two pivoted (or hinged ) blades. Most types of scissors are not particularly sharp; it is primarily the shearing between the two blades which cuts.
So most scissors aren't going to hurt you unless you try to.
My point was that if someone manufactured a pair of scissors like that and sold them for cutting paper, then I think we could reasonably say that they had not given us adequate warning about their danger. Although we could also sue the relevant consumer safety bodies for letting such a thing to market in that case.
That's a fucking stupid analogy because the whole point of scisors is to be sharp and cut stuff.
The whole point of coffee is to be safe for consumption. Either you believe that in this case it was or wasn't - that's a matter of fact that was up to the jury to decide - but the legal priciple stands: Cafes should not be able to sell coffee that is unsafe for consumption.
It doesn't. I don't think it was the epitome of frivolous litigation. I also disagree with the outcome of the case. I'm explaining why.
Scissors are supposed to be sharp, coffee is supposed to be hot. Caveat empor.
No, coffee is supposed to be hot within a particular temperature range suitable for human consumption. If it was just supposed to be hot then clearly I could stick it in a pressure flask, take it up to be supercritical at a 1000 degrees and it would still apparently be good.
It doesn't. I don't think it was the epitome of frivolous litigation. I also disagree with the outcome of the case. I'm explaining why.
Scissors are supposed to be sharp, coffee is supposed to be hot. Caveat empor.
Most scissors aren't supposed to be sharp enough to seriously hurt you unless you fall and hit yourself with them. The main purpose of scissors is to cut, for which they need to be sharp enough to cut. Coffee does not need to be hot enough to cause third degree burns in order to have a good taste.
Coffee does not need to be hot enough to cause third degree burns in order to have a good taste.
That is a matter of taste. And it wouldn't cause third degree burns on the lining inside your mouth. And, as we have agreed, McD's was holding it at the temperature their customers preferred.
The digestive lining, including in the mouth, is much more resistant to burning than is the skin. And he pulled forward, stopped, and she spilled it. That's pretty much immediate.
Most scissors aren't supposed to be sharp enough to seriously hurt you unless you fall and hit yourself with them.
Most coffee isn't supposed to be hot enough to seriously burn you unless you pour a whole cup of it on yourself immediately after it's served.
I guess you didn't see all those other posts saying that if the coffee was at the temperatures that other fast food resturants served theirs at (160) it wouldn't have caused severe burning.
Coffee does not need to be hot enough to cause third degree burns in order to have a good taste.
That is a matter of taste. And it wouldn't cause third degree burns on the lining inside your mouth. And, as we have agreed, McD's was holding it at the temperature their customers preferred.
You mean, the temperature McDonald's claimed their customers preferred. Of course they would say that- but did they ever present any evidence to support this in the case? I wonder.
You mean, the temperature McDonald's claimed their customers preferred. Of course they would say that- but did they ever present any evidence to support this in the case? I wonder.
They did, but you have to wonder - if not because customers preferred it, then why? Just for the hell of it?
Most scissors aren't supposed to be sharp enough to seriously hurt you unless you fall and hit yourself with them.
Most coffee isn't supposed to be hot enough to seriously burn you unless you pour a whole cup of it on yourself immediately after it's served.
Dude, it's not like she rubbed her hands together and evily self-mulitated for profit. Nor did she do anything amazingly unusual or stupid by putting it between her legs. She did something dumb believing the coffee was average temperature. It wasn't. McDonalds generally acted like dicks, and the jury/judge punished them for it.
Would you be less insenced if she'd got the $20,000 she'd originally wanted to cover her medical bills? If so, your beef is with punitive damages, not with the temperature of the coffee. Or does the fact that the law holds negligent people/companies to account piss you off? Because, as I said, there's a line that has to be drawn, and it just so happens that in this case it was held to be 180 degrees.
Projected reduced sales from coffee that tasted bad. The extreemly hot coffee[I.E. burns on the inside of the mouth] masked its taste, reducing the temperature made this more noticable. MCD expected less sales from colder coffee.
Are you honestly telling me that McDonald's customers preferred to be burned?
Strike that. Are you honestly trying to tell me that what you just wrote makes any sense whatsoever? It doesn't. Try again.
You god damned fucking idiot.
They dont know the coffee burns them so that they cant taste it, they just know that it doesnt taste as bad as the cooler coffee.
MCD doesnt fucking advertise "Our coffee, its so fucking hot, you cant even fucking taste it!", when they do taste tests in lab enviorments they dont say "this coffee is going to burn you so that you cant taste how shitty it is, do you prefer the coffee that burns you or the one that doesnt?", they ask you which one you like best and they dont tell you anything else.
Reasonable people, when they order something meant to be consumed by people, assume that the substance is not directly harmful to themselves. They dont think "Oh, this coffee is so hot its going to burn my mouth" they think "Oh, this coffee is hotter, and tastes better than the cooler coffee"
Seriously Yar, you are being intentionally fucking dense here.
Low enough so that a jury of your peers, screened by both parties, doesn't get appalled by your behavior at the trial and decides to slap you with punative damage.
Which is what temperature?
Judging by the temperature of other fast food places, 15-20 degrees lower on average, at least.
15-20 degrees, BTW, can be the difference between having a hamburger that's safe to eat, and a hamburger laced with e-coli. If McDonalds can't keep track of their temperatures within that range, then they're in the wrong business.
The problem is that we've excluded the middle. Whenever a customer sues a large corporation, basically it is either a) frivoulous, or b) the company loses.
Well, that's probably because a) you won't hear about 99.99% of court cases, and b) the customer won't go through all that trouble of a lawsuit, unless they think they have a chance of winning, and courts will throw it out if they don't.
Most companies just settle in these matters.
Obviously not, or they would have paid the $20,000 she asked for.
McD's did note in the trial that they served it at this temperature because their customers preferred the taste when served at that temperature.
Right, because they wouldn't be able to tell how bad it was.
It's like when I order beef. If I order beef from a nice restaurant, then I'm going to want it medium rare, so I can taste the flavor. If I order beef from a bad restaurant, then you're going to want it well done, so that it will hide the flavor of an inferior cut of beef.
According to the links posted, keeping cooffee at 185 degrees for more than 20 minutes will cause it to taste bitter. Are you telling me that McDonalds customers prefer for their coffee to taste bitter? Or is it that the coffee is bitter to begin with, and they would prefer the coffee to stay hot all the way through to mask the flavor?
It was an analogy. Your technicality has no relevance. And I wasn't talking about a shaving razor.
Yes, obviously it's not your fault that your analogy was wrong. It's the other guys fault, for pointing it out. Way to be a model of personal responsibility, there.
Fine, let's say scissors, then. Scissors are supposed to be sharp. Not sharp enough to be dangerous, but sharp. Exactly how sharp? Who knows, but generally customers prefer sharper than duller. All the same could said for coffee and heat.
But if someone were to drop the scissors on their foot, well then, did the scissors need to be sharp enough to pierce the skin? Couldn't they still cut paper if they were duller? Was the scissors company just out for greedy evil profit when they made scissors sharper because their customer preferred it?
Scissors that are too sharp would dull quickly. I doubt customers would prefer that. That's also why real chefs tend to scoff when they see ads for knives that can slice through a steel hammer. A real chef has absolutely no need for that.
It doesn't matter, scissors are, by design, sharp.
Backwards logic. It's like arguing that the purpose of a car is to burn gasoline.
The purpose of coffee isn't to be hot, the purpose of coffee is to provide pleasure. Ergo, the optimum temperature is the one that provides the most pleasure. We've already established that the optimum temperature would not result in the types of burns that we observed here, so the McDonalds coffee must have been served at far higher temperatures than that.
Would you be less insenced if she'd got the $20,000 she'd originally wanted to cover her medical bills?
No, I think McD's would have been very kind to have taken care of that for her and avoided the whole mess. But they decided to challenge a system they saw as unfair and decided not to take blame for something they didn't feel accountable for.
If so, your beef is with punitive damages, not with the temperature of the coffee. Or does the fact that the law holds negligent people/companies to account piss you off? Because, as I said, there's a line that has to be drawn, and it just so happens that in this case it was held to be 180 degrees.
My "beef" (OLOL MCDONALD'S) is that I think that McD's clearly showed that they weren't negligent, but that juries today don't care. Unless the plaintiff is a total psychopath, corporation = lose. I don't like that. I don't agree with the line.
Would you be less insenced if she'd got the $20,000 she'd originally wanted to cover her medical bills? If so, your beef is with punitive damages, not with the temperature of the coffee. Or does the fact that the law holds negligent people/companies to account piss you off? Because, as I said, there's a line that has to be drawn, and it just so happens that in this case it was held to be 180 degrees.
She asked McDonald's to pay her medical bills. They said "Fuck you, lady", and that's why she sued them. When McD's went to trial, they admitted that they'd given all other burn victims the finger as well- this lady was just the first to be ticked enough (and had funds enough) to do something about it. The damages the jury decided upon was not only for medical expenses and emotional distress, but also decided upon as punishment for McDonald's being negligent and acting like a dick to their customers.
Would you be less insenced if she'd got the $20,000 she'd originally wanted to cover her medical bills?
No, I think McD's would have been very kind to have taken care of that for her and avoided the whole mess. But they decided to challenge a system they saw as unfair and decided not to take blame for something they didn't feel accountable for.
If so, your beef is with punitive damages, not with the temperature of the coffee. Or does the fact that the law holds negligent people/companies to account piss you off? Because, as I said, there's a line that has to be drawn, and it just so happens that in this case it was held to be 180 degrees.
My "beef" (OLOL MCDONALD'S) is that I think that McD's clearly showed that they weren't negligent, but that juries today don't care. Unless the plaintiff is a total psychopath, corporation = lose. I don't like that. I don't agree with the line.
Except that MCD didnt show they weren't negligent, they showed that they had intentionaly wagered the cost of lawsuits and burns against the lost revenue from serving colder coffee.
ITS AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW YOU FUCKMUPPET.
edit: Furthrmore, the damages were fucking nothing, 2.6 million dollars? It was two days of coffee revenue! A fucking bump. .5% of coffee revenue for 1 year.
.5% fucking percent of revenue from one single item! That is barely a dent, the fucking Corporate offices probalby spend more flying their executives around the world every year!
They're also very powerful, and there's the potential for huge injustices to result from a pro big-business ruling. Because McDonalds is so powerful, the justice system can afford to err on the side of consumers without inflicting unreasonable loss on the company.
Incorrect, the law specifically states that punative damages are to be reasonable for the size of the company.
I'm talking about the standard of care here, not damages. The law can afford to place a higher standard of care on companies that have the systems, contingencies, and money, to protect consumers than it can on individuals who have limited means. The law can err on the side of being unfair to big business because their cash is a buffer against potential injustice.
They're also very powerful, and there's the potential for huge injustices to result from a pro big-business ruling. Because McDonalds is so powerful, the justice system can afford to err on the side of consumers without inflicting unreasonable loss on the company.
Incorrect, the law specifically states that punative damages are to be reasonable for the size of the company.
I'm talking about the standard of care here, not damages. The law can afford to place a higher standard of care on companies that have the systems, contingencies, and money, to protect consumers than it can on individuals who have limited means. The law can err on the side of being unfair to big business because their cash is a buffer against potential injustice.
No, the penalty is there to disuade big business to take such actions, if the penalty isnt severe enough, there is no disincentive to stop.
The law errs on no side, it simply states that the punitive damages should be leveled in an amount to hurt the business.
It isnt unfair, the business, in order to have punative damages awarded against them must loose a case in which they are held responsible for knowingly acting in a way that is counter to the public interest, and to have sided for their interests over the safetey of their customers.
They're also very powerful, and there's the potential for huge injustices to result from a pro big-business ruling. Because McDonalds is so powerful, the justice system can afford to err on the side of consumers without inflicting unreasonable loss on the company.
Incorrect, the law specifically states that punative damages are to be reasonable for the size of the company.
I'm talking about the standard of care here, not damages. The law can afford to place a higher standard of care on companies that have the systems, contingencies, and money, to protect consumers than it can on individuals who have limited means. The law can err on the side of being unfair to big business because their cash is a buffer against potential injustice.
No, the penalty is there to disuade big business to take such actions, if the penalty isnt severe enough, there is no disincentive to stop.
The law errs on no side, it simply states that the punitive damages should be leveled in an amount to hurt the business.
It isnt unfair, the business, in order to have punative damages awarded against them must loose a case in which they are held responsible for knowingly acting in a way that is counter to the public interest, and to have sided for their interests over the safetey of their customers.
Dude, I am not talking about punitive damages at all. I am talking about the standard of care.
Judging by the temperature of other fast food places, 15-20 degrees lower on average, at least.
So just to finish this up, your claim is that, were you in charge of McD's, you could order that coffee be served at 165F, and in doing so, absolutely guarantee that there would never ever be a single instance among 10 billion cups around the world of coffee served at 180F?
Right, because they wouldn't be able to tell how bad it was.
It's like when I order beef. If I order beef from a nice restaurant, then I'm going to want it medium rare, so I can taste the flavor. If I order beef from a bad restaurant, then you're going to want it well done, so that it will hide the flavor of an inferior cut of beef.
Exactly. Your point is... that McD's serves inferior coffee? Was that ever even contested?
According to the links posted, keeping cooffee at 185 degrees for more than 20 minutes will cause it to taste bitter. Are you telling me that McDonalds customers prefer for their coffee to taste bitter?
You're fabircating evidence at this point. It was never established in this case or anywhere else that McDs keeps coffee at 185F for more than 20 minutes.
Yes, obviously it's not your fault that your analogy was wrong. It's the other guys fault, for pointing it out. Way to be a model of personal responsibility, there.
The technicality of shaving razors cutting people less when they are sharper was nothing more than a distraction that had zero relevance the discussion at hand. Nevertheless, I switched to "scissors' to sidestep the dipshit tactics.
Wrong. Many people get coffee on a cold morning to warm up. If your argument is now that McD's lost because coffee really doesn't need to be served hot at all, then I've basically proven to myself at this point all I'm ever going to need in order to be satisifed with my opinion on the matter.
We've already established that the optimum temperature would not result in the types of burns that we observed here,
Yes, they would, if held on the skin a few seconds longer. In fact, had she not been wearing particularly moisture-absorbent clothing (you know, sweat pants), then even this coffee would probably not have been held against one spot long enough and in enough quantity to cause these burns.
Except that MCD didnt show they weren't negligent, they showed that they had intentionaly wagered the cost of lawsuits and burns against the lost revenue from serving colder coffee.
You're making this up. That is what Ford did with Pintos. It is not what McDonald's did with coffee.
Yar on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited November 2006
Is anyone suggesting that people buy McDonalds coffee for taste?
They're also very powerful, and there's the potential for huge injustices to result from a pro big-business ruling. Because McDonalds is so powerful, the justice system can afford to err on the side of consumers without inflicting unreasonable loss on the company.
Incorrect, the law specifically states that punative damages are to be reasonable for the size of the company.
I'm talking about the standard of care here, not damages. The law can afford to place a higher standard of care on companies that have the systems, contingencies, and money, to protect consumers than it can on individuals who have limited means. The law can err on the side of being unfair to big business because their cash is a buffer against potential injustice.
No, the penalty is there to disuade big business to take such actions, if the penalty isnt severe enough, there is no disincentive to stop.
The law errs on no side, it simply states that the punitive damages should be leveled in an amount to hurt the business.
It isnt unfair, the business, in order to have punative damages awarded against them must loose a case in which they are held responsible for knowingly acting in a way that is counter to the public interest, and to have sided for their interests over the safetey of their customers.
Dude, I am not talking about punitive damages at all. I am talking about the standard of care.
No, there is no different standard of care, and the law places none.
Except that MCD didnt show they weren't negligent, they showed that they had intentionaly wagered the cost of lawsuits and burns against the lost revenue from serving colder coffee.
You're making this up. That is what Ford did with Pintos. It is not what McDonald's did with coffee.
Its in the god damn lawsuit! Did you bother to fucking read it?
They're also very powerful, and there's the potential for huge injustices to result from a pro big-business ruling. Because McDonalds is so powerful, the justice system can afford to err on the side of consumers without inflicting unreasonable loss on the company.
Incorrect, the law specifically states that punative damages are to be reasonable for the size of the company.
I'm talking about the standard of care here, not damages. The law can afford to place a higher standard of care on companies that have the systems, contingencies, and money, to protect consumers than it can on individuals who have limited means. The law can err on the side of being unfair to big business because their cash is a buffer against potential injustice.
No, the penalty is there to disuade big business to take such actions, if the penalty isnt severe enough, there is no disincentive to stop.
The law errs on no side, it simply states that the punitive damages should be leveled in an amount to hurt the business.
It isnt unfair, the business, in order to have punative damages awarded against them must loose a case in which they are held responsible for knowingly acting in a way that is counter to the public interest, and to have sided for their interests over the safetey of their customers.
Dude, I am not talking about punitive damages at all. I am talking about the standard of care.
No, there is no different standard of care, and the law places none.
Well, maybe not in the US, but I'm telling you; unless I'm remembering Torts law wrong, there's definitely one in Aus.
No - it's definitely in the US too: The 'calculus of negligence' from United States v Carrol Towing - When assessing the standard of care, the courts may take into account the nature of practicable precautions the defendant could/ought to have taken to avoid the breach. Because McD has more resources than an ordinary citizen, the court can hold that they have a standard of care because they have more resources with which to avoid breach.
They're also very powerful, and there's the potential for huge injustices to result from a pro big-business ruling. Because McDonalds is so powerful, the justice system can afford to err on the side of consumers without inflicting unreasonable loss on the company.
Incorrect, the law specifically states that punative damages are to be reasonable for the size of the company.
I'm talking about the standard of care here, not damages. The law can afford to place a higher standard of care on companies that have the systems, contingencies, and money, to protect consumers than it can on individuals who have limited means. The law can err on the side of being unfair to big business because their cash is a buffer against potential injustice.
No, the penalty is there to disuade big business to take such actions, if the penalty isnt severe enough, there is no disincentive to stop.
The law errs on no side, it simply states that the punitive damages should be leveled in an amount to hurt the business.
It isnt unfair, the business, in order to have punative damages awarded against them must loose a case in which they are held responsible for knowingly acting in a way that is counter to the public interest, and to have sided for their interests over the safetey of their customers.
Dude, I am not talking about punitive damages at all. I am talking about the standard of care.
No, there is no different standard of care, and the law places none.
Well, maybe not in the US, but I'm telling you; unless I'm remembering Torts law wrong, there's definitely one in Aus.
Cant be in the U.S. 14th amendment and all. Corporations would go nuts.
Posts
Are you honestly telling me that McDonald's customers preferred to be burned?
Strike that. Are you honestly trying to tell me that what you just wrote makes any sense whatsoever? It doesn't. Try again.
My butter knife and my scissors from first grade disagree with you. Seriously, are you guys this fucking retarded?
Low enough so that a jury of your peers, screened by both parties, doesn't get appalled by your behavior at the trial and decides to slap you with punative damage.
I think you guys are missing the reality of what happened with this case.
I don't think it was a frivolous lawsuit. She had a case. One I feel she should have lost.
The problem is that we've excluded the middle. Whenever a customer sues a large corporation, basically it is either a) frivoulous, or b) the company loses. We've forgotten the part in between, where someone has a conceptually reaonable case but not enough to warrant damages.
Most companies just settle in these matters. If nothing else, it's an act of charity for someone that you were at least somewhat involved in hurting. The problem is that juries all buy into that norm now. So either you settle, or the person better be a verifiable nutcase. Because anything in between and a jury is just going to side with an old lady over a faceless coporation. McDonald's temporarily thought they could challenge that wisdom, but they ended up settling anyway.
On this however, I'm calling you ignorant Yar. Do you shave? Ever? Because anyone who does will tell you that you are far more likely to cut yourself when shaving with a dull razor then a sharp one, because the process involves dragging the front edge of the blade over the skin to cut hair in a perpedicular action. If the blade doesn't cut hair easily, then there is resistance, and you're liable to slide it sideways more easily, which is how you cut yourself shaving. I have a minor scar on my chin from having done this.
It was an analogy. Your technicality has no relevance. And I wasn't talking about a shaving razor.
Fine, let's say scissors, then. Scissors are supposed to be sharp. Not sharp enough to be dangerous, but sharp. Exactly how sharp? Who knows, but generally customers prefer sharper than duller. All the same could said for coffee and heat.
But if someone were to drop the scissors on their foot, well then, did the scissors need to be sharp enough to pierce the skin? Couldn't they still cut paper if they were duller? Was the scissors company just out for greedy evil profit when they made scissors sharper because their customer preferred it?
It doesn't matter, scissors are, by design, sharp.
As little as 5 degrees. Or as much as 15. Since the potential for burns is drastically different for a 180 degree liquid compared to a 190 degree liquid, it makes a difference.
Also, it was as little as 5 degrees from the "maximum" ideal serving temperature. I imagine that for a good cup of coffee you'd want it somewhere in the middle of that range...then again, I don't claim to be a coffee expert.
Lastly, customers don't prefer the taste at 185 degrees...they fail to taste it. Basically, fast food coffee is shit. Get it hot enough, though, and it will burn their mouth keeping them from realizing that it tastes like shit. The fact that the populace is too goddamn stupid to realize this doesn't suddently make McDonald's coffee good, nor does it make it any safer.
Except a friend of mine ripped his cheek open from the inside by accident with scissors one time. Should have sued.
The whole point of coffee is to be safe for consumption. Either you believe that in this case it was or wasn't - that's a matter of fact that was up to the jury to decide - but the legal priciple stands: Cafes should not be able to sell coffee that is unsafe for consumption.
Yar, I don't see why this gets you so riled up.
It doesn't. I don't think it was the epitome of frivolous litigation. I also disagree with the outcome of the case. I'm explaining why.
Scissors are supposed to be sharp, coffee is supposed to be hot. Caveat empor.
Yes, but there's clearly a line, and the jury held that McDonalds had crossed it.
I would hardly call an action for damages over 3rd degree burns frivolous, and concept of punitive damages explains the huge payout.
This is seriously not the big deal people make it out to be.
That is a matter of taste. And it wouldn't cause third degree burns on the lining inside your mouth. And, as we have agreed, McD's was holding it at the temperature their customers preferred.
I guess you didn't see all those other posts saying that if the coffee was at the temperatures that other fast food resturants served theirs at (160) it wouldn't have caused severe burning.
You mean, the temperature McDonald's claimed their customers preferred. Of course they would say that- but did they ever present any evidence to support this in the case? I wonder.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
They did, but you have to wonder - if not because customers preferred it, then why? Just for the hell of it?
Dude, it's not like she rubbed her hands together and evily self-mulitated for profit. Nor did she do anything amazingly unusual or stupid by putting it between her legs. She did something dumb believing the coffee was average temperature. It wasn't. McDonalds generally acted like dicks, and the jury/judge punished them for it.
Would you be less insenced if she'd got the $20,000 she'd originally wanted to cover her medical bills? If so, your beef is with punitive damages, not with the temperature of the coffee. Or does the fact that the law holds negligent people/companies to account piss you off? Because, as I said, there's a line that has to be drawn, and it just so happens that in this case it was held to be 180 degrees.
If the customers wanted their fries to have lead in it, that doesn't mean McDonalds should put lead in it.
You god damned fucking idiot.
They dont know the coffee burns them so that they cant taste it, they just know that it doesnt taste as bad as the cooler coffee.
MCD doesnt fucking advertise "Our coffee, its so fucking hot, you cant even fucking taste it!", when they do taste tests in lab enviorments they dont say "this coffee is going to burn you so that you cant taste how shitty it is, do you prefer the coffee that burns you or the one that doesnt?", they ask you which one you like best and they dont tell you anything else.
Reasonable people, when they order something meant to be consumed by people, assume that the substance is not directly harmful to themselves. They dont think "Oh, this coffee is so hot its going to burn my mouth" they think "Oh, this coffee is hotter, and tastes better than the cooler coffee"
Seriously Yar, you are being intentionally fucking dense here.
Judging by the temperature of other fast food places, 15-20 degrees lower on average, at least.
15-20 degrees, BTW, can be the difference between having a hamburger that's safe to eat, and a hamburger laced with e-coli. If McDonalds can't keep track of their temperatures within that range, then they're in the wrong business.
Well, that's probably because a) you won't hear about 99.99% of court cases, and b) the customer won't go through all that trouble of a lawsuit, unless they think they have a chance of winning, and courts will throw it out if they don't.
Obviously not, or they would have paid the $20,000 she asked for.
Right, because they wouldn't be able to tell how bad it was.
It's like when I order beef. If I order beef from a nice restaurant, then I'm going to want it medium rare, so I can taste the flavor. If I order beef from a bad restaurant, then you're going to want it well done, so that it will hide the flavor of an inferior cut of beef.
According to the links posted, keeping cooffee at 185 degrees for more than 20 minutes will cause it to taste bitter. Are you telling me that McDonalds customers prefer for their coffee to taste bitter? Or is it that the coffee is bitter to begin with, and they would prefer the coffee to stay hot all the way through to mask the flavor?
Yes, obviously it's not your fault that your analogy was wrong. It's the other guys fault, for pointing it out. Way to be a model of personal responsibility, there.
Scissors that are too sharp would dull quickly. I doubt customers would prefer that. That's also why real chefs tend to scoff when they see ads for knives that can slice through a steel hammer. A real chef has absolutely no need for that.
Backwards logic. It's like arguing that the purpose of a car is to burn gasoline.
The purpose of coffee isn't to be hot, the purpose of coffee is to provide pleasure. Ergo, the optimum temperature is the one that provides the most pleasure. We've already established that the optimum temperature would not result in the types of burns that we observed here, so the McDonalds coffee must have been served at far higher temperatures than that.
My "beef" (OLOL MCDONALD'S) is that I think that McD's clearly showed that they weren't negligent, but that juries today don't care. Unless the plaintiff is a total psychopath, corporation = lose. I don't like that. I don't agree with the line.
She asked McDonald's to pay her medical bills. They said "Fuck you, lady", and that's why she sued them. When McD's went to trial, they admitted that they'd given all other burn victims the finger as well- this lady was just the first to be ticked enough (and had funds enough) to do something about it. The damages the jury decided upon was not only for medical expenses and emotional distress, but also decided upon as punishment for McDonald's being negligent and acting like a dick to their customers.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Except that MCD didnt show they weren't negligent, they showed that they had intentionaly wagered the cost of lawsuits and burns against the lost revenue from serving colder coffee.
ITS AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW YOU FUCKMUPPET.
edit: Furthrmore, the damages were fucking nothing, 2.6 million dollars? It was two days of coffee revenue! A fucking bump. .5% of coffee revenue for 1 year.
.5% fucking percent of revenue from one single item! That is barely a dent, the fucking Corporate offices probalby spend more flying their executives around the world every year!
I'm talking about the standard of care here, not damages. The law can afford to place a higher standard of care on companies that have the systems, contingencies, and money, to protect consumers than it can on individuals who have limited means. The law can err on the side of being unfair to big business because their cash is a buffer against potential injustice.
No, the penalty is there to disuade big business to take such actions, if the penalty isnt severe enough, there is no disincentive to stop.
The law errs on no side, it simply states that the punitive damages should be leveled in an amount to hurt the business.
It isnt unfair, the business, in order to have punative damages awarded against them must loose a case in which they are held responsible for knowingly acting in a way that is counter to the public interest, and to have sided for their interests over the safetey of their customers.
Dude, I am not talking about punitive damages at all. I am talking about the standard of care.
Exactly. Your point is... that McD's serves inferior coffee? Was that ever even contested?
You're fabircating evidence at this point. It was never established in this case or anywhere else that McDs keeps coffee at 185F for more than 20 minutes.
Yes, that was the gist of it.
The technicality of shaving razors cutting people less when they are sharper was nothing more than a distraction that had zero relevance the discussion at hand. Nevertheless, I switched to "scissors' to sidestep the dipshit tactics.
Wrong. Many people get coffee on a cold morning to warm up. If your argument is now that McD's lost because coffee really doesn't need to be served hot at all, then I've basically proven to myself at this point all I'm ever going to need in order to be satisifed with my opinion on the matter.
Yes, they would, if held on the skin a few seconds longer. In fact, had she not been wearing particularly moisture-absorbent clothing (you know, sweat pants), then even this coffee would probably not have been held against one spot long enough and in enough quantity to cause these burns.
You're making this up. That is what Ford did with Pintos. It is not what McDonald's did with coffee.
No, there is no different standard of care, and the law places none.
Its in the god damn lawsuit! Did you bother to fucking read it?
Well, maybe not in the US, but I'm telling you; unless I'm remembering Torts law wrong, there's definitely one in Aus.
No - it's definitely in the US too: The 'calculus of negligence' from United States v Carrol Towing - When assessing the standard of care, the courts may take into account the nature of practicable precautions the defendant could/ought to have taken to avoid the breach. Because McD has more resources than an ordinary citizen, the court can hold that they have a standard of care because they have more resources with which to avoid breach.
Cant be in the U.S. 14th amendment and all. Corporations would go nuts.